In his last installment, Robert did not address the point that I had raised concerning Canon 195 which begins:
“If by a decree of the competent authority, and not by the law itself, someone is removed from an office…”
Clearly, the law recognizes situations wherein one is “removed from an office by the law itself” as distinct from those wherein one is removed “by a decree.”
“Enforcement” and “establishing the fact” are different matters altogether. (For the present, we will set aside the fact that no man, not even the Church, removes a pope from office; only death, resignation, or God can do that.)
Perhaps an example will prove useful in making sense of the situation with Francis:
Suppose a pastor who, in violation of Can. 194 §1 article 3, “has attempted marriage even if only civilly.”
According to the canon, that cleric is “removed from [his] ecclesiastical office by the law itself;” i.e., no decree is necessary for the removal from office to occur.
Suppose further that the fact of the pastor’s attempt at marriage is publicly known; e.g., one of his parishioners actually witnessed the civil ceremony, or it was published in the local newspaper, or the pastor plainly admitted to it, etc.
Now, imagine that this man continues to act as pastor in spite of having been “removed from [his] office by the law itself.”
Clearly, it would fall to the legitimate authorities to establish the fact (i.e., collect whatever evidence is necessary to determine for themselves and for the record what did or did not take place) and then to enforce his removal; making the loss of office known to all equally and opening the way for his replacement.
This hypothetical scenario gets more interesting when we consider an appropriate response on the part of those parishioners who had explicit knowledge of the pastor’s actions beforehand; the same by which he had already been removed from his office by the law itself (Canon 194).
Is it reasonable to insist that they are required to behave as if they do not know what they plainly do know; treating the man as if he were still in office until such time as the proper authorities act to “establish the fact” and “enforce” his removal?
Of course not; rather, they would be entirely justified in viewing the man as the usurper that he is, avoiding him, and what’s more, being compelled in conscience to warn others to be on guard in relation to him as well.
In the present discussion, Robert and I disagree over whether or not Francis has been sufficiently admonished and warned to have judged himself a formal heretic (more on that in a moment).
Fair enough, but insisting that well-formed Catholics are somehow required to wait for the proper authorities to establish for themselves a fact that is already clearly discernible not only flies in the face of reason, it is tantamount to insisting that we are required to expose ourselves (and others) to a danger that should be avoided.
So, exactly what facts are clearly discernible concerning Francis?
Robert: “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.”
The “adherence of the Church” defense is growing flimsier by the day…
I am certain that Robert, just like I, knows of numerous members of the Church who long ago determined that it is necessary to ignore or otherwise be on guard in relation to Francis.
Robert also likely, just like I, knows of any number of well-formed Catholics, clergy included, who are convinced that Francis is indeed a formal heretic and an anti-pope but have refrained from saying so publicly for any number of reasons (e.g., repercussions like loss of position or loss of income).
What portion of the Church this describes is unknown, but what we do know is that, with the publication of Amoris Laetitia in particular, grave doubts about Francis’ validity are no longer a rare exception.
As such, I find the claim of “infallible certitude” as evidenced by “the adherence of the Church” to Francis (or perhaps better stated, the outward appearance of adherence to a man who operates a regime of intimidation) less than compelling.
Indefectibility
If I understand it correctly, Robert’s argument seems to be that if a majority of the Church “adheres” (at least outwardly) to an anti-pope as if he were a legitimate pope, or a majority is confused as to the pope’s true identity and validity, the gates of Hell would have somehow prevailed; i.e., the Church could no longer be considered indefectible.
I disagree.
During the Great Western Schism, when three men laid claim to the Chair of St. Peter, arguably two-thirds of the faithful, including certain Saints, “adhered” to a usurper as if he were pope. In this, the Church remained indefectible; her visible hierarchical structure intact.
Yes, but there was a legitimate pope!
Indeed, but for all we know, that’s the case today as well given the serious defects and the deliberate acts of obfuscation concerning the details of Benedict’s so-called resignation.
Letting that can of worms rest for the moment, the simple fact of the Chair of Peter being unoccupied in no way threatens the indefectibility of the Church; indeed, interregnum periods are a normal part of the Church’s life.
Yes, but what you’re claiming is rather abnormal!
Certainly, and so too were those extended periods of time in history when the Church went without a pope; in fact, for as long as two years, and yet, the visible society of the Church remained intact, her indefectibility unquestioned.
There is no “traditional doctrine” telling us how long is too long for the See of Rome to be vacant, or precisely what percentage of the Church adhering to an anti-pope is too high, in order for indefectibility to remain.
History does, however, provide the examples cited above, which strongly suggest that my position is in no way at odds with the Church’s indefectibility.
Robert: “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.”
In my view, the most noteworthy point of distinction in this case lies in the degree and the extent to which Francis and his errors have been publicly challenged by cardinals, bishops, priests and theologians, or put another way, the degree to which he has been admonished and warned.
The example of the popes of the 9th and 10th centuries is not especially relevant; with Francis, we are talking about heresy and blasphemy, not simply bad behavior.
As for the dubia that was sent to John Paul II challenging him to reconcile Dignitatis Humanae with tradition, far be it for me to downplay the gravity of that matter, but it falls well short of providing a useful precedent.
In that case, John Paul II was being asked to defend a teaching that had come from an ecumenical council (so-called), was given approbation by his predecessor, and had been widely accepted as legitimate for decades prior to the dubia.
In the present case, Francis has personally introduced, via an Apostolic Exhortation disseminated to the Universal Church, false teachings (heresies) that have never been accepted as legitimate and, in fact, have been directly condemned by the Council of Trent.
In other words, John Paul II was being asked to defend the Second Vatican Council; Francis, by contrast, is being asked to defend himself.
As for admonishments and warnings…
Robert: “A dubium … 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).”
While the four cardinals chose to use the dubia format, the well-known facts in this case clearly indicate that it is not simply a request for clarity.
The Church has already provided (on multiple occasions) “authoritative” (indeed, infallible) responses to each of the five questions. As such, clarity is not lacking with respect to the doctrines under discussion; rather, the dubia in this case is an attempt to clarify one thing and one thing alone; namely, whether or not Francis accepts the infallible teachings of the Church.
Cardinal Burke plainly admitted as much, confirming in his interview with Michael Matt that he most certainly does know the correct answers to the questions posed in the dubia. In fact, every single solitary person worthy of the name Catholic knows the answers!
This being so, the dubia sent to Francis is quite unlike any number of other dubia that one might cite; it is precisely an accusation; or better said, an admonishment and a warning.
As I’ve written in the past; this particular dubia was sent to Francis with the presumption of guilt, or perhaps more accurately, with explicit knowledge that what Francis is teaching is not Catholic.
That is why silence would invite, as Cardinal Burke stated, not more questions or requests for clarification, but a formal act of correction.
In truth, this dubia is truly nothing other than an opportunity for Francis to confirm his membership in the Body of Christ and likewise his papacy.
In a number of ways (cited in my previous installment), he has responded in the negative; refusing to answer formally is an answer.
I asked Robert what more he might be looking for in the way of admonishment and warning, to which he wrote:
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.
Once again, a major sticking point arises…
There is no “ecclesiastical judge” with jurisdiction over a pope, and there is no “lawful authority” to tell the pope what he “must” do.
Bearing these important distinctions in mind, it is clear that the dubia has met every one of the requirements that Robert proposed as necessary for a valid canonical warning:
It must be issued by a lawful authority: The dubia was issued by members of the College of Cardinals.
It must name the offender: The dubia names, and was sent directly to, Francis.
It must specify the offense: The dubia cites the specific “offending” articles in Amoris Laetitia; juxtaposing them with infallible teaching.
It must clearly state that the offender must reject the stated heresy and affirm the Catholic truth opposed to it: The dubia cites the specific opposing dogmas “based on Sacred Scripture and on the Tradition of the Church;” Catholic truths that every member of the Church must affirm.
Its purpose is to correct the offender and provide him with an opportunity to remove the cause of suspicion: The dubia is simply the latest and most noteworthy attempt to correct Francis; he has been given more than ample opportunity to remove the causes of suspicion.
This brings me to the matter of “notoriety.”
Robert wrote: “Notorious by Law: A person becomes a notorious heretic by law when he is declared a heretic by the Church.”
It must be said yet again: The Church has no authority to judge the pope.
This being so, it is only after a pope has judged himself a formal heretic that a declaration of notorious heresy can be made. In other words, the declaration is simply that – a declaration; it is not a judgment.
What this means in practice is that it is NOT the “declaration” by which the pope becomes a notorious heretic; he becomes a notorious heretic by his own actions, the declaration merely announces as much to all concerned and sets the stage for his replacement.
Robert continued: “Notorious by Fact: A person is notorious with a notoriety of fact … when not just the crime, but the imputability of the crime is also widely known…”
According to Beal’s commentary (cited a number of times by Robert in our exchanges) this understanding of the term “notorious” is taken from canon 2197 of the 1917 Code of Canon Law which states that a crime is notorious if it is “publicly known and was committed under such circumstances that no maneuver can conceal, nor any legal defense excuse.”
Robert stated: “Francis is not a notorious heretic.”
I would ask, therefore:
Exactly what sort of “maneuver” might serve to “conceal” his heresy? What sort of “legal defense” could possibly “excuse” it?
To my mind, no maneuver or defense is possible in this case. We are discussing basic, fundamental, well-defined and infallible matters of faith; dogmas that treat of no ambiguity or nuance whatsoever.
Look, I long for the day when “the Church” will make a formal declaration of notorious heresy concerning Jorge Bergoglio, but as I said above, a declaration is simply that – a declaration of that which has already happened.
In the interim, I’m not going to pretend that I can’t see what is obvious.
Robert concluded his last piece with a challenge: “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.”
This is a multi-part challenge concerning: 1) The pope as formal heretic 2) The public declaration of such, and 3) The majority of the Church recognizing (i.e., adhering to) a man as pope.
We’ve covered item # 3 already; “recognition” and “adherence” to Francis is dwindling by the minute and, in my view, cannot reasonably be considered a source of “infallible certitude.”
Concerning item #1, I regret having to repeat myself, but it is necessary:
No one can judge the pope a formal heretic. As such, Robert’s request (inadvertently, I am sure) misrepresents my actual position, which is NOT that a “member of the laity can judge the Pope.”
What I have to assume Robert really meant to request is even one authoritative citation supporting the position that a member of the laity can recognize that the Pope has judged himself to be a formal heretic.
My actual position made clear yet again, we need look no further than Sacred Scripture for just such an authoritative citation; several, in fact.
Our Lord’s own words as recorded in the Gospel according to St. Matthew would seem useful:
But if thy brother shall offend against thee, go, and rebuke him between thee and him alone. If he shall hear thee, thou shalt gain thy brother. And if he will not hear thee, take with thee one or two more: that in the mouth of two or three witnesses every word may stand. And if he will not hear them: tell the church. And if he will not hear the church, let him be to thee as the heathen and publican. (Mt. 18:15-17)
Francis’ heresy and blasphemy is an offense first and foremost against Christ, but also against every member of His Body. Numerous “rebukes” of Francis and the heresies enshrined in Amoris Laetitia have been made; some, even prior to its publication. (Remember, the “whip of cords” scene isn’t the sort of “rebuke” we should expect to see in such cases.)
In response to these rebukes, Francis will not hear them.
Now, with the dubia, the Church as represented by members of the College of Cardinals has rebuked him.
In response to this rebuke, Francis will not hear the Church.
As such, and according to Our Lord’s own instructions, we are to treat him as a heathen and publican. (One notes that no exemption exists for bishops in white!)
More directly applicable to Francis still are the words of St. Paul:
But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach a gospel to you besides that which we have preached to you, let him be anathema. (Galatians 1:8)
Again, no exceptions… With respect to Francis, no reasonably well-formed Catholic can possibly fail to recognize (again, this is my position) that he is preaching a contrary gospel; i.e., heresy.
For those who know their faith, there is no need to feign ignorance of this fact until such time as the present day “proper authorities” (who are themselves infected with various degrees of diabolical disorientation) get around to informing the rest of the world of a reality that we can plainly see.
Let him be anathema…
Not only are St. Paul’s words clearly applicable to Francis, even more obviously still do the solemn definitions issued by the Council of Trent serve to anathematize him.
So, what does it mean for one to be “anathema”?
In the New Testament anathema no longer entails death, but the loss of goods or exclusion from the society of the faithful. St. Paul frequently uses this word in the latter sense. (1917 Catholic Encyclopedia)
If, therefore, it is reasonable (and I insist that it is indeed) to consider Francis “excluded from the society of the faithful” for so many reasons already stated, how are we then to consider him head of said society?
St. Paul provides yet another authoritative citation in support of my position in the Epistle to Titus:
A man that is a heretic, after the first and second admonition, avoid: Knowing that such a one is subverted and sinneth, being condemned by his own judgment. (Titus 3:10-11)
I maintain that Francis (as explained in detail throughout this exchange) has received several admonitions and has condemned himself by his own judgement and therefore must be avoided.
Turning now to item #2 of Robert’s challenge (about publicly declaring Francis a formal heretic and anti-pope), as I’ve stated any number of times, my own “declaration” concerning Francis is only my personal opinion. Feel free to take it or leave it, but follow him at your own risk.
It is now up to the so-called “proper authorities” to issue a formal declaration for precisely the reason given by Fr. Pietro Ballerini:
“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.”
St. Paul’s words quoted above – “let him be anathema… know that such a one is condemned by his own judgment” – are not followed by “but be sure to keep it to yourself if it pertains to the pope;” in fact, the exact opposite is clearly implied.
As such, I feel compelled in conscience to continue offering my opinion publicly in order to increase, in my own small way, the number of those on guard in relation to Francis lest any more poor souls needlessly find themselves and their loved ones led into grave error by this man; possibly even right out of the Church of Christ.
Finally…
The question that remains concerns the mechanism, or logistics, by which God removes the papacy from the man who has fallen into heresy.
The Church has never pronounced on this question, so we are left to speculate.
First, let it be said that Robert and I agree that while the Church plays a crucial “ministerial” role in a papal election, it is truly God who bestows the papacy upon a man. Likewise, we both believe that it is God who will remove it from a pope turned heretic, but only after the Church carries out a similar ministerial act.
If I understand him correctly, Robert tends to think that the declaration that we’ve been discussing is the ministerial act that sets the stage (so to speak) for God to remove the papacy from the heretic, but I think that it is more reasonable to believe that He does so even prior to that.
Consider: When a man is elected pope – a ministerial function carried out by the Church in a conclave – he is immediately presented with the opportunity to either accept or reject the office. It is only upon the man’s acceptance – freely made by his own action – that God then bestows the papacy upon the man. At that moment, he is the pope.
It is only after this takes place that the public declaration is made to the Church: Annuntio vobis gaudium magnum: habamus papam, thus making it known to all that this man has been made pope.
In a similar way, we can reasonably imagine that when a pope suspected of heresy is duly admonished and warned (as I maintain Francis has), this is the Church carrying out a ministerial function similar to that which takes place in a conclave; albeit in the open.
In this case, the man who is pope is presented with the opportunity to either accept or reject the Catholic faith (and therefore the papacy) in light of his errors. If he rejects it, it is at this point that God will remove the Office of Peter from the man.
It is only after this has transpired that a declaration will be made to the entire Church announcing that the Chair of Peter is empty; i.e., the declaration is not what prompts God to act, it is simply an announcement that He already has acted, just as it is with the declaration following a conclave.
This to me seems to be a more reasonable scenario; one that respects both the ministerial role of the Church and the free will of the man to either accept or reject what is offered.
At this, while Robert is more than welcome to respond, it would seem that we have come full circle.
I cannot express my gratitude to Robert enough for engaging in this exchange, and I trust that for those of you who took the time to wade through all of the arguments, it has proven beneficial.
Let us pray for Jorge Bergoglio’s conversion to the Catholic faith, and short of this, for the formal declaration from the Church that all of us await to come swiftly.
Louie, you appear to be arguing that Francis is not the pope, apart from whatever the facts are regarding Benedict’s resignation.
Am I understanding you correctly?
“Archbishop Lefebvre is the cross of my Pontificate” – Paul VI
Paul VI was publicly called out on many serious points of Catholic doctrine, all of which he blew off and ignored. Can we apply the same status to him as Francis? Are they not both in the same boat for refusing to correct their errors?
I am not holding my breath. Regardless of the position one holds concerning occupancy of the See, the practical fact remains as to how do we trads remove the modernists from buildings and real estate. Simply waiting for Divine intervention is foolish and sheepish. It may take Divine intervention but we should assume Christ made us the Church Militant to fight. We trads will never make progress by recognizing the heretic Bergolio as Pope.
Does Bergoglio behave like a True, Catholic Pope? Regardless of how many dubias are cited, isn’t this really the one and only question that should be answered? Perhaps the question is just too simple. The answer, of course, is “NO”! Even if he were legitimately elected (another BIG dubia!), who needs him? I don’t.
Louie’s argument is correct. Honestly, he could have just posted a link to Fr. Kramer’s destruction of Salza and Siscoe’s arguments and called it a day.
However, and this may be why Salza and Siscoe refuse to acknowledge what Louie has, Louie’s argument can be made against him for not taking the same position against the popes prior to Francis.
Louie said: For those who know their faith, there is no need to feign ignorance of this fact until such time as the present day “proper authorities” (who are themselves infected with various degrees of diabolical disorientation) get around to informing the rest of the world of a reality that we can plainly see.
This benefit Louie claims for himself, and rightfully so, cannot be denied to another who “knows their faith” more and refused to “feign ignorance” back when VII redefined the Church and changed other teachings that conflicted with the past.
I am sure Louie would admit that his faith 50 years ago was not that which it is today. I don’t know how old Louie is but it would make since that if his faith was then what it is today, he would be making the same argument against the popes after Piux XII.
There is an argument going around that if people don’t accept Francis as pope, the chaos and confusion into which Church would descend would be unbearable.
Perhaps I’m seeing problems where they truly don’t exist.
I have enjoyed the input of A Catholic Thinker here, and look forward to his/her (probably his) thoughts on this latest round.
It is good to test one’s understanding of these issues alongside others in the public sphere, while maintaining charity.
Keep putting your dough into that SSPX collection on Sunday for a start.
Amen to that.
I don’t think he’s saying that, though. I think he’s just saying we can safely ignore, personally, spiritually, a pope spouting error. (A pope who, as St. Francis himself put it, is “a destroyer, not a father.)
–
Of course, some are not lucky enough to be able to ignore him entirely.
If Fr. Kramer were honest, and confident in his own teachings, he would agree two Salza’s two challenges: To a debate, and to have an independent doctorate theologian examine both their arguments. He refuses both. He’s a confused man, and may be psychologically ill as well.
–
No person who’s not bound by will over intellect and who looks at *all* the evidence (not grossly misunderstanding Bellarmine, for example) is going to see, with their God-given gift of reason, that Fr. Kramer is entirely wrong, and has become just another run-of-the-mill sedevacantist.
–
http://www.trueorfalsepope.com/p/the-kramer-files.html
I will indeed post my own response to Louie’s essay here, and I trust he will let it stand – I could say many good things about my friend Louie, and one of them is that he is definitely not a man driven by ego. He is a humble man, in the true Catholic sense, and the value of that virtue can barely be overstated.
–
For now, after one quick pass, I will say only that it does appear that Louie does not understand the dogmatic fact argument (which he seems to allow). The dogmatic fact of a man being bound the form of the papacy occurs as soon as he is accepted by the hierarchy as a whole, and is not something that can be “revoked” – it doesn’t make any difference whatsoever if the pope accumulates a lot of enemies and opposition after his public acceptance. These things are not related and have nothing to do with the man being separated from the office.
What argument is Louie making here?
So Fr. Kramer is dishonest, not confident in his teachings, confused and possibly psychologically ill because, according to you, he refuses to debate Salza, which he has already done in writing so that his positions can be independently examined by another who has a doctorate in theology, and because he comes to a different conclusion as you?
Salza & Siscoe misrepresent Fr. Kramer and Louie by constantly and erroneously accusing them of holding a Protestant belief where an individual lay person can judge the pope. Bellarmine is clear and so is Fr. Kramer and Louie that the individual simply recognizes the fact that the same person cannot be both a formal or manifest heretic and the pope at the same time.
The Church simply makes the declaration to the universal Church of what has already been made manifest to a few.
Answer me this: How can the body of bishops or cardinals come to a collective decision that a person (pope) is a formal heretic without first coming to that same conclusion as individuals? Is it your position that a bishop can use his God given reason to determine what something is and a simple layperson can’t?
Back in 2013 I think it was that Mr. Bergoglio in Evangelii Gaudium stated that the Old Covenant has not been abrogated which was contrary to the longstanding teaching of the Church both by Councils and Papal teaching and yet it barely caused a hiccup. Why was that? That encyclical was dripping with apostasy and very few caught it. I guess that’s when Fr. Kramer became a “semi-sede” as I think he believes that Benedict is still the pope. IN any event, this was a denial of Jesus as the only Savior of men and apparently allowed for a dual track to salvation for Gentiles and Jews. To my thinking this was far worse than AL, though that too is very bad. Don’t traditionalists care about the lost? Truly the apostilic zeal for souls is missing today even among traditionalists. God help us all to recover it to each one of our hearts. Just imagine if St. Paul had taken the attitude reflected in the encyclical and the modern church.
@Catholic Thinker:
–
In the previous thread concerning the liturgy, Tom A. had a lengthy disputation with you. During that disputation, you said this:
–
“There is nothing subjective about either ‘Church’ or ‘visible.’ The Catholic Church is the sole Body professing all four Marks of the true Church: unity, holiness, universality, and apostolicity, and the three attributes: visibility (material & formal, the latter basically meaning it can be *identified* so that men can enter her), infallibility, and indefectibility.
–
If you believe what the Catholic Church teaches about Herself, where is it now? Your answer isn’t the same visible, hierarchical, apostolic Body that existed in 1958: You say it’s gone somewhere else. Or failed. So, where is it, without resorting to the Protestant heresy of an invisible Church with visible members?”
–
The obvious implication of your argument is you believe the VII Church in some mystical way preserves the visibility of the True Church of the Faithful.
–
Tom A responded to your outlandish claim by stating this:
–
“Cmon Cath Thinker, Unity of Faith? That is completely missing in what you call the visible church.”
–
You, in turn, replied as follows:
–
“Yes, I figured you’d dodge the question. And I actually figured you’d say exactly what you did.
–
Formal unity exists because no new dogmas have been declared by what you call the false church. The set of de fide teachings is the same as it was in 1958.”
–
In considering your argument, Catholic Thinker, I wondered how such an august body as the SSPX could advance such an argument, since it seems to defy common sense. The visibility of the Church is preserved by heretics ?!? How can that be? But, in dealing with you, it became apparent to me that at certain times you just make things up. I have asked you in the past to provide support for your positions, but you seem reluctant to provide any such support, especially for your more outlandish positions.
–
In any case, since I could not believe that the Society actually ascribes to your position I did some research. And what did I find? An article recounting a talk given by Archbishop Lefebvre to the priests at Econe. I think it would be instructive for you before you go any farther afield from the positions held by the Archbishop that you review the article.
–
http://op54rosary.ning.com/profiles/blogs/the-visibility-of-the-church-archbishop-lefebvre-magazine-fidelit
–
In particular, Archbishop Lefebvre drew a distinction between the True Church of the Faithful and what he called the “Official Church”. This distinction – which Tom A. readily made – apparently escaped you. This is what the good Archbishop had to say:
–
“WHERE IS THE VISIBLE CHURCH? The visible church is recognized by the marks that have always been given to visibility: One, Holy Catholic and Apostolic. I ASK WHERE ARE THE TRUE MARKS OF THE CHURCH? ARE THEY MORE EVIDENT IN THE OFFICIAL CHURCH (THIS IS NOT THE VISIBLE CHURCH, IT IS THE OFFICIAL CHURCH) OR IN US, IN WHAT WE REPRESENT, WHAT WE ARE? CLEARLY WE ARE THE ONES WHO PRESERVE THE UNITY OF THE FAITH, WHICH DISAPPEARED FROM THE OFFICIAL CHURCH. ONE BISHOP BELIEVES IN THIS, THE OTHER NOT, FAITH IS DIFFERENT, THEIR CATECHISMS CONTAIN ABOMINABLE HERESIES. WHERE IS THE UNITY OF FAITH IN ROME?” [caps added for emphasis]
–
Coincidentally, this statement by Archbishop Lefebvre sounds very similar to what Tom A. said in another statement during your disputation with him, a statement you claimed is not in accord with that of the Society and is, in fact, heretical. Tom A.’s statement is reproduced here, and is clearly of a mind with that of the Archbishop’s statement:
–
“Cath Thinker, I went to an SSPX chapel this morning. It was quite visible to me. In fact it was so visible that I could see it from the road. Inside they said a real true Catholic Mass. Inside was a real true priest, ordained according to the pre V2 rites by a bishop ordained according to the pre V2 rites. Hosts were validly consecrated by a true priests. The faithful, who I assume profess the One True Faith were present. And while I may disagee in a matter of opinion as to who currently occupies or does not occupy the See of Peter, it was all quite visible to me and my fellow Catholics. I am assured that all around the globe there were many more of us who profess the One True Faith who also attended chapels or churches or oratories that offered a Rite pleasing to God. That is where the Church was this morning and everyday. AND BY THE WAY, I CAN TELL YOU WHERE THE CHURCH WAS NOT THIS MORNING, nor will it not be in the morning, NOR WHERE IT HAS NOT BEEN FOR THE PAST 50 PLUS YEARS. YES, YOU GUESSES IT, IT HAS NOT BEEN IN ROME.”
–
Isn’t it interesting that both Tom A. and the Archbishop ended their statements with an indictment of Rome? In view of the fact that your position, Catholic Thinker, deviates from that of Archbishop Lefebvre, can you explain that for us? Has the Society concluded that Archbishop Lefebvre erred in his analysis? I hope the truth isn’t that you grasp the visibility argument figuratively to club those you disagree with when you know (or should know) that your arguments regarding visibility deviate (and in fact indict) the position of the Archbishop.
You should start by wondering why, despite your expert analysis above, Archbishop rejected the sedevacanist position, always recognized the pope, showed him filial love and respect, and never failed to meet with him (them) as popes.
–
If you can manage to figure that out, you may be on the road to diagnosing your own errors.
–
I did not quote “my position” at all, but de fide teaching of the Church. It is quite preposterous for you to fail to recognize this. Of course, you haven’t tried to debate the teaching itself per se, but only offered up a single offhand quote you believe undoes it.
–
Again, this is long-winded sophistry, angry confusion, or both. You might as well quote Romans 3:23 to “prove” that the Blessed Virgin was not without sin.
Another angry member of the cult of personality. Yawn.
–
“How can the body of bishops or cardinals come to a collective decision that a person (pope) is a formal heretic without first coming to that same conclusion as individuals? ”
–
This may honestly be the single most ridiculous argument anyone has ever posted here (which is saying a lot). When the “individuals” at the Councils of Hippo, Carthage, and Trent infallibly defined the canon of Scripture, that proves that any ‘ole person can do just the same, eh? You are suggesting that you have absolutely no understanding of the charisms that belong to *the Church* per se – no understanding that She can indeed do things that individuals, try as they might, cannot.
–
I’ll let the audience decide, once again:
–
http://www.trueorfalsepope.com/p/the-kramer-files.html
Amen to all of that.
–
(FYI, became a sede when he decided that Benedict’s resignation was not valid, IIRC. I was his Facebook “Friend” at time – and, by the way, he directly used the phrase “sede vacant.”)
@Catholic Thinker: Your response to my post reminds me of a scene in Lawrence of Arabia where a character responds to an assertion that he didn’t agree with by spitting on the ground. Another character reminds him that by spitting he had not refuted the assertion, which remained unrefuted.
–
Didn’t you even read the article I cited to? It could save you some embarrassment. In response to me you said this:
–
“You should start by wondering why, despite your expert analysis above, Archbishop rejected the sedevacanist position, ALWAYS RECOGNIZED THE POPE, showed him filial love and respect, and never failed to meet with him (them) as popes.” [caps added for emphasis]
–
You claim that the Archbishop always recognized the conciliar Popes. This is what the Archbishop said:
–
“We recognize the authority of the Pope, BUT WHEN HE USES HIS AUTHORITY TO DO THE OPPOSITE OF THAT FOR WHICH IT HAS BEEN GIVEN, IT IS CLEAR WE CANNOT FOLLOW HIM.” [caps added for emphasis]
–
If the Archbishop admits that he cannot follow the conciliar Popes, how exactly is he recognizing their authority? Isn’t Archbishop Lefebvre admitting that he only recognizes the modernist so-called “Popes”as potential true Popes who will remain only potential true Popes and not actual true Popes for so long as THEY DO THE OPPOSITE OF THAT FOR WHICH IT [THEIR AUTHORITY] HAS BEEN GIVEN? In other words, the Archbishop at the time he made this statement did NOT recognize their authority. That is why the Archbishop rejected the teachings of the conciliar Popes, rejected their authority, and most importantly rejected the ability of the conciliar Popes to sanctify the SSPX faithful.
–
Now back to the apparent contradictions between the positions you took when arguing with Tom A. and those of Archbishop Lefebvre. In arguing with Tom A. you made this statement (which in part quotes a statement of Tom. A):
–
“Tom, according to you, yourself, the Catholic Church that existed from 33 to 1958 (or is it 1965? what’s the year for you?) no longer exists as the same visible, hierarchical Body. That is saying that the Church failed, because there’s always ever been or will be one true Church.
–
So now you come to simple personal insult, always a sign of desperation. (Now, if you insulted me AND offered something of substance, that might be a slightly different thing, but we don’t have that here.)
–
‘…an organization headquartered in Rome that professes protestant ideas is the Catholic Church’ – again, no distinction whatsoever between binding and non-binding teaching, doctrine & praxis, etc. Nothing but a ridiculous, childish – to be frank – gross oversimplification of Catholic teaching and of reality.”
–
First of all, Tom A. did not deny the visibility of the Church. Tom A. simply stated that the continuing visibility of the Church is demonstrated in a manner you disagree with.
–
Second, you are apparently continuing your argument that the “Official Church” [using the terminology of Archbishop Lefebvre] headquartered at Rome – when stripped of non-binding teaching, doctrine & praxis [what’s left?] – preserves the visibility of the True Church. Archbishop Lefebvre held the exact opposite position from you because he identified Rome as the root of the problem:
–
“BUT THAT’S NOT ENOUGH, AS IT IS IN ROME WHERE THE HERESY SITS. IF THE BISHOPS ARE HERETICS (EVEN WITHOUT TAKING THIS TERM IN ITS CANONICAL SENSE AND CONSEQUENCES) IT IS NOT WITHOUT THE INFLUENCE OF ROME.” [caps added for emphasis]
–
In view of this clear statement by Archbishop Lefebvre how can you claim that heretical Rome still preserves the visibility of the True Church of the Faithful? Do you believe Archbishop Lefebvre would agree with your analysis?
I know you are getting hammered on all sides, but would you mind going back to a couple of replies I made from a few posts back?
Archbishop Lefebvre made it clear that the pope has no authority to go against the doctrine of the Faith and of course, if or when he does, we may not follow him in respect of that error.
If when you say “go against the Faith” you mean profess heresy, then St Robert Bellarmine says that, if it were possible for a pope to do such a thing, he is more than just unworthy of not being followed in respect of that error; he is automatically deposed and the See becomes vacant ipso facto.
I know that this will be challenged by others.
Pigg0214, dont waste your time arguimg with Cath Thinker. He just cuts and pastes sections of the book he his constantly promoting.
Put your dough in the SSPX collection with a note: “Stay away from Bergoglio. He’s a heretic and can’t be trusted.”
That is the further issue of formal heresy as opposed to material heresy (and indeed the sin of formal heresy versus the crime) the criteria for which has been discussed at great length and is not necessary to get into.
It seems that Louie believes, like Ann Barnhardt, that the current Pope is Benedict XVI.
From Louie: “If I understand it correctly, Robert’s argument seems to be that if a majority of the Church “adheres” (at least outwardly) to an anti-pope as if he were a legitimate pope, or a majority is confused as to the pope’s true identity and validity, the gates of Hell would have somehow prevailed; i.e., the Church could no longer be considered indefectible.”
It is not a majority that grants an infallible certitude, but a moral unanimity. There is a huge difference between the two. It is similar to the infallibility of the early Church Fathers when they are (morally) unanimous. If two thirds believed X but the other third disagreed, then X would not be dogma. However, if 256 (just throwing out a number here) Church Fathers said they believe Y (hell) and only one or two disagreed (Origen), then Y would be dogma and there would be no need to consult Scripture or other Magisterial pronouncements to confirm this.
Thanks for the advice.
ACT- You must be a really good dancer.
I asked a simple question that I don’t believe is ridiculous based on the conversation at hand. We are told that “no one” can judge the pope, and that only a council can do so. My question simply leads one to conclude that an individual person (a someone) has to come to an individual judgment of what something is before they can join a collection of others to make the same judgment. Each cardinal would have to determine for himself that the pope is no such thing due to formal heresy. Pertinacity can be proven apart from warnings.
This is simply offered to pull the rug out from the argument of “no one” can judge the pope except a council or college of cardinals. The argument is not even needed on my part since the pope judges himself to be a heretic and we simply recognize it.
Fr. Kramer points out that if the Church was to “depose” the pope for formal heresy, then that would place those who believe this in the Conciliarist camp, a heresy in itself that was condemned already by the Church.
A 50+ year interregnum with only anti-popes serving as imposters has never been condemned. Also, I am almost certain that your beloved “dogmatic fact” argument has never been adopted into the teachings of the universal ordinary magisterium. If this is true, and correct me if I am wrong, then it is also purely hypothetical. The indefectibility of the Church, either way, remains in tact. I assume you would agree with me that Christ’s Church and the office of the papacy will endure regardless of there being a warm body validly in the Chair of Peter or not, as it does between every conclave.
Also, I believe you left out the part about the pope confirming, authorizing, and promulgating those infallible teachings you alluded to in Hippo, Carthage, and Trent. The Church without the pope is just as fallible as you and I.
Just for the record, I have tried to post the links to Fr. Kramer’s arguments but Louie seems to not like the verbiage in the URL itself since I have noticed other URLs get passed. Maybe Louie can speak to this when he gets the time.
I personally believe both sides should have their say so that an independent theologian with a “doctorate” can examine them, but hey, I readily admit that Louie is free to do on his blog what he wishes as long as it is pleasing to God.
Is that because St Robert Bellarmine disagrees?
Dear CT, I posted this in the other section regarding the Novus Ordo, but since comments are difficult to track, I am posting it here as well in case you missed it.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
As long as it [the Novus Ordo] is not technically binding, poisonous liturgy can come from the fallible section of the Church, but not the infallible section. Thus, the part of the Church that can teach error can lead the Faithful into heresy and out of the Church.
The Faithful in the pew are bound to know the difference, and resist the poison from the Church. Not only this, but they are also bound to submit to the men in purported legitimate authority who are trying to kill their souls. If they get lead astray and don’t resist, because they trust what they think is milk instead of cyanide, then that’s their fault.
I want to see it how you see it, but I keep getting stuck here. Is this really the lengths one has to go to to keep Montini or Bergoglio as the pope? I am not trying to pick a fight with you. It is much more enjoyabe being civil and charitable.
I am wondering how many converts you have brought to the Faith while presenting them this understanding of the Church?
If the personal prelature happens, it won’t be the end of the world.
If a priest who is ordained in the new rite, or in the old rite by a bishop consecrated in the new rite, comes to the chapel, I won’t go to him for Mass or Confession.
An independent doctorate theologian who got his credentials from where exactly?
“Thus” should be “i.e.”
During the course of the ongoing Siscoe / Verrecchio debate, Mr. Siscoe appeals to the “gates of Hell” argument to bolster his position.
The dubious proof goes something like this:
“Jesus promised that the gates of Hell would not prevail. That’s a promise of indefectibility: if the leadership of the Church were to defect, then that would mean that the gates of Hell had prevailed, thus making a liar out of Jesus. Jesus can’t be a liar, THEREFORE : the leadership of the Church cannot defect.”
Pretzel logic.
The argument above rests on the unwarranted assumption that the “gates of Hell” passage is pertinent to the question of indefectibility. The possibility that it might not be, that this is a mistake, has never once entered either side’s little heads. The entire argument is built on sand. But it SEEMS strong to the biblically ignorant.
And if you dare to challenge this, you will get lots and lots of quotes from various authority figures who use the “gates of Hell” passage in the same way as Siscoe does. (It traces back to Origen , who was not a Doctor of the Church, and a parenthetical comment by Pope Vigilus who misused the passage also to prop up his contention that “gates of Hell” meant heresies of the heretics. He was wrong.)
But not once will anyone look at the text itself and think about what it may actually mean. Nor will anyone look at the historical record to see how it was originally understood by those in the Church before the “indefectibility” interpretation became standard. The assumptions and speculations that it refers to indefectibility are just that: assumptions and speculations that have gained canonical status by being repeated ad infinitum in the Catholic echo chamber. There is no easy exit from this intellectual trap, especially for those who are totally dependent upon various “Church authorities” to provide their thinking for them.
Michael F Poulin
Mr. Pigg, I stand by my assessment of your [apparent] argument: It was ridiculous.
–
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***.”
–
Whether a pope can be judged solely in the case of heresy or whether he judges himself by refusing to recant material heresy after formal warnings from the Church (something that *quite obviously* has not yet occurred with Francis) seems almost academic. The end result is that the Church must be involved in the deposition of a pope, since – as Bellarmine noted – She is intimately involved in binding him to the office in the first place.
–
The process for deposition *that the greatest theologians in the Church have all agreed on* is not Conciliarism, which you’d realize if you read anything Fr. Kramer’s opponents write.
–
Yes, you’re right that the the Church hasn’t spoken infallibly on the process for removing a heretical pontiff – this ought to be cause for more, not less, caution on the part of sedevacantists!
–
You give every sign of not understanding the dogmatic fact teaching. It is very plain, but I kind of doubt you’ve read what’s been taught. In short, if we could not have certainty that a pope accepted by the Church (moral unanimity – *at the time of election*) were a true pope, *no dogma in the Church would ever be certain*. Every dogma is ratified or declared by a pope, or is not a dogma. See this:
–
http://www.trueorfalsepope.com/p/blog-page_13.html
–
I have much writing to do this evening, so that’s it for now.
More calumny – a speciality of the sedevacantist, who is very concerned with everyone’s sins but his own, generally.
–
I quote frequently from True Or False Pope (and, of course, reference it when I do) because we do have, in effect, an A-Z manual on the errors of sedevacantism here.
–
On the other hand, I write myself probably 75% or more of what is posted here, and I’ve been reading sedevacantists and their refuters for about 11 years now.
–
(When I was a traditionalist neophyte, I like many, explored it, thinking perhaps they might be right, but it soon became apparent it is a completely illogical and un-Catholic belief system, and that, on the whole, hardened sedevacantists are among the most uncharitable and intellectually dishonest people I’ve ever come across.)
Never specified. Fr. Kramer rejects the challenge out-of-hand, as he does with an in-person debate.
“Either side’s [sic] little heads” – nice.
–
Michael F Poulin, you appear to be another person who believes they are qualified to create their own dogma. In fact, you are so confused that you conflate theology with “canonical status” (Church law).
–
“The argument above rests on the unwarranted assumption that the ‘gates of Hell’ passage is pertinent to the question of indefectibility” – so Christ’s promise here is not even *related* to the dogma of the Church’s indefectibility? LOL!
–
Catholics don’t get to decide the teachings of the Church by looking at the “text” and the “historical record” – not on any point defined by the Church in any case. Your long-winded objection here to who knows what is irrelevant. I could say much more but that really suffices for the sane.
“Not only this, but they are also bound to submit to the men in purported legitimate authority who are trying to kill their souls” – did you mean to say “NOT bound to submit”? I’m sorry, I’m not following your line of reasoning here.
–
If you meant what you wrote, then the difference between material and formal separation becomes paramount. The theologians and even the popes have been clear: Resist error, publicly rebuke superiors in error, but one cannot depose bishops and popes of one’s own volition.
–
Is this simple, or palatable? Obviously not! The Church and the world are being punished. The narrow path is more difficult to find than ever. However, culpability is known only to God. There are many simple souls attending Novus Ordo Masses because they know no better and living devout lives who are certainly among the elect (something the sedes certainly vehemently deny).
I have no idea how many souls I’ve touched and to what extend. I’ve had a number of articles published and don’t know who’s read them. I’ve had email and personal conversations and don’t always know the end.
–
I’ve also had many conversations with fundamentalist Protestants about the true Church, and the fact is that, on the whole, maybe one out of 100 is even interested. Unfortunately, most people in the world are not interested in Truth above all things.
Mr. Cyprian, first of all, I don’t bother to take the time to refute every assertion you make here. I’ve made that clear in the past. I debate for the audience, and that does not require meeting you word for word. You never quit, must always have the last word, and post volumes of often irrelevant quotes and material. I’m not sure what you do for a living, but I have a demanding job and large family and, lately, *all* my free time has been devoted to these comboxes.
–
“We recognize the authority of the Pope, BUT WHEN HE USES HIS AUTHORITY TO DO THE OPPOSITE OF THAT FOR WHICH IT HAS BEEN GIVEN, IT IS CLEAR WE CANNOT FOLLOW HIM.” [caps added for emphasis]
–
(Yes, we realize Archbishop Lefebvre was not shouting.)
–
In all honesty, you seem to have no understanding of some of the most basic aspects of this debate: You do not understand material vs. formal separation. You apparently do not understand the difference between resisting public errors and deposing popes! No wonder you’re a sedevacantist.
–
Were you not aware that the SSPX have been resisting modernist prelates/erroneous teaching since their inception, while also recognizing (the simple facts of) ecclesiastical office?
–
Here’s just a tiny bit of the support for that stance from 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).
–
You should read Archbishop Lefebvre’s “Open Letter To Confused Catholics,” and you should also read True Or False Pope. (Of course, this may well not work: Most dogmatic sedevacantists seem to *want* to be sedevacanists because they want to be able to completely, fully reject those whom they hate and feel betrayed by.)
–
The saintly Archbishop Lefebvre, our modern St. Athanasius, rejected sedevacantism as the illogical, will-driven mess that it is. His protege and current leader of the Society of St. Pius X, Bishop Fellay, has read and enthusiastically endorsed “True Or False Pope.” You don’t appear to be able to put two and two together here, because you lack the theological background. Do some serious study.
–
I’m not going to say anything more; these points are sufficient. I won’t respond to you further here. Continue to have your fun if you wish, and I’ll put some hope in our audience.
I think I covered it.
Gates defend, they do not attack. The Gates of Hell will not prevail against the Church, meaning Christ and His Church will not be held back by Hell’s Gates.
I do have to make one more comment regarding your original quote from Ab Lefebvre.
–
One cannot take an informal quote an infer theological teaching from it. Again, the proof is in the pudding: The saintly Archbishop rejected sedevacantism out of hand, stating numerous things that the Church had to judge such matters (he was doctorate theologian), and treating the popes as popes until his death.
–
The quote is speaking to the *practical* realm and in that sense he was completely correct: The Society upheld and preserved the Faith whole & inviolate while those in Rome did not!
–
Quoting Salza, “The unity of faith, which is an external bond, is preserved in those who submit to the Church and her Magisterium as the infallible rule, even if the hold materially heretical doctrines. So the unity of faith is not disrupted by the Modernists, and Lefebvre obviously knew this. He may have meant that the Modernists appear to have lost the interior virtue of faith, but he did not mean that they formally ruptured the unity of faith.”
I think Louie’s conclusion on Francis is independent on the status of Benedict, but I could be missing something and mistaken. If I’m not, I’ve seen this coming for more than a year.
I think it might be the one you don’t agree with…
I really don’t give a rat’s ass what you think either. Why don’t you change your alias to “A Catholic Non-Thinker”? I don’t debate cowards who hide behind screen names anyway.
Michael F Poulin
I don’t deny what you claim in your last sentence. Whoever tries to do his best in this crisis to keep the Faith and avoid danger is a Catholic in my understanding.
First paragraph is as I meant it. As I understand your position, the shepherds are trying to murder the souls of their sujects, but the subjects don’t have any authority to reject them as impostors until the Church makes a declaration. As long as no declaration is made, these evil men are the legitimate pastors of the Church, and the faithful are tied to a sinking ship in submission to them until a declaration is made.
You did not address the fallible bit of the Church, and the fallible bit. This is the undoing of your position – that the Church can give both good and evil.
“As long as it [the Novus Ordo] is not technically binding, poisonous liturgy can come from the fallible section of the Church, but not the infallible section. Thus, the part of the Church that can teach error can lead the Faithful into heresy and out of the Church.”
…and the *infallible*
Quoting 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.” I’ll take Pius XII over Salza. The bottom line is that Abp Lefebrve was a schismatic in the eyes of Rome. Actions speak louder than all the words and letters and homilies he gave. He disobeyed Rome, he defied their authority, he separated himself from a false religion. And thank God he did.
@Catholic Thinker: Just to remind everyone of the most relevant quote of the Archbishop from his talk, I will repeat it here:
–
“WHERE IS THE VISIBLE CHURCH? The visible church is recognized by the marks that have always been given to visibility: One, Holy Catholic and Apostolic. I ASK WHERE ARE THE TRUE MARKS OF THE CHURCH? ARE THEY MORE EVIDENT IN THE OFFICIAL CHURCH (THIS IS NOT THE VISIBLE CHURCH, IT IS THE OFFICIAL CHURCH) OR IN US, IN WHAT WE REPRESENT, WHAT WE ARE? CLEARLY WE ARE THE ONES WHO PRESERVE THE UNITY OF THE FAITH, WHICH DISAPPEARED FROM THE OFFICIAL CHURCH. ONE BISHOP BELIEVES IN THIS, THE OTHER NOT, FAITH IS DIFFERENT, THEIR CATECHISMS CONTAIN ABOMINABLE HERESIES. WHERE IS THE UNITY OF FAITH IN ROME?” [caps added for emphasis]
–
You characterized a later quote from the same talk in which the Archbishop referred to Rome as the seat of heresies as follows:
–
“ONE CANNOT TAKE AN INFORMAL QUOTE AND INFER THEOLOGICAL TEACHING FROM IT . . .
–
THE QUOTE IS SPEAKING TO THE *PRACTICAL* REALM AND IN THAT SENSE HE WAS COMPLETELY CORRECT: The Society upheld and preserved the Faith whole & inviolate while those in Rome did not!” [caps added for emphasis]
–
How exactly is the substance of this quote really only an informal or practical appraisal of the situation of the Church? The Archbishop in his talk was discussing the FORMAL ASPECTS OF VISIBILITY since he based his argument on the marks of the Church! As you have admitted you already know this distinction, I will quote the online Catholic Encyclopedia to demonstrate your dishonesty:
–
“In asserting that the Church of Christ is visible, we signify, first, that as a society it will at all times be conspicuous and public, and second, that it will ever be recognizable among other bodies as the Church of Christ. These two aspects of visibility are termed respectively “material” and “formal” visibility by Catholic theologians. The material visibility of the Church involves no more than that it must ever be a public, not a private profession; a society manifest to the world, not a body whose members are bound by some secret tie. Formal visibility is more than this.”
–
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/03744a.htm
–
Discussions of the formal visibility of the Church usually concern the four marks of the Church and how the presence of the marks in a public and recognizable body demonstrate the formal visibility of that body as the Church. So the quote can hardly be characterized as informal or practical; it appears in a serious theological discussion of the formal aspects of visibility of the Church. Further, the distinction mentioned above between the official church (that the Archbishop stated was not part of the visible Church) and the True Church of the Faithful is a distinction that the Society has made in other places, for example at a Chapter in 2006:
–
“We adhere with all our heart and all our soul to Catholic Rome, guardian of the Catholic Faith and of the traditions necessary for the maintaining of that Faith, to eternal Rome, mistress of wisdom and of truth. On the contrary, we refuse, and we have always refused, to follow the Rome of neo-modernist and neo
-protestant tendencies, which showed itself clearly in the Second Vatican Council and in the reforms that issued from it.”
–
In view of these quotes, it is not seen how you can contend that Salza and Siscoe have not deviated from the public positions of the Society and the Archbishop by fatuously claiming that “the Rome of neo-modernist and neo-protestant tendencies” to which the Society does not adhere somehow preserves the visibility of the Church!
–
Now, regarding the quote from Salza, he apparently erroneously believes that material heretics (or more accurately mistaken Catholics) are in the body of the Church. I repeat his quote here:
–
“THE UNITY OF FAITH, WHICH IS AN EXTERNAL BOND, is preserved in those who submit to the Church and her Magisterium as the infallible rule, EVEN IF THEY HOLD MATERIALLY HERETICAL DOCTRINES. So the unity of faith is not disrupted by the Modernists, and Lefebvre obviously knew this. He may have meant that the Modernists appear to have lost the interior virtue of faith, but he did not mean that they formally ruptured the unity of faith.” [caps added for emphasis]
–
The theologian Van Noort rejected this argument as leading to logical inconsistencies, particularly regarding the visibility of the Church:
–
“PUBLIC HERETICS (AND A FORTIORI, APOSTATES) ARE NOT MEMBERS OF THE CHURCH. THEY ARE NOT MEMBERS BECAUSE THEY SEPARATE THEMSELVES FROM THE UNITY OF CATHOLIC FAITH AND FROM EXTERNAL PROFESSION OF THAT FAITH. Obviously, therefore, they lack one of three factors—baptism, profession of the same faith, union with the hierarchy—pointed out by Pius XII as requisite for membership in the Church. The same pontiff has explicitly pointed out that, unlike other sins, heresy, schism, and apostasy automatically sever a man from the Church. ‘For not every sin, however grave and enormous it be, is such as to sever a man automatically from the Body of the Church, as does schism or heresy or apostasy’.
–
BY THE TERM PUBLIC HERETICS AT THIS POINT WE MEAN ALL WHO EXTERNALLY DENY A TRUTH (for example Mary’s Divine Maternity), or several truths of divine and Catholic faith, REGARDLESS OF WHETHER THE ONE DENYING DOES SO IGNORANTLY AND INNOCENTLY (A MERELY MATERIAL HERETIC), OR WILLFULLY AND GUILTILY (A FORMAL HERETIC). It is certain that public, formal heretics are severed from the Church membership. IT IS THE MORE COMMON OPINION THAT PUBLIC, MATERIAL HERETICS ARE LIKEWISE EXCLUDED FROM MEMBERSHIP. THEOLOGICAL REASONING FOR THIS OPINION IS QUITE STRONG: IF PUBLIC MATERIAL HERETICS REMAINED MEMBERS OF THE CHURCH, THE VISIBILITY AND UNITY OF CHRIST’S CHURCH WOULD PERISH. If these purely material heretics were considered members of the Catholic Church in the strict sense of the term, how would one ever locate the ‘Catholic Church’? How would the Church be one body? How would it profess one faith? Where would be its visibility? Where its unity? For these and other reasons we find it difficult to see any intrinsic probability to the opinion which would allow for public heretics, in good faith, remaining members of the Church.” [caps added for emphasis]
–
Dogmatic Theology Volume II: Christ’s Church, Van Noort, p. 241-242
–
Did Salza identify his position as the minority position? Did he discuss the harm done to the visibility and unity of faith of the Church by believing that material heretics are members of the Church?
I have to believe that ABP Lefebvre would fully denounce Bp Fellay at this point in time, had ABP Lefebvre still been alive. The good Bishop was a step or two away from the obvious sede position as it was….and this was almost 30 years ago now (imagine what he would be saying in 2017). I abandoned the sspx over three years ago once I realized how sinful it was to pray in communion with a TRUE valid heretic….how people can still pray in communion with this evil man three years later is well beyond my understanding.
St Robert Bellarmine and Archbishop Lefebvre etc. are all in general agreement. This has been shown many many times on this forum over the past nearly four years. I’m not going to repeat things ad infinitum and others have explained this very well many times over. God bless.
I’m going to post a quick rebuttal of Louie’s essay here.
–
Note that this is not a *thorough* rebuttal; the essay is long and I will not touch upon every individual point. I am selective in what I choose to respond to.
–
To begin, I must say that I’m not sure I’m rebutting anything other than ambiguity, given that Louie uses several qualifications of his position (which itself is difficult to discern) such as, “Is it *reasonable*,” “[people] are convinced” (subjective), “grave doubts about Francis’ validity are no longer a rare exception” (ambiguous (“validity”?) and subjective), “I find the claim… less than compelling,” “If I understand it correctly,” “If, therefore, it is *reasonable*.” I don’t see a firm position being expressed (though there’s definitely the assertion that we should just figure things out for ourselves regarding popes being real popes or not).
–
To begin: “Clearly, the law recognizes situations wherein one is ‘removed from an office by the law itself’ as distinct from those wherein one is removed ‘by a decree.'”
–
The entire opening analogy here is irrelevant for the primary reason that *canon law does not apply to the pope* – on this both the SSPX and sedevacantists agree. There is no sort of ipso facto papal deposition – no reputable theologian has ever suggested such a thing.
–
Further, Louie seems to immediately conflate the positions of recognizing but resisting and depriving from office (sedevacantism). He asks, “Is it reasonable to insist that they are required to behave as if they do not know what they plainly do know; treating the man as if he were still in office until such time as the proper authorities act to ‘establish the fact’ and ‘enforce’ his removal?” Resisting – and publicly correcting (as demanded by divine and canon law) – errors, and declaring a prelate to have lost his office are two *completely different things.*
–
That said, the analogy is seriously flawed from the start by the fact that episcopal office is fundamentally different from the role of a parish priest (and the papacy significantly different from other episcopal office). These differences are quite relevant when canon law and private judgement are what’s pulled out of the tool box.
–
Can and should Catholics resist and publicly correct errors of prelates? Yes; the body of evidence supporting that teaching is voluminous and I won’t quite it here (I have many times before). The other matter: Can a Catholic formally separate from his bishop – *reject* him as bishop – apart from a judgement on the matter *by the Church*? This *exact* matter was considered by an ecumenical council of the Catholic Church way, way back in the ninth century.
–
The Fourth Ecumenical Council of Constantinople, Canon 10: “… 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** (there’s Louie’s example!), and he must not refuse to include his patriarch’s name during the divine mysteries or offices.”
–
So, behaving “as if you don’t know what you know” and *removing from office* could scarcely be more distinct topics. They are completely distinct.
–
Now, we move on to the dogmatic fact argument – another airtight argument against sedevacantism on its own. Louie states that ,”The ‘adherence of the Church’ defense is growing flimsier by the day.” This statement suggests that Louie does not understand the theological teaching on dogmatic fact. The dogmatic fact of a papal election depends not on a pope’s overall support at a given point in time (a metric that barely existed before modern times, incidentally), but upon the general acceptance (moral unanimity) of him as pope, *immediately after the election, by the Church (especially the episcopate – references available upon request)*. It’s a fact that the episcopate (and the laity) accepted Francis as pope after his election (and then immediately began criticizing him, as pope, appropriately.)
–
“I am certain that Robert, just like I, knows of numerous members of the Church who long ago determined that it is necessary to ignore or otherwise be on guard in relation to Francis.” This is more evidence that Louie makes no little or distinction whatsoever between criticizing Francis’ (non-infallible) statements and declaring he’s not the pope.
–
“Robert also likely, just like I, knows of any number of well-formed Catholics, clergy included, who are convinced that Francis is indeed a formal heretic and an anti-pope but have refrained from saying so publicly for any number of reasons (e.g., repercussions like loss of position or loss of income).” This is special pleading as well as a nonsensical statement. “Formal heretic,” in the case of a Catholic, by definition, means someone whose pertinacity in heresy has been declared *by the Church.* Furthermore, the number of Catholics, well-formed or not, who “believe” (private judgement) that Francis is a “formal heretic” could not be less relevant to the question of whether or not he’s the pope. (This is a time of great confusion, and many well-meaning people do not have the proper theological understanding to weigh-in on such questions or have not thought through the implications of their inclinations.)
–
“If I understand it correctly, Robert’s argument seems to be that if a majority of the Church ‘adheres’ (at least outwardly) to an anti-pope as if he were a legitimate pope, or a majority is confused as to the pope’s true identity and validity, the gates of Hell would have somehow prevailed; i.e., the Church could no longer be considered indefectible.” This isn’t Robert’s argument; it’s Cardinal Billot’s, among many others – the greatest theologians in the Church (references available on request again), basically, with *no dissenting voices* (among their ranks).
–
Apart from what the theologians have taught, let’s look at one of my favorite thought experiments: 1) The Church can adhere to a false pope; 2) Thus, a false pope can declare or ratify (what everyone thinks is) dogma; 3) Thus, any dogma of the Catholic Church could have been declared or ratified by a false pope; 4) Thus, no teaching of the Church is morally certain; 5) Let’s head to the nearest Fundie mega-church and have a latte during “services.”
–
“But wait,” you’ll say, “I KNOW which popes were true and which weren’t – I can look at their teachings!” First of all, this is textbook private judgement. (Though we DO rely, essentially, on private judgement (properly informed), to decide whether or not to decide if a specific statement or teaching of a prelate is good & Catholic, the stakes are far different there – we aren’t deposing bishops and popes. Again, these spheres are UNRELATED.) Secondly, and more importantly, *nobody* is aware of ALL the statements (or beliefs – sedes also regularly imply that the *sin* of heresy makes one a non-Catholic and thus non-bishop) of EVERY pope of antiquity. (One could do what Steven Speray, Richard Ibranyi, and various Feeneyists do – go through all the statements of every pope in history and inform us as to which were really pope and which were not.)
–
There’s a reference to the Great Western Schism – when there was one true pope, and no moral unanimity – so none of the anti arguments apply. The same goes for interregnum periods – these have always existed and do not disturb the dogma of the perpetual successors of Peter:
–
Vatican I, Session IV, Ch. II: “…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 primary over the whole Church*… let him be anathema.”
–
As for a period of two years without a pope being no big deal, it would, in fact, be entirely unprecedented in the history of the Church. (But the sedes say there’s been no pope for just under six decades now, and the arguments here are essentially identical to sedevacantist arguments.)
–
“There is no ‘ecclesiastical judge’ with jurisdiction over a pope, and there is no ‘lawful authority’ to tell the pope what he must’ do.” This statement ignores everything the Church has taught regarding the process of deposition of a pope! These teachings are not de fide, but are *all we have.* In fact, a process for judging (or forcing him to judge himself) exists according to *all* the theologians who have spoken on the topic. All agree that a judgement by the Church of pertinacity in heresy is necessary; they diverge on minor points only concerning events subsequent to that.
–
(As St. Bellarmine, Doctor of the Church, noted, as the Church is intimately involved in binding a man to the papacy, She must be involved in severing that bond (else the visible Body would be meaningless) – though it is Christ who actually severs the bond. The Church is the dispositive, but not efficient, cause.)
–
Concerning the Dubia, Louie’s assertion that it constitutes a formal warning is ridiculous. There are *no warnings in the text* – there are questions. The cardinals who wrote the very document have stated that a formal warning would be a subsequent step. Only wishful thinking can turn these dubia (literally, “questions”) into a formal warning.
–
“Robert stated: Francis is not a notorious heretic.’ I would ask, therefore: Exactly what sort of ‘maneuver’ might serve to ‘conceal’ his heresy? What sort of ‘legal defense’ could possibly ‘excuse’ it?” There seems to be a confusion here that this is matter of canon law, which is, again, not the case; the pope is the Lawgiver and not subject to canon law (a point all agree on). But, in any case, “notorious” in the case of the *crime* of heresy (which is all that is relevant) refers to a judgement by the Church (or a pope forced to judge his own pertinacity via formal warnings).
–
“In the interim, I’m not going to pretend that I can’t see what is obvious” – Again, Louie seems to be conflating recognizing & resisting vs. sedevacantism. No one is asking anyone to ignore the obvious or fail to resist and correct – the SSPX have been shouting this from the rooftops for decades. We call out and resist erroneous teachings (none are binding) and, sometimes, harmful juridical commands (that oppose divine law – and yes this one IS essentially a matter of informed judgement) – but we simply can’t declare prelates deposed from their offices willy-nilly.
–
No one has moral certainly that Francis is pertinacious in heresy – period. No person has moral certainty that he rejects Catholic DOGMA knowing full-well that it is dogma. As much as I personally loathe many of Pope Francis’ statements and actions (and am often tempted to loathe *him*), I cannot be completely sure he is not so diabolically disoriented that he doesn’t believe he’s doing the will of Christ in accordance to what the Church teaches (though I don’t think that’s the case). It doesn’t matter, and even when the Church judges a pope pertinacious in heresy, she *still* isn’t judging the internal forum (known by God only) but only that which concerns public office, in the external forum.
–
Regarding Robert’s challenge, it describes exactly what’s being asserted here. Louie is indeed asserting that Francis is a formal heretic, without any judgement or even warning by the Church, and declaring him an anti-pope, all semantic distractions aside.
–
As for the Scriptural references, those are for the Church to interpret, not us. St. Paul’s two warnings are the basis of the theologians’ and popes’ teachings on loss of office, not something for us to apply personally as we wish. (To our *personal lives* – yes. To Church office – no!)
–
In conclusion, what seems to be being promoted here is nothing less than and other than an “I’ll judge for myself” attitude, regarding not just statements and actions, but *ecclesiastic office.* This is an attitude so non-Catholic it’s been specifically condemned by an ecumenical council.
See my rebuttal at the bottom and you’ll see my point of my question here.
The 4th Council of Constantinople – an ecumenical Council of the Catholic Church – told us we don’t have the right or ability to depose bishops as we please. So did St. Thomas (judgement by usurpation among other things). So did – *all* the theologians who taught on the issue.
–
We resisting/ignoring erroneous teachings is not “enough” for some people is a mystery. Certainly is strongly seems to be a matter of emotion and the will for many: They MUST be able to say, “You are not my father!”
–
The “undoing of my position” – I’m sorry, but you’re confused. So, you’re referring to this?
–
“As long as it [the Novus Ordo] is not technically binding, poisonous liturgy can come from the fallible section of the Church, but not the infallible section. Thus, the part of the Church that can teach error can lead the Faithful into heresy and out of the Church.”
–
I really didn’t understand what you were apparently trying to say. But it’s nonsensical. Your point is that a person who attends the Novus Ordo becomes a “heretic” and is then “out of the Church”? That is preposterous. First, attending the Novus Ordo does not imply one believes *anything* *contrary to a de fide teaching of the Church*. Second, a belief contradicting a de fide teaching held by a Catholic who is not aware that it does so does not make that man a heretic – heresy is the willful rejection of a de fide teaching with the knowledge that it IS a de fide teaching of the Catholic Church: Its very essence is the rejection of the Church as teacher.
Ah, there’s those true colors on full display.
The Papal Subject seems to believe he knows better than the fully orthodox doctorate theologian +Lefebvre. And, IIRC, he attends Masses at a Society chapel (where open sedevacantism, of course, is not tolerated).
This is, once again, a complete misunderstanding of Bellarmine’s position. How can anyone possibly believe this? Have you ever done ANY reading of the contrary position.
–
St. Bellarmine was clear, on the whole, that it is the CRIME of heresy that prepares a pope for deposition, and such CRIME is declared by the Church, by definition (or made plain by dispositive cause of the Church).
–
He never could have possibly believed that the SIN of heresy could separate a bishop from his ecclesiastical office, which is what you’re implying, because this is preposterous. Everyone knows the Church does not judge internals and that sin lies within the internal forum. Everyone knows that a council of the Church even directly, specifically condemned separating from a bishop *no matter his public sins* without a judgement by the Church. Etc.
–
Here:
–
http://www.trueorfalsepope.com/p/whyfr.html
–
You could not possibly read that and continue to have the misunderstandings of Bellarmine that you do.
“I’ll judge for myself” attitude.
That is exactly what R&R Catholics do everytime Bergolio opens his mouth. You judge whether or not his latest pronouncement is something you can disregard.
Yes, of course we do. I even pointed that out. That is not deposition from office.
–
That is the whole point: Resisting error and publicly correcting it is Catholic, and declaring bishops deposed by private judgement is not. That’s the mind of the Church. That’s what all the theologians say. That’s the way things have always worked.
–
Nobody ever said, “Don’t judge anything, ever.”
–
You appear to be confusing the error of papal positivism with that of the Catholic position of recognizing office while also using one’s God-given intellect to detect when statements or actions are congruent with Catholic teaching or not.
–
How many times can the same basic distinctions be stated?
[The Fourth Ecumenical Council of Constantinople, Canon 10: “… 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** (there’s Louie’s example!), and he must not refuse to include his patriarch’s name during the divine mysteries or offices.”]
–
Does this include manifest/formal heresy?
St. Robert Bellarmine says: “For although Liberius was not a heretic, nevertheless he was considered one, on account of the peace he made with the Arians, […] for men are not bound, or able to read hearts; but when they see that someone is a heretic by his external works, they judge him to be a heretic pure and simple [simpliciter], and condemn him as a heretic.”
–
[“Formal heretic,” in the case of a Catholic, by definition, means someone whose pertinacity in heresy has been declared *by the Church.*]
–
Not so. No declaration by the Church is needed, only pertinacity which can be proven in multiple ways, warnings being one of those ways.
–
[There’s a reference to the Great Western Schism – when there was one true pope, and no moral unanimity – so none of the anti arguments apply. The same goes for interregnum periods – these have always existed and do not disturb the dogma of the perpetual successors of Peter:
–
Vatican I, Session IV, Ch. II: “…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 prima*c*y [you had primary] over the whole Church*… let him be anathema.”]
–
This condemnation was against the heretical and schismatic sects who recognized St. Peter only as the true successor of Christ and his supreme authority over the Church but denied that that authority passed from him to the next pope. They consider their patriarches equal to the successive popes. It does not mean that not one moment can exist where there is no pope.
–
[There is no ‘ecclesiastical judge’ with jurisdiction over a pope, and there is no ‘lawful authority’ to tell the pope what he must’ do.” This statement ignores everything the Church has taught regarding the process of deposition of a pope! These teachings are not de fide, but are *all we have.* In fact, a process for judging (or forcing him to judge himself) exists according to *all* the theologians who have spoken on the topic. All agree that a judgement by the Church of pertinacity in heresy is necessary; they diverge on minor points only concerning events subsequent to that.]
–
Please provide a source that states a declaration of the Church is needed for one to be considered a manifest/formal heretic?
Fr. Kramer’s arguments concerning heresy.
–
“the nature of heresy consists in withdrawal from the rule of the ecclesiastical Magisterium”, as Billot asserts, but heresy consists in the obstinate denial or doubt of some article of faith. Following the doctrine of St. Thomas, St. Alphonsus states the definition of heresy: «Hæresis est error intellectus, et pertinax contra Fidem, in eo qui Fidem sucepit» Thus, the nature of heresy is 1) the pertinacious error of the intellect against faith, 2) in one who has received the faith. St. Alphonsus distinguishes between the matter and the form of heresy.
–
Thus, the matter is the erroneous judgment, and the form is the pertinacity. Accordingly therefore, the material heretic is one who is not ignorant of the Church herself, but is one of her own who is ignorant of her teaching. None of those among the baptized who have reached the age of judgment, and who deny some article of faith, while professing some other creed or rule of faith, are, according to traditional Catholic usage, called “material heretics”, but are simply referred to as “heretics”; since, according to Canon Law and scholastic theology, they are rightly understood not to have the Catholic faith.
–
The opinion that there can be adult “material heretics” with faith and justifying grace, but in invincible ignorance, as members of non-Catholic sects who do not know the Church, seems scarcely believable, smacks of heresy; and is refuted by St. Alphonsus de Liguori, who explains that, “unbelievers who arrive at the use of reason, and are not converted to the Faith, cannot be excused, because though they do not receive sufficient proximate grace, still they are not deprived of remote grace, as a means of becoming converted.” 5 Thus, Bishop George Hay expounds on those who say invincible ignorance will save a man, «will bring him to salvation;” saying, “[T]hey suppose that a man may be a member of the true Church in the sight of God, though not born with her in communion, as all baptized children are, though born in heresy, at least till they come to the age of judging for themselves. Their mistake here lies in not reflecting that all adults who are in a false religion, can be members of the Church in the sight of God, in no other sense than those were of whom our Saviour says, “Other sheep I have who are not of this fold.” But as he expressly declares, that it was necessary to bring even those to the communion of the Church; this evidently shows that they and all such are not members of the Church in such a way as that they can be saved in their present state without being joined in her communion.
Fr. Kramer continued…
–
Of those who deny some article of faith, but who profess themselves to be Catholics and members of the Catholic Church, St. Thomas makes the distinction between such persons, some of whom, who might be called heretics either because they err solely from ignorance, who are therefore not excommunicated; and others who, because erring through obstinacy and trying to subvert others, then fall under the excommunication latae sententiae.
–
Since St. Thomas speaks in this passage of canonical warnings and the ecclesiastical censure of excommunication, he is clearly not speaking of persons who are members of some non-Catholic sect who have never known the Church, but distinguishes here between Catholics who become formal heretics, and incur the excommunication; and those Catholics whom he calls “heretics”, but who err against the faith in ignorance as merely material heretics: “It is to be said that one can be called a heretic because he simply errs out of ignorance, and therefore is not excommunicated.” Such an ignorant Catholic, who errs out of ignorance, and who therefore does not incur the excommunication, is called a “heretic”, but not properly in the sense of a ‘formal heretic’, who “errs out of pertinacity and tries to pervert others”, and therefore is not properly a heretic, but is called a ‘material heretic’ in traditional Catholic usage. From this passage of the Angelic Doctor alone, one sees how far the Cardinal Billot drifted away from the doctrine of St. Thomas and St. Alphonsus on heresy.
–
Salza & Siscoe are quite unaware of the fact that it is precisely because the material heretic retains the formal cause of faith, that he still has the Catholic faith, and is not one who is ignorant of the Church. The material heretic believes in revelation on divine authority, and does not reject the formal cause of faith — “supernaturalis enim virtus fidei causam formalem habet, Dei revelantis auctoritatem” (Pius XI – Mortalium Animos).
–
The material heretic believes in the authority of the Church, accepts the authority of the revealing God, professes the Creed, and thus does not reject the formal object of faith, but, errs ignorantly on some matter of faith, being unaware that his opinion materially opposes some truth of revelation. Such a one still adheres to the formal object of faith, but it is the formal heretic who rejects the infallible rule of faith.
–
The material heretic adheres formally to the doctrine of the Church as an infallible and divine rule, assenting on divine authority to the divinely revealed truths, but errs objectively in ignorance regarding the matter of some article(s) of faith. “[W]hoever does not adhere to the doctrine of the Church, as an infallible and divine rule does not have the habit of faith, but holds to matters of faith in some other manner than by faith.”
–
The material heretic retains the formal cause of the virtue of faith, because the form of heresy which is contrary to that virtue is absent in material heretics, who do not err out of pertinacity, but out of simplicity or ignorance.
–
Those who because of simplicity and ignorance err materially do not deliberately prefer their own judgment to the teaching of the Church, in which consists the sin of infidelity and the form of heresy. Therefore it is only the formal heretic who is properly called a heretic because he has defected from the faith by refusing to believe what he knows to be the faith of the universal Church, and thus no longer has the virtue of faith — but the material heretic still has divine and Catholic faith but errs out of ignorance. Material heresy is properly a “material sin”. The term, “material sin” is defined by St. Alphonsus de Liguori as an action that would be matter of sin but without the knowledge of the law, and therefore inculpable. Hence, “material heresy” is the inculpable, or at least not gravely culpable act of heresy, because of ignorance, and thus “material heretics” accordingly defined and distinguished from “formal heretics” by theologians.
–
The error of material heresy is not always entirely inculpable, but can be culpable and vincible, but without pertinacity.
–
Posting tomes of 3rd party text instead of links is obvious poor taste. Anyone can post whole articles here – I suggest you stop
Good responses to Fr. Kramer’s confusion:
–
http://www.trueorfalsepope.com/p/the-kramer-files.html
“Please provide a source for the fact that formal heresy is decided by the Church”? Are you possibly serious? Could you even *define* “formal heretic”? What is your working definition?
–
Sedevacantist preachers have caused such a state of ignorance and confusion among the faithful it can barely be overstated. The are blind leading the blind, and the leaders, all of them, know better. They ignore what they wish to ignore from Bellarmine and others in creating their theological system. It is honestly astonishing to me that these pervasive misunderstandings (or intention distortions) of Bellarmine persist when this material has been available for so long.
–
St. Bellarmine, in your quote above, talking of *men* condemning a man as a heretic has nothing to do regarding his removal from office. Obviously your quote doesn’t even hint at that.
–
It seems I should cover the fact yet again that sedes have been twisting or completely misunderstanding Bellarmine’s position regarding how a heretical pope is deposed for many years. In point of fact, Bellarmine – of course – recognized that the Church had to judge a heretical pope:
–
“Bellarimine: “That a heretical Pope can be judged is expressly held in the Canon, Si Papa, dist. 40, and with Innocent. … heresy, the only reason where it is lawful for inferiors [the Church] to judge superiors [the pope]. (…) in the case of heresy, a Roman Pontiff can be judged.”
–
Bellarmine: “For Jurisdiction is certainly given to the Pontiff by God, but with the agreement of men [those who elect him], as is obvious; because this man, who beforehand was not Pope, has from men that he would begin to be Pope, therefore, ***he is not removed by God unless it is through men. But a secret heretic cannot be judged by men.***”
–
http://www.trueorfalsepope.com/p/respondnig-to-fr.html
–
Here’s John of St. Thomas, one of the four major theologians to have written on the subject: “***It cannot be held that the Pope, by the very fact of being a heretic, would cease to be pope antecedently to a declaration of the Church.*** What is truly a matter of debate is whether the Pope, after he is declared by the Church to be a heretic, is deposed ipso facto by Christ the Lord, or if the Church ought to depose him. ***In any case, as long as the Church has not issued a juridical declaration, he must always be considered the Pope.***”
–
I could go on, to Suarez and Cajetan. Once again – a rare use of caps here – EVERY THEOLOGIAN WHO EVER SPOKE ON THE ISSUE RECOGNIZED THAT A HERETICAL POPE COULD NOT BE REMOVED FROM OFFICE (DISPOSED TO BE REMOVED BY CHRIST) UNLESS AND UNTIL HE HAD BEEN JUDGED BY THE CHURCH. That is the way it is. It is simple, and there is no way around it, except to (out of confusion or dishonestly) takes quotes out of context that remove the distinction between the sin and the crime of heresy.
–
What we have now is an army of sedevacantist followers who have imbibed their Theology of Bumper Stickers creating by taking brief quotes out of all context, implicitly inventing their own definitions for terms, and assuming a number of other things.
–
How can you possibly believe what you’re suggesting? How can anyone believe that a bishop (or pope) can suddenly just magically lose his office *because some person has condemned him as a heretic*? Could that person be mistaken? How is it not realized that this makes the Church a complete joke, where no de fide teaching would have any meaning because there would not be dogmatic certainty in the validity of any pontificate.
–
Regarding that ecumenical council of the Catholic Church that condemned the entire sedevacantist foundation, your response seems to be similar to Fr. Cekada’s; he argued, in substance, “This condemnation again deposing prelates does not apply to me and the prelates I’ve declared deposed because they are not really prelates (because he’s declared they’re not, despite what the Catholic Church – the same visible, hierarchical Church founded on Peter and with his perpetual successors – says.
–
That’s all for now.
I mentioned in a previous comment that the URLs would not post and I am also surprised to hear you are against arguments being made available for independent theologians with doctorates to examine.
–
How old are you?
I believe this has already been addressed.
–
[“Bellarimine: “That a heretical Pope can be judged is expressly held in the Canon, Si Papa, dist. 40, and with Innocent. … heresy, the only reason where it is lawful for inferiors [the Church] to judge superiors [the pope]. (…) in the case of heresy, a Roman Pontiff can be judged.”]
–
The judgment Bellarmine speaks of here is not judging the pope to be a heretic, thus formalizing his heresy, rather the bishops would be declaring to the faithful that the pope lost the papacy ipso facto due to his manifest/formal heresy. They are declaring something that already happened and can now move to punish the once-pope and begin the process of obtaining a new one. Anyone knowing of the pope’s manifest heresy prior to the declaration would not be in error if they separated from the pope.
–
Personally, I don’t believe, as Bellarmine, that the pope can even become a manifest heretic. I do, however, acknowledge it as a hypothesis and would follow the Church either way if a definitive teaching was given.
Salza & Siscoe are on an island by their self by thinking that the 2nd opinion concerning the loss of office for a pope applies to both manifest and occult heretics. Bellarmine’s argument against the 2nd opinion only concerns secret/occult heretics. That is it.
@Pigg0214:
–
http://traditionalcatholicisminnigeria.blogspot.com/2017/01/defection-from-faith-church-faith.html
–
@Pigg0214: I was able to post an article from Father Kramer. Are you trying to post more than one in a single comment? I don’t think you can do that.
According to you, in summary, the point of an office is merely a vehicle for someone to throw out all sorts of ideas, and that it is up to the laity to sift these ideas to discover the “real” teachings of the Church.
How do the laity recognise the “real” teachings? That’s easy. They compare what they sift now and check to see if it is in conformity with the ideas they previously sifted in order to discover the “real” teaching from the previous occupant of the office.
So we have a Church that can ordinarily give both truth and error. The laity’s job is to sift – but Heaven forbid that anyone call another a heretic! That would be presumptuous.
Yes, I was trying to post more than one.
I just tried posting one URL by itself and it did not get posted. It links to TradCatKnight.
St. Cyprian: Your link contains the same content as one of the ones I tried posting. Thanks.
I’ll also mention that he uses his Facebook page, of all things, to communicate with his followers, and simply blocks anyone that points out his errors. Salza & Siscoe, on the other hand, are always eager for public debate of any kind. This should tell you something.
–
Fr. Kramer has been reading sedevacantist website, which are built upon dishonestly, and imbibed their errors.
–
http://www.trueorfalsepope.com/p/sedevacantistwatch-novusordowatch.html
–
(This link also demonstrates where our local friend Cyprian got his Vatican-I-undoes-Bellarmine nonsense.)
You have to believe a lot of things solely by your own judgement, it seems. Truly sad.
–
But your point makes no sense given that +Lefebvre recognized every pope, met with them, showed them filial respect, and expelled sedes. He acknowledged, of course that *the Church* might judge these pontiffs at some point in the future.
Tom, once again you’ve lifted nonsense from sede websites. See here:
–
http://www.trueorfalsepope.com/p/part-ii-can-church-judge-heretical-pope.html
–
“But a person who merely commits the internal sin of heresy is not severed from the Church. And this explains why, in the above quotation, Pius XII did not use the word peccatum (sin), but the Latin word admissum, which can just as easily be translated as “crime.” For example, in the Lewis and Short Latin dictionary, admissum is defined as: “A wrong done, a trespass, fault, crime.””
–
“And to answer another objection, if a public sin of heresy (as discerned by private judgment) severed a person from the Body of the Church and caused a prelate to lose his office, then it would be left to each individual Catholic in the pew to determine who is and who is not a member of the Church, and who does and who does not hold office. Needless to say, this mentality is absolutely foreign to 2000 years of Catholicism. Hence, this error is refuted by simply looking to Tradition – namely, how the Church responds to those who continue to present themselves as Catholics, yet who give external reasons to indicate they are in heresy. In other words, only a person who commits the public sin of heresy according to the Church’s judgment (which would then constitute the crime of heresy) is considered a non-member of the Church. For more on this, see our article “Profession of the True Faith.””
–
You interpret this Pope as you see fit. (And HOW THE HECK DO YOU KNOW HE WAS A TRUE POPE GIVEN THAT YOU JUST SAID THE SIN OF HERESY DEPRIVES A POPE OF HIS OFFICE, AND YOU HAVE NO IDEA WHAT SINS HE COMMITTED?)
–
Sedevacantism is confused nonsense.
Of course, I did not say what you did regarding the bishopric.
–
The supreme pontiff has the power to formalize doctrine into explicit dogma, either directly or via ratification of a definition of an ecumenical council. The recent popes have never done this, but that is quite an impressive and valuable power.
–
Again, Catholics have ALWAYS had to be able to use their God-given reason to see if a prelate was teaching in accordance with Catholic fact or not, as the history of the Church completely bears out. That is why Liberius was loathed, but no one declared him not the pope, and John XXII was criticized and resisted, by no one declared him not the pope, and more.
–
This objection – either the pope is the pope and everything he says is always right, or he’s not the pope – seems downright childlike, and has never been the Catholic attitude toward the papacy. You suggest a property of “impeccability” for the pope that used exist only in the realm of Protestant critics!
–
Either we still have the Church or the Church has failed – take your pick. There’s no middle ground.
–
Why do you persist at this when you ignore the meat of everything? You ignore dogmatic fact. You ignore the council that directly, specifically, anathematized the laity separating formally from a bishop (for any reason) without a judgement from the Church. You ignore the fact that the sede position absolutely does demand abandoning either the *Catholic* definition of the visibility of the Church or its indefectibility.
–
And, once again, if what you say is true, no one can have any idea if any pope was actually a legitimate pope through the history of the Church, thus no one has any idea what dogmas are actually true (since the pope defines or ratifies all), and the entire faith is really just an everyman free-for-all. That’s Protestantism.
–
It’s time to recognize that the pope can be a bad man and can even have all kinds of erroneous positions and make erroneous statements but still be the pope. Do you people think God makes popes divine?
Please – you’re spamming the comboxes, and you know it.
–
But I understand your issue: Fr. Kramer’s magisterium is his Facebook page (from which be blocks anyone who makes reasoned arguments against his blatant theological misunderstandings). I understand why your “links don’t work.”
Is this why Cekada and Derkson don’t put it on their sites, when they know it, and when it and the 3rd Opinion are far shorter than the 4th and 5th?
–
Your talk is pure hyperbole, since Salza & Siscoe have the full support of the SSPX, THE original & true traditionalist society, while Fr. Kramer has Fr. Kramer, and refuses public debate.
–
Even if you’re right that the 2nd opinion concerns only occult heretics, where does that get you, since all the sede leaders *also* post arguments suggesting that the SIN of heresy causes loss of office – including Fr. Kramer. (“Manifest heresy” means determined by the Church.)
–
Bellarmine was completely clear, when read in the whole, that a judgement by the Church is necessary before any loss of office is possible.
–
Suarez (who was a contemporary of Bellarmine): “**In no case, even that of heresy, is the Pontiff deprived of his dignity and of his power immediately by God himself, before the judgment and sentence of men. This is the common opinion today.**” Suarez & Bellarmine held the same opinion.
–
Again, the sedes misread Bellarmine because they choose to believe that when he talked of “heresy” he meant something any layman can determine, but that’s false (and preposterous). There is no “sound bite” here, really, but this explains it:
–
http://www.trueorfalsepope.com/p/respondnig-to-fr.html
That’s sede nonsense. Bellarmine specifically says “THE POPE” yet they say he’s talking about a non-pope at this point. It is completely special pleading, not just reading into the text, but doing it great violence by reading the opposite of the text.
–
Let’s read it again, without our sede glasses:
–
“That a heretical POPE can be judged is expressly held in the Canon, Si Papa, dist. 40, and with Innocent. … heresy, the only reason where it is lawful for inferiors [the Church] to judge superiors [the pope]. (…) in the case of heresy, a ROMAN PONTIFF can be judged.”
First, once again, Archbishop Lefebvre was speaking in the practical realm, colloquially – no one disagrees with his statement in the sense he meant it. We can infer this with confidence based on the fact that he rejected sedevacantism all his days. You repeating it again & again does not change anything. If you believe the Church bearing the Four Marks could suddenly switch from one body to another, which is what you’re saying, you’re batty. Now you’ve sort-of saved visibility while destroying indefectibility (because THE CHURCH that Christ founded has thus failed – the specific hierarchy with Peter has head) as well as
–
“We adhere with all our heart and all our soul to Catholic Rome, guardian of the Catholic Faith and of the traditions necessary for the maintaining of that Faith, to eternal Rome, mistress of wisdom and of truth. On the contrary, we refuse, and we have always refused, to follow the Rome of neo-modernist and neo-protestant tendencies, which showed itself clearly in the Second Vatican Council and in the reforms that issued from it.”
–
You do not understand material vs. formal SEPARATION (not visibility – this is completely separate topic). I have read virtually everything Archbishop Lefebvre wrote and am well-aware of this quote. He is saying that, in practice, the Holy See had abandoned the teachings of the Faith, while the Society had maintained them. Of course I believe that: That is why I am affiliated with the Society. But, if he were saying what YOU say he was, or believed what you want to think he did, he would not have called the Pope “Pope,” would have not have met with him and his representatives as the supreme pontiff, and, perhaps most importantly, WOULD NOT HAVE REFUSED TO SETUP A PARALLEL HIERARCHY AS SOME [SEDES] URGED! Your analysis makes zero sense based on the facts; you are searching for the answers you want.
–
Note: Concerning the sede arguments your posted here regarding Mystici Corporis Christi, see this:
–
http://www.trueorfalsepope.com/p/part-ii-can-church-judge-heretical-pope.html
–
“But a person who merely commits the internal sin of heresy is not severed from the Church. And this explains why, in the above quotation, Pius XII did not use the word peccatum (sin), but the Latin word admissum, which can just as easily be translated as “crime.” For example, in the Lewis and Short Latin dictionary, admissum is defined as: “A wrong done, a trespass, fault, crime.””
“And to answer another objection, if a public sin of heresy (as discerned by private judgment) severed a person from the Body of the Church and caused a prelate to lose his office, then it would be left to each individual Catholic in the pew to determine who is and who is not a member of the Church, and who does and who does not hold office. Needless to say, this mentality is absolutely foreign to 2000 years of Catholicism. Hence, this error is refuted by simply looking to Tradition – namely, how the Church responds to those who continue to present themselves as Catholics, yet who give external reasons to indicate they are in heresy. In other words, only a person who commits the public sin of heresy according to the Church’s judgment (which would then constitute the crime of heresy) is considered a non-member of the Church. For more on this, see our article “Profession of the True Faith.””
–
This is another example of you jumping all over the place: One day you suggest the SIN of heresy can separate a bishop from his office, then the next it’s only “manifest” heresy (misunderstanding the definition).
–
I will reply tomorrow re: the Van Noort quote. For now: He didn’t say anything about public office. (I have that book, somewhere. Are you aware it’s quoted extensively in “True Or False Pope”? They intentionally used the references most favored by the sedes to show that those authors were really not supporting the sede position.)
ACT
I know what the good bishop DID do….I was simply giving my opinion of what he WOULD do if he were alive today.
@Catholic Thinker: I have tried to keep personal invective in our disputation to a minimum, but I will make an exception here. When I contemplate these paragraphs of John Salza I am repulsed. They are so erroneous and misleading that I would rather believe that it is a product of his amateur status and zeal than any other reason. The alternative is far worse to contemplate.
The statement from Mystici Corporis Christi is reproduced here:
–
“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.” [caps added for emphasis]
Even though the Vatican’s own website uses the English word “sin” to translate the Latin word used in this passage, John Salza translates this passage as follows:
–
“For not every CRIME, 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.” [caps added for emphasis]
–
Now why am I repulsed by this? Because this statement appears in a passage where Pope Pius XII sheds further light on the issue of Church member ship. The passage is reproduced here:
–
“[1] ACTUALLY ONLY THOSE ARE TO BE INCLUDED AS MEMBERS OF THE CHURCH WHO HAVE BEEN BAPTIZED AND PROFESS THE TRUE FAITH, AND WHO HAVE NOT BEEN SO UNFORTUNATE AS TO SEPARATE THEMSELVES FROM THE UNITY OF THE BODY, OR BEEN EXCLUDED BY LEGITIMATE AUTHORITY FOR GRAVE FAULTS COMMITTED. ‘For in one spirit’ says the Apostle, ‘were we all baptized into one Body, whether Jews or Gentiles, whether bond or free.’ As therefore in the true Christian community there is only one Body, one Spirit, one Lord, and one Baptism, so there can be only one faith. And therefore, if a man refuse to hear the Church, let him be considered – so the Lord commands – as a heathen and a publican. [2] IT FOLLOWS THAT THOSE WHO ARE DIVIDED IN FAITH OF GOVERNMENT CANNOT BE LIVING IN THE UNITY OF SUCH A BODY, NOR CAN THEY BE LIVING THE LIFE OF ITS ONE DIVINE SPIRIT.
–
Nor must one imagine that the Body of the Church, just because it bears the name of Christ, is made up during the days of its earthly pilgrimage only of members conspicuous for their holiness, or that it consists only of those whom God has predestined to eternal happiness. It is owing to the Savior’s infinite mercy that place is allowed in His Mystical Body here below for those whom, of old, He did not exclude from the banquet. [3] 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. Men may lose charity and divine grace through sin, thus becoming incapable of supernatural merit, and yet not be deprived of all life if they hold fast to faith and Christian hope, and if, illumined from above, they are spurred on by the interior promptings of the Holy Spirit to salutary fear and are moved to prayer and penance for their sins.”
–
The first emphasized portion of this passage [1] teaches that among those who have lost membership in the Church are (a) those who have separated themselves from the unity of the body, and (b) those who have been excluded by legitimate authority for grave faults committed. Read together, the first [1] and third [3] emphasized passages would appear to teach that those in category (a) who have separated themselves from the unity of the body have done so by committing the sin of schism or heresy or apostasy. However, John Salza translates the latin word used here as “CRIME” and offers an alternative translation as “FAULT”. When translated in the manner of Salza, the first passage [1] and third passage [3] can be read as teaching that among those in category (b) who have been excluded by legitimate authority for grave FAULTS committed are those who have committed the CRIME OR FAULT of SCHISM OR HERESY OR APOSTASY.
–
Why is it so problematic to read these passages in the manner of Salza? First, it obviously does not make sense from the plain meaning of the passages themselves. Pope Pius XII teaches that schism, heresy and apostasy of their own nature separate one from the body of the Church, so it would seem that these sins are what Pope Pius XII was referring to when he taught that persons could separate themselves from the Church WITHOUT the intervention of legitimate Church authority. Even though according to Pius XII heresy of its own nature separates one from the body of the Church, Salza adds the additional requirement that legitimate authority must also exclude the person. This appears a nonsensical and an obtuse interpretation of this passage.
–
Second, the first highlighted portion [1] tracks a quote of St. Jerome very closely, except that St. Jerome makes it clear HOW a person separates oneself from the body of the Church:
–
“Therefore it is said that the heretic has condemned himself: for the fornicator, the adulterer, the homicide and the other sinners are expelled from the Church by the priests; but the heretics pronounce sentence against themselves, excluding themselves from the Church spontaneously: this exclusion
which is their condemnation by their own conscience.”
–
St, Jerome quoted in Ballerini, Pietro. De potestate ecclesiastica Summorum Pontificum et conciliorum generalium liber. Una cum vindiciis auctoritatis pontificiae contra opus Justini Febronii. Augustae Vindelicorum [Augsburg]: Veith, 1770. (translation of title: Book of the ecclesiastical power of the Supreme Pontiffs and of the general councils. Together with vindications of the pontifical authority against the work of Justinus Febronius). Chapter 9, sec. 2, p. 128. Translated by James Larrabee
–
St. Jerome settles the issue: Pope Pius XII must have had St. Jerome’s teaching in mind when he wrote Mystici Corporis Christi. Among those in category (a) who separate themselves from the body of the Church are heretics; and they separate themselves without the intervention of legitimate Church authority.
–
Third, my research indicates that no other theologian has adopted Salza’s interpretation of this passage. For example, I have reproduced a discussion of these issues by the theologian Van Noort in this thread, where he interpreted this passage from Mystici Corporis Christi as follows:
–
“The same pontiff [Pope Pius XII] has explicitly pointed out that, unlike other sins, heresy, schism, and apostasy automatically sever a man from the Church. ‘For not every sin, however grave and enormous it be, is such as to sever a man automatically from the Body of the Church, as does schism or heresy or apostasy.”
–
Finally, reading farther down in the passages Salza mentions that heretics are separated from the body of the Church by the judgment of the Church. Here he obviously misunderstands canon law. Public formal heretics incur latae sententiae excommunication which requires no juridical act by the Church; it occurs automatically on commission of the sin. The law operates in this manner to conform the law of the Church to divine law. Public formal heretics are not members of the Church according to divine law. The sum total of John Salza’s position seems heretical because public formal heretics remain members of the Church until they are separated from the Church by legitimate authority according to John Salza. Further, this interpretation of Salza significantly harms the visibility of the Church. If public formal heretics remain members of the Church, how can one find the Church?
Cath Thinker, why do you keep quoting theologians? They are not authority. And why do you keep quoting Si Papa? The Pope is above Canon Law and judged by no one. I know that you understand these points so I can only conclude that you continually bring the argument back to theologians and canon law in an effort to appear as if the issue is dogmatically settled. Your technique may work on those who cling to the belief that somehow what they believed was the Catholic Church for the last 50 years was not a lie. So they cling to the conclusion they want and accept any argument that will justify their false hope. And that is where Michael Davies and Siscoe and Salza come in to throw up a ton of chaff to confuse the issue. The issue is quite clear, to be a Catholic one must be baptized and profess the Catholic faith.
So you sift the official teaching, and keep what conforms with previous sifting. That’s your position. And then you accuse others of inventing an invisible Church made up of Protestants.
Tell me one more time, what’s the point of the Church and the Papacy again? You reduce them to less than useless.
St. Paul said that the man who teaches another gospel is anathematised. Not his heresy; but him.
Have you had a look at the Suscipe Domine forums? You would enjoy the sede thesis subforums.
I might be the guy next to you at the Communion rail. There are sede faithful in every SSPX chapel that I know of, but they keep it to themselves – except for John Lane. All the priests and the bishops know of his very public adherence to the sede position, and he is not unwelcome anywhere in Society circles.
Our disagreement boils down to what a manifest/formal heretic is. I believe, with the Church, that a manifest/formal heretic is simply a person who rejects an article of faith that must be believed and makes that rejection externally known to others and also obstinately persists in such error. Obstinacy is what makes the heresy formal. This is what the Church teaches. The internal/occult sin of heresy, which Bellarmine discusses in opinion II, does not ipso facto separate the person from the Body of the Church because no one but God can judge the hearts of man.
–
Bellarmine was clear that any man can consider another to be a heretic once it is made know to him, regardless of that person being obstinate since no one can judge the internals of another.
–
You erroneously believe that a manifest/formal heretic cannot be determined by anyone until the Church makes a judgment and declares it so. This is Concilliarism when we are dealing with a heretical pope (notice, as Belleramine, I wrote heretical pope even though a pope cannot be a true heretic) since no body of bishops in council has authority over the pope.
–
You might as well say that you cannot determine anything to be true or false via the power of your God given reason and intellect until mommy tells you so. Now if you were a child under the age of reason, then I would agree that you would have to wait for mommy to dress you in the morning or whether it is safe to play in a busy street. However, if you have come of the age of reason, then it is quite reasonable for you to do things for yourself like dressing in the morning and determining that what is black cannot at the same time be white.
–
Hence one of the reasons I asked how old you are?
The comment immediately above is directed towards ACT.
@pigg0214: I’ve been through this with ACT before. You said this here:
–
“You erroneously believe that a manifest/formal heretic cannot be determined by anyone until the Church makes a judgment and declares it so.”
–
ACT has admitted more than that elsewhere. He has provided in the past two examples as follows [his words, not mine]:
–
“Pope Francis has not publicly renounced the Catholic faith, and the Church teaches that when that is not the case, PERTINACITY IN HERESY (which is the rejection of the Church per se as teacher) CAN ONLY COME FROM THE CHURCH.” [caps added for emphasis]
–
“Thus, every cafeteria Catholic who says, “I’m Catholic BUT DON’T ACCEPT WHAT THE CHURCH TEACHES ABOUT X” is, from all appearances at least, a formal heretic.” [caps added for emphasis]
–
It is clear from the second of these examples that Catholic Thinker has admitted that a lay Catholic can recognize that someone is a formal heretic if that person in so many words rejects the Church as the rule of faith. This is evident in his example of the cafeteria Catholic. ACT, while arguing that since the Pope has not denied the Church as the rule of faith in so many words no lay catholic can recognized him as a formal heretic, ACT nonetheless admits the Pope may still be pertinacious. However, according to ACT a finding of pertinacity in such a situation is reserved to Church authorities.
–
I demonstrated in a previous post that even if the Pope does not deny the Church as the rule of faith in so many words, it can be clear from his other statements and acts that he knows his teachings reject the Church as the rule of faith. For example, the manner in which he implemented Amoris L. evidenced that he knew it contained new unorthodox teachings, and he implemented those teachings in the manner of a textbook modernist. Further, Archbishop Forte quoted the Pope as admitting that he intended to specifically adopt the manner of the modernists “to avoid making a mess” when implementing Amoris L. Anyone familiar in the slightest with evidentiary matters (or even just adult interactions) knows the Pope’s behavior evidenced malice. If what he was doing was orthodox, why did he need to sneak around by spreading the sum total of his formal teachings on receipt of communion among a public document (AL), a private letter to Argentinian bishops, having the guidelines of the Bishops of Malta published in the Vatican Newspaper, etc.
–
So ACT’s position is kind of silly because it is clear that lay people can determine from the overall statements and behavior of a person that that person rejects the Church as the rule of faith, even if that person doesn’t say the magic incantation “I reject the Church as the rule of faith”, or more colloquially, “I know what the Church teaches and I reject it.”
Regarding your Van Noort quote above, HE IS NOT EVEN TALKING ABOUT CATHOLICS IN THIS PASSAGE! He’s talking about people outside the Body of the Church – that means those never part of the Church, i.e., Protestants, not Catholics who magically fell out of the Body by virtue of sin – or not even sin! (being honestly mistaken about a dogma) as you imagine.
–
If you actually have this book, and have read substantial parts of it, it is almost impossible to believe you could have missed this, as he states it clearly. Do you have the book, if I may inquire, or is did someone feed you this quote? Please tell us.
–
Van Noort does clarify exactly what whom he was speaking of – Protestants – but you did not quote that part. Cardinal Billot teaches the same regarding membership in the Body (Catholics have it, Protestants do not), as does Fr. Berry, in a quote provided to me: “A heretic is usually defined as a Christian, i.e., a baptized person, who holds a doctrine contrary to a revealed truth; but **this definition is inaccurate, since it would make heretics of a large portion of the faithful**. A doctrine contrary to a revealed truth is usually stigmatized as heretical, but a person who professes an heretical doctrine is not necessarily a heretic. Heresy, from the Greek hairesis, signifies a choosing; therefore a heretic is one who chooses for himself in matters of faith, thereby rejecting the authority of the Church established by Christ to teach all men the truths of revelation…. ***A person who submits to the authority of the Church and wishes to accept all her teachings, is not a heretic, even though he profess heretical doctrines through ignorance of what the Church really teaches***; he implicitly accepts the true doctrine in his general intention to accept all that the Church teaches”
–
You believing that people who even mistakenly disbelieve a dogma cease to become members of the Body of the Church is, frankly, astounding. The false interpretation you twisted out of Van Noort’s words is not even a minority opinion; it’s no theological opinion at all.
–
You consistently follow the sede pattern of “proof-texting” and interpreting as you please. I do realized that the sede leaders are responsible for leading many astray, but you seem to know better – certainly you would if you really have this book.
–
Why do you believe that the Blessed Virgin Mary is Mediatrix of All Graces when 1 Tim 2:5 says clearly that there is, “one mediator between God and mankind, the man Christ Jesus”?
–
You are either intellectually dishonest or completely out of your league, or both. That’s not hyperbole.
“@Catholic Thinker: I have tried to keep personal invective in our disputation to a minimum, but I will make an exception here. When I contemplate these paragraphs of John Salza I am repulsed. They are so erroneous and misleading that I would rather believe that it is a product of his amateur status and zeal than any other reason. The alternative is far worse to contemplate.” LOL! What a card you are, indeed.
–
(Neither here nor there, but *by definition* Salza is not an amateur; he’s had many books published and gotten paid for it. He would be much more “popular” and making more money (he had his own EWTN TV show lined up and abandoned it) if he had not decided to leave the Novus Ordo EWTN/Catholic Answers world and stay true to Tradition.)
–
You don’t get to interpret Mystici Corporis Christi or any other papal document as you choose. That is Protestantism. The Church has already spoken, numerous times, on the *exact* issues were discussing.
–
Why do you care how the Vatican website translates that word, when this is a false church to you? In fact, isn’t it more likely their translation is BAD, then? The simple fact is that this Latin word can be translated either way – translation is like that. There are many contexts in which the distinction between sin & crime is immaterial, etc. Where is your evidence that “crime” is not a valid translation for “admissum”? Did you consult any Latin dictionary? Did you make any attempt at all to understand what you’re arguing, or are you just trying to gather up as much smear points as possible?
–
Well, guess what – I DID consult a Latin dictionary (which took 10 seconds) because I care about the truth, and here is what it says:
–
“admissum – a voluntary fault, trespass, crime’
–
http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/morph?l=admissum&la=latin
–
You know owe Mr. Salza a public apology.
–
We know what the meaning of Pius XII’s text here because *we put it in the context of the teachings of the Church*. Again, if a person would fall out of the visible *Body* of the Church via sin, **the Body would not be visible**! No one could ever know who was a member and who was not. And it gets even better – you tell us this applies to the ecclesiastical offices of bishops including the Pope! Here is the word for this: IDIOCY. And another: HERESY. The Protestant heresy of an invisible Church.
–
Furthermore, you are now arguing (preposterously) that it takes the sin of heresy to separate from the Body, while just last night you were misquoting Van Noort to state that even THAT is not necessary – you were insisting that a *Catholic* who is simply mistaken about a dogma ceases to be a member of the visible Body of the Church! Which is it? Please tell us: Which do you believe?
Constant whack-a-mole with you guys. You’re just a complete muddle, Tom; intellectually, you are in over your head, and I do not say that out of spite.
–
I myself have stated numerous times that the pope is not bound by canon law. All agree on that point. Yet here you are suggesting the opposite again.
–
So, Si Papa says, “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 is a *teaching*; it is not itself a canon law applicable to the pope. It just says that the pope can be judged (one way or another) for heresy.
–
There is no way I’m going to go through it all top-to-bottom for you again.
–
The theologians’ teachings on the subject of how a heretical pope might lose his office (including if this is even possible) are all we have (though, obviously, things like Si Papa, Papal statements indicating a pope can be judged (solely) for heresy, and an ecumenical council condemning anyone who separates from their bishop without a judgement from the Church are relevant). Since the Church has no official, binding teaching on how or even if a pope can be deposed, to insist what you do is even more imprudent and disobedient.
–
When you say something is “clear,” it seems that what you mean is that, for you, all the teachings of the Church MUST be reducible to a single sound byte that you can easily understand – one you make up, or make up the interpretation for. You don’t get to make that demand. The logical absurdity of your position becomes obvious to anyone who dwells on it for more than a few minutes (and is not bound by emotion & will to depose the prelates they hate).
–
I will not respond to you further in this thread.
Catholic Thinker, when Benedict XVI said in 2009 that “the Society has no canonical status in the Church and its ministers cannot legitimately exercise any ministry”, is that just another thing you blow off and resist from the man you hold to be Vicar of Christ?
Rich, don’t talk yourself out of valid Masses and Sacraments.
Whatever conclusion you come to as a private person regarding the current status of the Chair of Peter, it is best tempered, in my humble opinion, with an attitude which tends toward the minimum retreat necessary in self defence, not the maximum.
Catholic Thinker thinks that all sedes go to the most extreme position. This is incorrect (and I think he will not be able to resist defending even the slightest criticism); many do go to extremes, and risk schism.
This is something which may help you on the “una cum” issue and the SSPX Masses, written by John Lane in 2000.
http://www.space.net.au/~nethow/Sede/Aquinas%20Site/interjections.html
More regarding your confusion/twisting of Van Noort’s teaching regarding membership in the Church, I just penned this:
–
Who Is A Member Of The Visible Church?
–
Sedevacantists love to tell us that tell us that heretics aren’t Catholic, then tell us that any person can determine who is a heretic (without providing a definition of the term, generally), then tell us that if they (Mario Derkson or Fr. Cekaka or any of their followers) determine that a prelate is a heretic due to some statement, he is therefore not a Catholic at all, and thus can’t hold any office in the Catholic Church (especially that of Vicar of Christ). But is this based on real Catholic teaching?
–
In actuality, what the Church has always taught is rather different than the hand-wavy stuff based on distortions and gross oversimplifications they offer, based on pulling narrow quotes from various sources and providing their own definitions for the terms they use.
–
St. Robert Bellarmine, Doctor of the Church, is a theologian sedevacantists quote regularly (because they don’t understand or misrepresent some of his statements to fit their theology). What did he say regarding membership in the Church? Did he echo their ubiquitous teaching that anyone who commits the sin of heresy (or even less) ceases to be a member of the Catholic Church, and that anybody else can infallibly determine when another Catholic has committed that sin or fault? Hardly.
–
Here is what he said regarding that question: “This one and true Church is the assembly of men bound together by the profession of the same Christian faith and the communion of the same sacraments, **under the rule of the legitimate pastors, and especially that of the Roman Pontiff, the one Vicar of Christ on earth** [sedes, note this]. From this definition, it is easy to infer which men belong to the Church and which do not belong to it. There are three parts of this definition: the profession of the true faith, the communion of the sacraments, and the subjection to the Roman Pontiff, the legitimate pastor.” (De Ecclesia Militante, ch.2.)
–
Bellarmine tells us that members of the visible Body of the Church as those who profess the Christian faith, receive the sacraments, and are bound to their bishop and the pope. Now, sedes will assert (ignoring the third condition entirely, of course) that they are quite sure that modern popes and bishops do NOT profess the faith (and that they and their followers can infallibly determine this). But does this hold water? No, not at all.
–
Fr. Sylvester Berry, another renowned theologian sedes like to quote (selectively, as always), says essentially the same thing as St. Bellarmine in enumerating three conditions for membership in the Body, the visible Church: “…three conditions are absolutely necessary and of themselves sufficient for membership; viz.:
(a) Initiation by baptism;
(b) External profession of the true Faith ***which is had by submission to the teaching authority of the Church.***
(c) Submission to the ruling authority of the Church.” (“The Church Of Christ,” 126)
–
Note how Fr. Berry defines external profession of the Faith: it is, per se, submission to the Church as teacher and Mother.
–
The very nature of heresy is the rejection of the Church as the rule of faith: the literal meaning of the word is “choosing”! He says: “A heretic is usually defined as a Christian, i.e., a baptized person, who holds a doctrine contrary to a revealed truth; **but this definition is inaccurate, since it would make heretics of a large portion of the faithful**. A doctrine contrary to a revealed truth is usually stigmatized as heretical, **but a person who professes an heretical doctrine is not necessarily a heretic. Heresy, from the Greek hairesis, signifies a choosing; therefore a heretic is one who chooses for himself in matters of faith, thereby rejecting the authority of the Church established by Christ to teach all men the truths of revelation**. **A person who submits to the authority of the Church and wishes to accept all her teachings, is not a heretic**, even though he profess heretical doctrines through ignorance of what the Church really teaches; he implicitly accepts the true doctrine in his general intention to accept all that the Church teaches.”
–
Things are looking very bad for the sedes already: They insist that any baptized Catholic who merely speaks someone contrary to the faith (and this by their judgement) is a “heretic” and, further, that this sin of heresy separates one from the Body of the Church. They say it over and over: “A heretic cannot be a member of the Church, much less its head; Pope X is/was a heretic.” Such thinking is absolutely contrary to the mind of the Church on these two major points: 1) That a “heretic” is any person who (judged by any person) merely says something contrary to the faith; 2) That the sin of heresy (sometimes even less than that, they say – even ignorant material heresy or lesser error) makes one a non-Catholic.
–
Fr. Berry notes further that perfect observance of the three bonds of external unity (that which unites to the Body) is not necessary: “These conditions may be briefly summarized in one phrase: The reception of Baptism, and the preservation of the unities – unity of faith, unity of worship, and unity of government; or in other words, reception of Baptism and submission to the teaching and ruling authority of the Church. ***It should be noted, however, that perfect observance of the unities is not required for mere membership in the Church***; a person need not make an explicit profession of faith at all times; nor conform all his actions to it. He need not make a diligent use of the Sacraments at all times, neither must he be free from all infractions of Church laws and precepts.”
–
(We can say that the material aspect of unity with the Body is profession of true doctrine, while the formal aspect is the adherence to the Church in principle as absolute rule of faith. Material errors or faults do not by any means necessarily destroy the formal aspect of unity, which is what is essential.)
–
To neuter of the silly, facile objection of, “these are only theologians,” we can quote the catechism of *The Council of Trent*: “A person is not to be called a heretic as soon as he shall have offended in matters of faith; ***but he is a heretic who, having disregarded the authority of the Church***, maintains an impious opinion with pertinacity.” (The Catechism of the Council of Trent, p. 96)
–
More references from esteemed theologians are available (from Cardinal Billot, for example) to demonstrate that merely uttering a heretical statement does not make one a *Catholic* a heretic – and that the sin of heresy does not severe one from the visible Body either (as noted above).
–
We can see from this short treatise that the entire sedevacantist foundation is a load of chaff. It is novelty; it is mythology, repeated now ad infinitum on sedevacantist websites for decades so that hordes of their followers except it without question (based, again, on Protestant-style proof-texting of theologians, misunderstanding or distorting the means of critical terms or ignoring critical distinctions).
–
And this is far from the end of their problems: Note that every theologian describing the criteria for membership in the Church specifies submission to the supreme pontiff as necessary (at least formally). The sedes, of course, deny that there IS a supreme pontiff, OR valid bishops with jurisdiction, or any visible Church at all now! The fact that this is regarded universally as a necessary criteria of membership in the Body is a large hint that sedevacantist ecclesiology is seriously broken: In fact, they have adopted a Protestant-style, heretical definition of the Church as an invisible body of scattered true believers (this is the subject of another essay).
Who Is A Member Of The Visible Church?
–
Sedevacantists love to tell us that tell us that heretics aren’t Catholic, then tell us that any person can determine who is a heretic (without providing a definition of the term, generally), then tell us that if they (Mario Derkson or Fr. Cekaka or any of their followers) determine that a prelate is a heretic due to some statement, he is therefore not a Catholic at all, and thus can’t hold any office in the Catholic Church (especially that of Vicar of Christ). But is this based on real Catholic teaching?
–
In actuality, what the Church has always taught is rather different than the hand-wavy stuff based on distortions and gross oversimplifications they offer, based on pulling narrow quotes from various sources and providing their own definitions for the terms they use.
–
St. Robert Bellarmine, Doctor of the Church, is a theologian sedevacantists quote regularly (because they don’t understand or misrepresent some of his statements to fit their theology). What did he say regarding membership in the Church? Did he echo their ubiquitous teaching that anyone who commits the sin of heresy (or even less) ceases to be a member of the Catholic Church, and that anybody else can infallibly determine when another Catholic has committed that sin or fault? Hardly.
–
Here is what he said regarding that question: “This one and true Church is the assembly of men bound together by the profession of the same Christian faith and the communion of the same sacraments, **under the rule of the legitimate pastors, and especially that of the Roman Pontiff, the one Vicar of Christ on earth** [sedes, note this]. From this definition, it is easy to infer which men belong to the Church and which do not belong to it. There are three parts of this definition: the profession of the true faith, the communion of the sacraments, and the subjection to the Roman Pontiff, the legitimate pastor.” (De Ecclesia Militante, ch.2.)
–
Bellarmine tells us that members of the visible Body of the Church as those who profess the Christian faith, receive the sacraments, and are bound to their bishop and the pope. Now, sedes will assert (ignoring the third condition entirely, of course) that they are quite sure that modern popes and bishops do NOT profess the faith (and that they and their followers can infallibly determine this). But does this hold water? No, not at all.
–
Fr. Sylvester Berry, another renowned theologian sedes like to quote (selectively, as always), says essentially the same thing as St. Bellarmine in enumerating three conditions for membership in the Body, the visible Church: “…three conditions are absolutely necessary and of themselves sufficient for membership; viz.:
(a) Initiation by baptism;
(b) External profession of the true Faith ***which is had by submission to the teaching authority of the Church.***
(c) Submission to the ruling authority of the Church.” (“The Church Of Christ,” 126)
–
Note how Fr. Berry defines external profession of the Faith: it is, per se, submission to the Church as teacher and Mother.
–
The very nature of heresy is the rejection of the Church as the rule of faith: the literal meaning of the word is “choosing”! He says: “A heretic is usually defined as a Christian, i.e., a baptized person, who holds a doctrine contrary to a revealed truth; **but this definition is inaccurate, since it would make heretics of a large portion of the faithful**. A doctrine contrary to a revealed truth is usually stigmatized as heretical, **but a person who professes an heretical doctrine is not necessarily a heretic. Heresy, from the Greek hairesis, signifies a choosing; therefore a heretic is one who chooses for himself in matters of faith, thereby rejecting the authority of the Church established by Christ to teach all men the truths of revelation**. **A person who submits to the authority of the Church and wishes to accept all her teachings, is not a heretic**, even though he profess heretical doctrines through ignorance of what the Church really teaches; he implicitly accepts the true doctrine in his general intention to accept all that the Church teaches.”
–
Things are looking very bad for the sedes already: They insist that any baptized Catholic who merely speaks someone contrary to the faith (and this by their judgement) is a “heretic” and, further, that this sin of heresy separates one from the Body of the Church. They say it over and over: “A heretic cannot be a member of the Church, much less its head; Pope X is/was a heretic.” Such thinking is absolutely contrary to the mind of the Church on these two major points: 1) That a “heretic” is any person who (judged by any person) merely says something contrary to the faith; 2) That the sin of heresy (sometimes even less than that, they say – even ignorant material heresy or lesser error) makes one a non-Catholic.
–
Fr. Berry notes further that perfect observance of the three bonds of external unity (that which unites to the Body) is not necessary: “These conditions may be briefly summarized in one phrase: The reception of Baptism, and the preservation of the unities – unity of faith, unity of worship, and unity of government; or in other words, reception of Baptism and submission to the teaching and ruling authority of the Church. ***It should be noted, however, that perfect observance of the unities is not required for mere membership in the Church***; a person need not make an explicit profession of faith at all times; nor conform all his actions to it. He need not make a diligent use of the Sacraments at all times, neither must he be free from all infractions of Church laws and precepts.”
–
(We can say that the material aspect of unity with the Body is profession of true doctrine, while the formal aspect is the adherence to the Church in principle as absolute rule of faith. Material errors or faults do not by any means necessarily destroy the formal aspect of unity, which is what is essential.)
–
To neuter of the silly, facile objection of, “these are only theologians,” we can quote the catechism of *The Council of Trent*: “A person is not to be called a heretic as soon as he shall have offended in matters of faith; ***but he is a heretic who, having disregarded the authority of the Church***, maintains an impious opinion with pertinacity.” (The Catechism of the Council of Trent, p. 96)
–
More references from esteemed theologians are available (from Cardinal Billot, for example) to demonstrate that merely uttering a heretical statement does not make one a *Catholic* a heretic – and that the sin of heresy does not severe one from the visible Body either (as noted above).
–
We can see from this short treatise that the entire sedevacantist foundation is a load of chaff. It is novelty; it is mythology, repeated now ad infinitum on sedevacantist websites for decades so that hordes of their followers except it without question (based, again, on Protestant-style proof-texting of theologians, misunderstanding or distorting the means of critical terms or ignoring critical distinctions).
–
And this is far from the end of their problems: Note that every theologian describing the criteria for membership in the Church specifies submission to the supreme pontiff as necessary (at least formally). The sedes, of course, deny that there IS a supreme pontiff, OR valid bishops with jurisdiction, or any visible Church at all now! The fact that this is regarded universally as a necessary criteria of membership in the Body is a large hint that sedevacantist ecclesiology is seriously broken: In fact, they have adopted a Protestant-style, heretical definition of the Church as an invisible body of scattered true believers (this is the subject of another essay).
Wow – I hadn’t seen this post but it looks like I penned something just for you in the last hour. I’ll have to repeat it under your comment.
–
Your theology and even basic definition are so warped by imbibing sedevacantist error you can’t see even the most basic thing clearly. Bellarmine did not teach what you say *regarding ecclesiastical office*.
–
Your increasing personal insults – a sign of your own spite and lack of intellectual maturity – bely your actual lack of confidence in your position, I would have to say. But then who knows; I can’t see your heart.
–
This has been said many, many times now, but *nobody has said we can or should not judge anything*. That is not the R&R (AKA Catholic) position – you know that. One day, you complain that I’m saying we have to sift the statements of the pope, and the next the complaint is the inverse: that we throw up our hands and claim to not be able to judge anything.
–
You’re the one acting like a child here, and I think you know it. Here is the basic Catholic teaching for you again:
–
1) Catholics can and must judge statements and actions, because they are external and objective.
2) Catholic cannot judge internals – *this is actually a maxim of the Church!* – because that is the domain of God alone; no one can read hearts.
–
This means that pertinacity in heresy can only be established by direct admission or apostasy (“I reject the Catholic Church as the rule of faith”) or, for the purposes of the *external forum*, by the means outlined by the theologians.
–
Idiotic/non-Catholic direct implications of your position that you never speak to in any capacity:
–
1) If what you say is true no teaching of the Church is certain because the legitimacy of any papacy is not certain because no one can know all the statements/thoughts (since sometimes you say even the sin of heresy results in loss of office) of past popes.
2) Your position that Catholics can separate from a legitimate bishop without a judgement by the Church directly contradicts a condemnation by an ecumenical council.
3) Your position forces you into a heretical definition of the Church, denying either perpetual, formal visibility, indefectibility, or both.
–
Now on to my lesson concerning what Bellarmine and the entire mind of the Church *really* says about Church membership.
–
Who Is A Member Of The Visible Church?
–
Sedevacantists love to tell us that tell us that heretics aren’t Catholic, then tell us that any person can determine who is a heretic (without providing a definition of the term, generally), then tell us that if they (Mario Derkson or Fr. Cekaka or any of their followers) determine that a prelate is a heretic due to some statement, he is therefore not a Catholic at all, and thus can’t hold any office in the Catholic Church (especially that of Vicar of Christ). But is this based on real Catholic teaching?
–
In actuality, what the Church has always taught is rather different than the hand-wavy stuff based on distortions and gross oversimplifications they offer, based on pulling narrow quotes from various sources and providing their own definitions for the terms they use.
–
St. Robert Bellarmine, Doctor of the Church, is a theologian sedevacantists quote regularly (because they don’t understand or misrepresent some of his statements to fit their theology). What did he say regarding membership in the Church? Did he echo their ubiquitous teaching that anyone who commits the sin of heresy (or even less) ceases to be a member of the Catholic Church, and that anybody else can infallibly determine when another Catholic has committed that sin or fault? Hardly.
–
Here is what he said regarding that question: “This one and true Church is the assembly of men bound together by the profession of the same Christian faith and the communion of the same sacraments, **under the rule of the legitimate pastors, and especially that of the Roman Pontiff, the one Vicar of Christ on earth** [sedes, note this]. From this definition, it is easy to infer which men belong to the Church and which do not belong to it. There are three parts of this definition: the profession of the true faith, the communion of the sacraments, and the subjection to the Roman Pontiff, the legitimate pastor.” (De Ecclesia Militante, ch.2.)
–
Bellarmine tells us that members of the visible Body of the Church as those who profess the Christian faith, receive the sacraments, and are bound to their bishop and the pope. Now, sedes will assert (ignoring the third condition entirely, of course) that they are quite sure that modern popes and bishops do NOT profess the faith (and that they and their followers can infallibly determine this). But does this hold water? No, not at all.
–
Fr. Sylvester Berry, another renowned theologian sedes like to quote (selectively, as always), says essentially the same thing as St. Bellarmine in enumerating three conditions for membership in the Body, the visible Church: “…three conditions are absolutely necessary and of themselves sufficient for membership; viz.:
(a) Initiation by baptism;
(b) External profession of the true Faith ***which is had by submission to the teaching authority of the Church.***
(c) Submission to the ruling authority of the Church.” (“The Church Of Christ,” 126)
–
Note how Fr. Berry defines external profession of the Faith: it is, per se, submission to the Church as teacher and Mother.
–
The very nature of heresy is the rejection of the Church as the rule of faith: the literal meaning of the word is “choosing”! He says: “A heretic is usually defined as a Christian, i.e., a baptized person, who holds a doctrine contrary to a revealed truth; **but this definition is inaccurate, since it would make heretics of a large portion of the faithful**. A doctrine contrary to a revealed truth is usually stigmatized as heretical, **but a person who professes an heretical doctrine is not necessarily a heretic. Heresy, from the Greek hairesis, signifies a choosing; therefore a heretic is one who chooses for himself in matters of faith, thereby rejecting the authority of the Church established by Christ to teach all men the truths of revelation**. **A person who submits to the authority of the Church and wishes to accept all her teachings, is not a heretic**, even though he profess heretical doctrines through ignorance of what the Church really teaches; he implicitly accepts the true doctrine in his general intention to accept all that the Church teaches.”
–
Things are looking very bad for the sedes already: They insist that any baptized Catholic who merely speaks someone contrary to the faith (and this by their judgement) is a “heretic” and, further, that this sin of heresy separates one from the Body of the Church. They say it over and over: “A heretic cannot be a member of the Church, much less its head; Pope X is/was a heretic.” Such thinking is absolutely contrary to the mind of the Church on these two major points: 1) That a “heretic” is any person who (judged by any person) merely says something contrary to the faith; 2) That the sin of heresy (sometimes even less than that, they say – even ignorant material heresy or lesser error) makes one a non-Catholic.
–
Fr. Berry notes further that perfect observance of the three bonds of external unity (that which unites to the Body) is not necessary: “These conditions may be briefly summarized in one phrase: The reception of Baptism, and the preservation of the unities – unity of faith, unity of worship, and unity of government; or in other words, reception of Baptism and submission to the teaching and ruling authority of the Church. ***It should be noted, however, that perfect observance of the unities is not required for mere membership in the Church***; a person need not make an explicit profession of faith at all times; nor conform all his actions to it. He need not make a diligent use of the Sacraments at all times, neither must he be free from all infractions of Church laws and precepts.”
–
(We can say that the material aspect of unity with the Body is profession of true doctrine, while the formal aspect is the adherence to the Church in principle as absolute rule of faith. Material errors or faults do not by any means necessarily destroy the formal aspect of unity, which is what is essential.)
–
To neuter of the silly, facile objection of, “these are only theologians,” we can quote the catechism of *The Council of Trent*: “A person is not to be called a heretic as soon as he shall have offended in matters of faith; ***but he is a heretic who, having disregarded the authority of the Church***, maintains an impious opinion with pertinacity.” (The Catechism of the Council of Trent, p. 96)
–
More references from esteemed theologians are available (from Cardinal Billot, for example) to demonstrate that merely uttering a heretical statement does not make one a *Catholic* a heretic – and that the sin of heresy does not severe one from the visible Body either (as noted above).
–
We can see from this short treatise that the entire sedevacantist foundation is a load of chaff. It is novelty; it is mythology, repeated now ad infinitum on sedevacantist websites for decades so that hordes of their followers except it without question (based, again, on Protestant-style proof-texting of theologians, misunderstanding or distorting the means of critical terms or ignoring critical distinctions).
–
And this is far from the end of their problems: Note that every theologian describing the criteria for membership in the Church specifies submission to the supreme pontiff as necessary (at least formally). The sedes, of course, deny that there IS a supreme pontiff, OR valid bishops with jurisdiction, or any visible Church at all now! The fact that this is regarded universally as a necessary criteria of membership in the Body is a large hint that sedevacantist ecclesiology is seriously broken: In fact, they have adopted a Protestant-style, heretical definition of the Church as an invisible body of scattered true believers (this is the subject of another essay).
“I demonstrated in a previous post that even if the Pope does not deny the Church as the rule of faith in so many words, it can be clear from his other statements and acts that he knows his teachings reject the Church as the rule of faith. For example, the manner in which he implemented Amoris L. evidenced that he knew it contained new unorthodox teachings, and he implemented those teachings in the manner of a textbook modernist.”
–
Bellarmine (sede favorite), Van Noort (sede favorite), and Fr. Berry (sede favorite) all teach that the essence of heresy is rejection of the Church as the rule of faith. What you are stating is that because of some material error or heresy (what is the de fide teaching directly denied in AL?!) YOU can INFER that Pope Francis rejects the Church as rule of faith – and you are confident you can do this INFALLIBLY because you believe YOUR JUDGMENT (or that of those who agree with you) has deposed Francis from office – has caused God to severe him from the papacy, in spite of the fact that EVERY theologian who ever spoke on the issue taught that, at least, a judgement by the Church of pertinacity was necessary. The hubris in such things boggles the mind.
–
I am reminded of this preposterous quote from Mario Derkson, no doubt one of your heros: “Look, if you are able to discern [privately] that Francis is not a Catholic [by my judgement], if that much is clear, then it is absolutely clear also that he isn’t Pope. … That has nothing to do with ‘judging the Pope’; it has to do with judging whether a particular individual who claims to be Pope, can actually be one. And if that weren’t permissible, well then anyone’s mere claim to the papacy, would have to be accepted as valid.”
–
According to Mario, anyone could be pope if WE didn’t decide if he sounded Catholic or not – never mind WHETHER OR NOT HE WAS ELECTED POPE BY THE CATHOLIC CHURCH.
–
I swear that the faith must be a game to such people. There is no holiness in this. There is no humility in this – none. And there is no faith in the Church in this.
–
You are desperate to label those whom you dislike “formal heretics” so you can declare them deposed – that much is clear. A person has to be full of will over intellect, full of spite, or else extreme ignorance, to hold the views you do.
–
Idiotic/non-Catholic direct implications of your position:
–
1) If what you say is true no teaching of the Church is certain because the legitimacy of any papacy is not certain because no one can know all the statements/thoughts (since sometimes you say even the sin of heresy results in loss of office) of past popes.
2) Your position that Catholics can separate from a legitimate bishop without a judgement by the Church directly contradicts a condemnation by an ecumenical council.
3) Your position forces you into a heretical definition of the Church, denying either perpetual, formal visibility, indefectibility, or both.
Every Theologian Who Ever Spoke On The Topic Agrees A Judgement By The Church Is Necessary For A Heretical Pope To Be Deposed
–
Sedevacantists constantly quote Bellarmine, completely out of context, believing he support their (insane) view that the sin of heresy separates a Catholic from the Body of the Church and hence from ecclesiastical office, but he did not teach that – no theologian did.
–
There were essentially two schools of debate on the matter, one of them – led by Bellarmine and his contemporary Suarez – teaching that a pope would be deposed immediately upon his conviction of the crime of heresy by the Church, and the other – led by John of St. Thomas and Cajetan – being even *more* conservative, and opining that after this judgment of heresy, another step by the Church was necessary before a pope could be deposed by Christ: A judgment by an “imperfect council” that he was to be avoided.
–
In the end, the debate is academic, since absolutely nowhere is the sedevacantism position to be found. That position arose completely from a misreading of Bellarmine (with probably a good deal of wishful thinking), not understanding that when Bellarmine speaks of a “heretical pope,” he means one have been *judged so by the Church*.
–
That this is indisputable is proven, among other things, by his refutation of the “Second Opinion” (he outlined five opinions on the matter):
–
“The second opinion is that the Pope, in the very instant in which he falls into heresy, even if it is only interior, is outside the Church and deposed by God, for which reason he can be judged by the Church. That is, he is declared deposed by divine law, and deposed de facto, if he still refused to yield. This is of John de Turrecremata, but it is not proven to me. For jurisdiction is certainly given to the Pontiff by God, but with the agreement of men, as is obvious; ***because this man, who beforehand was not Pope, has from men that he would begin to be Pope, therefore, he is not removed by God unless it is through men***. But a secret heretic cannot be judged by men, nor would such wish to relinquish that power by his own will. Add, that the foundation of this opinion is that secret heretics are outside the Church, which is false, and we will amply demonstrate this in our tract de Ecclesia, bk 1.”
–
Now for many years – and probably still today – one could never find this quote on any of the sede websites, even though there was no doubt they knew of it. Why was that?
–
As for the new objection that he was speaking only of occult heretics, that may have been the opinion he was refuting, but his statement that men (the Church) must be involved in deposing a pope (as dispositive cause) applies to any scenario.
–
Furthermore, since sedes constantly, in their inconsistency, *also* argue that the sin of heresy (which lies in the internal forum) severs a man from the Body of Christ (completely false) and thus from his office, there is further relevance (that is another topic and one equally easy to refute).
–
We’ve taken care of Bellarmine – what of his contemporary, Suarez?
–
Suarez: “Therefore, others [e.g., Azorius] affirm the Church is superior to the Pope in the case of heresy, but this is difficult to say. For Christ the Lord constituted the Pope as supreme judge absolutely; even the canons indifferently and generally affirm this; and at length the Church does not validly exercise any act of jurisdiction against the Pope; nor is the power conferred to him by election, rather merely designates a person upon whom Christ confers the power by himself; ***Therefore on deposing a heretical Pope, the Church would not act as superior to him, but juridically and by the consent of Christ she would declare him a heretic and therefore unworthy of Pontifical honors; he would then ipso facto and immediately be deposed by Christ***…”
–
Suarez said also, “***In no case, even that of heresy, is the Pontiff deprived of his dignity and of his power immediately by God himself, before the judgment and sentence of men. This is the common opinion today.***”
–
Now, Suarez and Bellarmine had the *same* opinion, something that cannot even be doubted (despite the evidence) since Suarez never could have claimed that his opinion was the common one if the great theologian Bellarmine had a contrary view.
–
Now, remember, John of St. Thomas and Cajetan required even *more* from the Church before they believed a heretical pope would be deposed by Christ (as the efficient cause).
(Cyprian – when you have a moment, perhaps let us know if you’re going to apologize for your calumny of John Salza above (you accused him of providing a dishonest translation of “admissum” even though 10 seconds with an online dictionary defines it as “crime” as he said.)
–
(Also, I’m curious to know whether you really have that Van Noort book you’re quoting from and, if so, how you could have possibly missed the fact that he is speaking of Protestants, not Catholics, in the quote you cherry-picked.)
@Catholic Thinker: I just didn’t just accuse him of mistranslating a word, I also accused him of misconstruing Pope Pius XII’s teaching in Mystici Corporis Christi on Church membership. He apparently wants the faithful to believe that the law of the Church operates like criminal or civil law and that a juridical act is necessary in all cases. That is why I believe he translated the latin word as crime, so he could claim that Pius XII was teaching that heretics, e.g., are separated from the Church only by legitimate authority and not by their own actions.
–
Regarding Van Noort, I do not have the book. I found the quote on Steve Speray’s website. It is noted that Siscoe, who was in the habit of visiting Speray’s website, did not contest Van Noort’s teaching in the manner you are.
Why? Because Van Noort is clearly talking about Catholics:
–
“PUBLIC HERETICS (AND A FORTIORI, APOSTATES) ARE NOT MEMBERS OF THE CHURCH. THEY ARE NOT MEMBERS BECAUSE THEY SEPARATE THEMSELVES FROM THE UNITY OF CATHOLIC FAITH AND FROM EXTERNAL PROFESSION OF THAT FAITH. Obviously, therefore, they lack one of three factors—baptism, profession of the same faith, union with the hierarchy—pointed out by Pius XII as requisite for membership in the Church. The same pontiff has explicitly pointed out that, unlike other sins, heresy, schism, and apostasy automatically sever a man from the Church. ‘For not every sin, however grave and enormous it be, is such as to sever a man automatically from the Body of the Church, as does schism or heresy or apostasy’.” [caps added for emphasis
–
The fact the first sentence speaks of those who separate themselves from the unity of Catholic faith clearly indicates Van Noort was speaking of those who once were Catholics and later separated themselves from the Church by, e.g., heresy.
@Catholic Thinker: Do material heretics profess the true faith? I will accept only a yes or no answer to this question because it only admits of a yes or no answer.
A Catholic Thinker,
I am currently a sedevacantist. I’m of the home-alone sort, since I think it’d be hypocritical to go to an SSPX or indult Mass since they say hold Francis to be Pope. I don’t go to sede Masses either since they don’t have jurisdiction.
So I would be happy if you could disprove sedevacantism in an honest manner. I would get to go to Mass again.
So could you please stop setting up strawman? I don’t believe the internal sin of heresy means we could disregard a claimant to the papacy, but MANIFEST heresy.
And sedevacantism doesn’t destroy in the indefectibility of the Church one bit. The Catholic Church doesn’t need a human head at all moments, as proven by interregnums. She always has Christ as the Head. The Church has never put a limit on how long an interregnum can be.
And how would you reply to a sedevacantist bringing up the following –
Pope Leo XIII, Satis Cognitum (# 9), June 29, 1896: “The practice of the Church has always been the same, and that with the consenting judgment [i.e. consensus] of the holy fathers who certainly were accustomed to hold as having no part of Catholic communion and as banished from the Church whoever had departed in even the least way from the doctrine proposed by the authentic Magisterium.”
Pope Leo XIII, Satis Cognitum (# 9), June 29, 1896: “The Church, founded on these principles and mindful of her office, has done nothing with greater zeal and endeavor than she has displayed in guarding the integrity of the faith. Hence she regarded as rebels and expelled from the ranks of her children all who held beliefs on any point of doctrine different from her own. The Arians, the Montanists, the Novatians, the Quartodecimans, the Eutychians, did not certainly reject all Catholic doctrine: they abandoned only a certain portion of it. Still who does not know that they were declared heretics and banished from the bosom of the Church? In like manner were condemned all authors of heretical tenets who followed them in subsequent ages. There can be nothing more dangerous than those heretics who admit nearly the whole cycle of doctrine, and yet by one word, as with a drop of poison, infect the real and simple faith taught by our Lord and handed down by apostolic tradition.”
Pope Leo XIII, Satis Cognitum (# 9), June 29, 1896: “… can it be lawful for anyone to reject any one of those 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? For such is the nature of faith that nothing can be more absurd than to accept some things and reject others… But he who dissents even in one point from divinely revealed truth absolutely rejects all faith, since he thereby refuses to honor God as the supreme truth and the formal motive of faith.”[23]
Pope Leo XIII, Satis Cognitum (# 9), June 29, 1896: “No one who merely disbelieves in all these (heresies) can for that reason regard himself as a Catholic or call himself one. For there may be or arise some other heresies, which are not set out in this work of ours, and if anyone holds to a single one of these he is not a Catholic.”
Wouldn’t such an idea have been important for recognizing heretics during the Arian crisis?
[Every Theologian Who Ever Spoke On The Topic Agrees A Judgement By The Church Is Necessary For A Heretical Pope To Be Deposed]
–
The above is a complete fabrication introduced after VII to justify the SSPX. It is simply false. You can say it as much as you like but you have yet to offer any evidence.
–
You continue to equate material heresy with formal heresy. Formal heresy contains obstinacy. No obstinacy; no formal heresy. Declarations from the Church or individuals have no bearing on heresy being formal.
–
Sedevacantists do not use personal judgment to discern truth and error. Holy Mother Church teaches, and we her children listen. What good is it to teach children right from wrong if you forbid them when they are older from choosing properly before mom tells them what to do? Clearly the Church has taught us the errors of heretics so that we can avoid the errors and reject the wolves. As mentioned somewhere in these comments; we are told to reject the teacher of error, not just the error.
–
I am personally not a sedevacantist. I do favor their arguments though and people like you only expose the self defeating nature of the SSPX and the R&R positions. You want your cake and eat it too. If the Sedes are wrong, then according to the Church today, our imperfect Mother, they will most likely be saved anyway as long as their conscience is at peace with God. If I was a betting man, the odds are in favor of the Sedes. For if the R&R camp is wrong, then the justice of God, long forgotten by the Conciliar Church, will come falling down upon them.
Dear A Catholic Thinker, Your erudite explanations of the doctrine of the Faith are a great service to the Church and souls searching for the truth. I hope your work gets the wide audience it should. Thank you for your service to God and His Holy Church.
@Catholic Thinker: You said this:
–
YOU can INFER that Pope Francis rejects the Church as rule of faith – and you are confident you can do this INFALLIBLY because you believe YOUR JUDGMENT (or that of those who agree with you) has deposed Francis from office – has caused God to severe him from the papacy, in spite of the fact that EVERY theologian who ever spoke on the issue taught that, at least, a judgement by the Church of pertinacity was necessary. The hubris in such things boggles the mind.”
–
The 45 theologians and the four Cardinals have already demonstrated that Amoris L. is materially heretical. Pope St. Pius X taught the faithful how to recognize a modernist in Pascendi in which, among other things, he said this:
–
“But since the Modernists (as they are commonly and rightly called) employ a very clever artifice, namely, to present their doctrines without order and systematic arrangement into one whole, scattered and disjointed one from another, so as to appear to be in doubt and uncertainty, while they are in reality firm and steadfast, it will be of advantage, Venerable Brethren, to bring their teachings together here into one group, and to point out the connexion between them, and thus to pass to an examination of the sources of the errors, and to prescribe remedies for averting the evil.”
–
Archbishop Forte is on record that Pope Francis intended to adopt the method of modernists outlined in Pascendi when he recounted the following conversation:
–
“An approach that naturally has ‘practical’ repercussions in the area of direct indications for pastors and the ecclesial community. Archbishop Forte has in fact revealed a ‘behind the scenes’ [moment] from the Synod: ‘If we speak explicitly about communion for the divorced and remarried,’ said Archbishop Forte, reporting a joke of Pope Francis, ‘you do not know what a terrible mess we will make. So we won’t speak plainly, do it in a way that the premises are there, then I will draw out the conclusions.’
–
‘Typical of a Jesuit,’ Abp Forte joked, attributing to that suggestion a wisdom that has allowed the maturation necessary to conclude that Amoris Laetitia, as Abp. Bruno Forte explained, does not represent a new doctrine, but the ‘merciful application’ of that [the doctrine] of all time.”
–
Why did Pope St. Pius X include this insight about how modernist heretics insinuate their false gospel into the life of the Church? So the faithful can RECOGNIZE them. and do what all faithful Catholics should do: withdraw their obedience from them and avoid them. After all, isn’t that what the SSPX has done:
–
“We [the SSPX] adhere with all our heart and all our soul to Catholic Rome, guardian of the Catholic Faith and of the traditions necessary for the maintaining of that Faith, to eternal Rome, mistress of wisdom and of truth. On the contrary, we refuse, and we have always refused, to follow the Rome of neo-modernist and neo-protestant tendencies, which showed itself clearly in the Second Vatican Council and in the reforms that issued from it.”
–
By the way when Archbishop Lefebvre withdrew his obedience from the “Rome of neo-modernist and neo-protestant tendencies” had the Church formally judged the Conciliar Popes as formal heretics?
“[T]he nature of heresy consists in withdrawal from the rule of the ecclesiastical Magisterium”, as Billot asserts, but heresy consists in the obstinate denial or doubt of some article of faith. Following the doctrine of St. Thomas, St. Alphonsus states the definition of heresy: «Hæresis est error intellectus, et pertinax contra Fidem, in eo qui Fidem sucepit» Thus, the nature of heresy is 1) the pertinacious error of the intellect against faith, 2) in one who has received the faith. St. Alphonsus distinguishes between the matter and the form of heresy.
–
He first states the *nature* of heresy – as the Church defines it – then states the specifics of it, almost as if these were in conflict (he even says “but”). Where have we seen that before?
–
Fr. Sylvester Berry says the same thing as St. Bellarmine in enumerating three conditions for membership in the Body, the visible Church:
“(a) Initiation by baptism;
(b) External profession of the true Faith ***which is had by submission to the teaching authority of the Church.***
(c) Submission to the ruling authority of the Church.” (“The Church Of Christ,” 126)
–
Note how Fr. Berry defines external profession of the Faith: it is, per se, **submission to the Church as teacher and Mother.**
–
As Fr. Berry notes above (and this is not a matter of contention), the very nature of heresy is the rejection of the Church as the rule of faith: that the literal meaning of the word is “CHOOSING” makes that clear. He says, further, in the same work: “A heretic is usually defined as a Christian, i.e., a baptized person, who holds a doctrine contrary to a revealed truth; **but this definition is inaccurate, since it would make heretics of a large portion of the faithful**. A doctrine contrary to a revealed truth is usually stigmatized as heretical, **but a person who professes an heretical doctrine is not necessarily a heretic. Heresy, from the Greek hairesis, signifies a choosing; therefore a heretic is one who chooses for himself in matters of faith, thereby rejecting the authority of the Church established by Christ to teach all men the truths of revelation**. **A person who submits to the authority of the Church and wishes to accept all her teachings, is not a heretic**, even though he profess heretical doctrines through ignorance of what the Church really teaches; he implicitly accepts the true doctrine in his general intention to accept all that the Church teaches.”
–
As is usual with sedes, it sounds like Fr. Kramer is trying to downplay the fact that *intentional rejection of the Church of the rule of faith* is a necessary element of heresy properly called – of the only type of “heresy” that applies to Catholics, actually, since, as the theologians agree (see a longer essay I’m going to post below), the term “material heresy” by nature refers to Protestants. But then, it seems Fr. Kramer is all over the map, per the next post.
–
–
“Thus, the matter is the erroneous judgment, and the form is the pertinacity. Accordingly therefore, the material heretic is one who is not ignorant of the Church herself, but is one of her own who is ignorant of her teaching. None of those among the baptized who have reached the age of judgment, and who deny some article of faith, while professing some other creed or rule of faith, are, according to traditional Catholic usage, called ‘material heretics,’ but are simply referred to as ‘heretics’; since, according to Canon Law and scholastic theology, they are rightly understood not to have the Catholic faith.”
–
This seems largely in accord, at least, with what the theologians teach about the term “material heretic” – material heretics are non-Catholics (Protestants) by definition (again, see below). He’s certainly correct regarding the matter & form of heresy (this is why “formal heresy” refers to an act of the will).
–
Protestants are material heretics as long as they *are* in invincible ignorance regarding the Church being the true rule of faith. Once past the age of reason, and they cling to a belief contrary to a de fide teaching despite knowing the Church’s teaching, the heresy becomes heresy proper and is imputable (and invincible ignorance does not save in any case).
–
–
“The opinion that there can be adult ‘material heretics’ with faith and justifying grace, but in invincible ignorance, as members of non-Catholic sects who do not know the Church, seems scarcely believable, smacks of heresy; and is refuted by St. Alphonsus de Liguori, who explains that, ‘unbelievers who arrive at the use of reason, and are not converted to the Faith, cannot be excused, because though they do not receive sufficient proximate grace, still they are not deprived of remote grace, as a means of becoming converted.’ 5 Thus, Bishop George Hay expounds on those who say invincible ignorance will save a man, «will bring him to salvation;” saying, ‘[T]hey suppose that a man may be a member of the true Church in the sight of God, though not born with her in communion, as all baptized children are, though born in heresy, at least till they come to the age of judging for themselves. Their mistake here lies in not reflecting that all adults who are in a false religion, can be members of the Church in the sight of God, in no other sense than those were of whom our Saviour says, “Other sheep I have who are not of this fold.” But as he expressly declares, that it was necessary to bring even those to the communion of the Church; this evidently shows that they and all such are not members of the Church in such a way as that they can be saved in their present state without being joined in her communion.”
–
This last paragraph is confused as opening & closing quotes don’t match.
–
So, he’s arguing that Protestants past the age of reason do not have the cover of invincible ignorance. Ok. You’re aware this isn’t really germane to the debate here, right?
So Fr. Kramer paraphrases St. Thomas but doesn’t even bother to show the relevant passages? That is interesting.
–
“Salza & Siscoe are quite unaware of the fact that it is precisely because the material heretic retains the formal cause of faith, that he still has the Catholic faith, and is not one who is ignorant of the Church. The material heretic believes in revelation on divine authority, and does not reject the formal cause of faith.”
–
It seems it did not take long for Fr. Kramer to contradict himself. Above, he seemed to agree with the theologians that the phrase “material heretic” refers only to Protestants, so what is this? “… the material heretic… has the Catholic faith.” That is actually nonsensical.
–
What is “the formal *cause* of faith”? By this he refers to the theological virtue of faith, the formal cause being God? Or the habit of faith, the formal cause being the will? In any case, all together it does not add up, and notice that Fr. Kramer quotes no authority regarding this muddle.
–
So, let’s take a look at what Cardinal Billot has to say, for one example:
–
“Heretics are divided into formal and material. Formal heretics are those to whom the authority of the Church is sufficiently own; while material heretics are those who, being in invincible ignorance of the Church herself, in good faith choose some other guiding rule. So the heresy of material heretics is not imputable as sin, and indeed it is not necessarily incompatible with that supernatural faith which is the beginning and root of all justification… if you understand by the expression material heretic those alone, who, while professing subjection to the Church’s Magisterium in matters of faith, nevertheless still deny something defined by the Church because he did not know it was defined, or, by the same token, hold an opinion opposed to Catholic doctrine because he falsely thinks that the Church teaches it, it would be quite absurd to place material heretics outside the body of the true Church; but on this understanding the legitimate use of the expression would be entirely perverted.” (“De Ecclesia Christi,” as quoted in TOFP)
–
Note what Cardinal Billot is saying here: 1) Material heretics, by definition, are in *invincible ignorance* about the true Church – thus it is beyond dispute that they are NOT (and never were) baptized Catholics; 2) Material heresy, by definition, *is not sin*; 3) If the phrase “material heretic” could apply to Catholics, it would be “absurd” to consider them outside the Church (did you hear that, Cyprian?); 4) The legitimate use of the term “material heretic” is thus restricted to non-Catholic Christians – Protestants.
–
–
“The material heretic believes in the authority of the Church, accepts the authority of the revealing God, professes the Creed, and thus does not reject the formal object of faith, but, errs ignorantly on some matter of faith, being unaware that his opinion materially opposes some truth of revelation. Such a one still adheres to the formal object of faith, but it is the formal heretic who rejects the infallible rule of faith.”
–
No, the material heretic does not believe the authority of the Church; he is not a Catholic, by definition. Fr. Kramer is using very imprecise – it could be called incorrect – terminology. He is using these words colloquially, not as Catholic theologians use them.
–
I will point out that this is just terminology. What Fr. Kramer is saying about Catholics who err materially (unknowingly) is true, but these are not termed “material heretics.” So his analysis is confusing, at best.
–
And for the most part it’s neither here nor there. He seems to like to write a lot.
–
And, his complaint regarding Salza/Siscoe is nonsensical, and also nothing but a completely naked assertion with no references whatsoever. What’s the point of posting it here?
Thank you – sincerely appreciated.
I posted this before, but I’ve got a newer version that, among other things, addresses some of Cyprian’s recurring errors above.
–
Who Is A Member Of The Visible Church?
–
Sedevacantists love to tell us that tell us that heretics aren’t Catholic, then tell us that any person can determine who is a heretic (without providing a definition of the term, generally), then tell us that if they (Mario Derkson or Fr. Cekaka or any of their followers) determine that a prelate is a heretic due to some statement, he is therefore not a Catholic at all, and thus can’t hold any office in the Catholic Church (especially that of Vicar of Christ). But is this based on real Catholic teaching?
–
The Catholic Church has both internal and external elements, that is, what have been termed the Soul and the Body (by St. Augustine, St. Bellarmine, Pope St. Pius Xth, and others). It is possible to be joined with one or the other but not both; a Catholic in good standing who is also in the state of grace is joined perfectly to both the Body and the Soul of the Church. What joins a person to the Soul of the Church are the internal bonds of faith, hope, charity, and sanctifying grace; what joins him to the Body, since this is the external and *visible* aspect of the Church, is also external and visible – and being joined to the Body IS what is meant by “membership in the Catholic Church.”
–
St. Robert Bellarmine, Doctor of the Church, is a theologian sedevacantists quote regularly (because they don’t understand or misrepresent some of his statements to fit their theology). What did he say regarding membership in the Church? Did he echo their ubiquitous teaching that anyone who commits the sin of heresy (or even less) ceases to be a member of the Catholic Church (and that anybody else can infallibly determine when another Catholic has committed that sin or fault)? No.
–
“This one and true Church is the assembly of men bound together by the profession of the same Christian faith and the communion of the same sacraments, **under the rule of the legitimate pastors, and especially that of the Roman Pontiff, the one Vicar of Christ on earth** [sedes, note this]. From this definition, it is easy to infer which men belong to the Church and which do not belong to it. There are three parts of this definition: the profession of the true faith, the communion of the sacraments, and the subjection to the Roman Pontiff, the legitimate pastor.” (St. Robert Bellarmine, “De Ecclesia Militante”, ch.2.)
–
In the same work, he explains the distinction of Soul & Body: “Augustine says… the Church is a living body, in which there is a Soul and a Body. The internal gifts of the Holy Ghost, faith, hope, charity, and the rest are the Soul. The external profession of the faith and the communication of the sacraments are the Body.”
–
Fr. Sylvester Berry, another renowned theologian sedes like to quote (selectively, as always), says essentially the same thing as St. Bellarmine in enumerating three conditions for membership in the Body, the visible Church: “…three conditions are absolutely necessary and of themselves sufficient for membership; viz.:
(a) Initiation by baptism;
(b) External profession of the true Faith ***which is had by submission to the teaching authority of the Church.***
(c) Submission to the ruling authority of the Church.” (“The Church Of Christ,” 126)
–
Note how Fr. Berry defines external profession of the Faith: it is, per se, **submission to the Church as teacher and Mother.** This is very important, as sedes constantly insist that the mere uttering of a statement in conflict with a de fide teaching (or, frequently, even less than that) makes one a “heretic” and not a Catholic. This is, to be frank, nonsense.
–
As Fr. Berry notes above (and this was *not in contention, by any theologian*), the very nature of heresy is the rejection of the Church as the rule of faith: that the literal meaning of the word is “choosing” makes that clear. He says, further, in the same work: “A heretic is usually defined as a Christian, i.e., a baptized person, who holds a doctrine contrary to a revealed truth; **but this definition is inaccurate, since it would make heretics of a large portion of the faithful**. A doctrine contrary to a revealed truth is usually stigmatized as heretical, **but a person who professes an heretical doctrine is not necessarily a heretic. Heresy, from the Greek hairesis, signifies a choosing; therefore a heretic is one who chooses for himself in matters of faith, thereby rejecting the authority of the Church established by Christ to teach all men the truths of revelation**. **A person who submits to the authority of the Church and wishes to accept all her teachings, is not a heretic**, even though he profess heretical doctrines through ignorance of what the Church really teaches; he implicitly accepts the true doctrine in his general intention to accept all that the Church teaches.”
–
Note that Fr. Berry is talking about *Catholics* above. This is important regarding the terminology, as we’ll see shortly.
–
Things are looking very bad for the sedes already: They insist that any baptized Catholic who merely speaks someone contrary to the faith (and this by their judgement) is a “heretic,” and, further, that this sin of heresy separates one from the Body of the Church. They say it over and over: “A heretic cannot be a member of the Church, much less its head; Pope X is/was a heretic.” Such thinking is absolutely contrary to the mind of the Church on these two major points: 1) That a “heretic” is any person who (judged by any person) merely says something contrary to the faith; 2) That the sin of heresy (sometimes even less than that, they say – even ignorant material heresy or lesser error) makes one a non-Catholic.
–
(Fr. Berry notes further that perfect observance of the three bonds of external unity (that which unites to the Body) is not necessary: “These conditions may be briefly summarized in one phrase: The reception of Baptism, and the preservation of the unities – unity of faith, unity of worship, and unity of government; or in other words, reception of Baptism and submission to the teaching and ruling authority of the Church. ***It should be noted, however, that perfect observance of the unities is not required for mere membership in the Church***; a person need not make an explicit profession of faith at all times; nor conform all his actions to it. He need not make a diligent use of the Sacraments at all times, neither must he be free from all infractions of Church laws and precepts.”)
–
(We can say that the material aspect of unity with the Body is profession of true doctrine, while the formal aspect is the adherence to the Church in principle as absolute rule of faith. Material errors or faults do not by any means necessarily destroy the formal aspect of unity, which is what is essential.)
–
To neuter of the silly, facile objection of, “these are only theologians,” we can quote the catechism of *The Council of Trent*: “A person is not to be called a heretic as soon as he shall have offended in matters of faith; ***but he is a heretic who, having disregarded the authority of the Church***, maintains an impious opinion with pertinacity.” (The Catechism of the Council of Trent, p. 96) We’ve already had, in these spaces, “Cyprian” spitting upon this very definition of heresy, when it was referenced before. Now here it is straight out of Trent.
–
More references from esteemed theologians are available (from Cardinal Billot, for example) to demonstrate that merely uttering a heretical statement does not make one a *Catholic* a heretic – and that the sin of heresy does not severe one from the visible Body either (as noted above).
–
And now on to what seems to be a VERY common (and critical) misunderstanding among sedevacantists: The fact that “material heretic” is not, according to the language of the Church, a term that applies to Catholics *at all.* Rather, this phrase is used mean non-Catholics Christians: Protestants. (Above, “Cyprian” offered an entire treatise from Van Noort regarding the fact that material heretics are outside the Body of Christ, not understanding that he is speaking explicitly of Protestants, though it’s not really possible to miss that if you actually have the book in question and read it. That’s why proper understanding of this terminology is very important.)
–
A Protestant can have the theological virtue of Faith (and be bound to the Soul of the Church by desire, possibly), but he does not, by definition, have the external habit of Catholic faith, by definition. Nor can Catholics ever be called “material heretics” – that phrase applies to those outside the Body entirely (meaning Protestants, not Catholic). Cardinal Billot explains:
–
“Heretics are divided into formal and material. Formal heretics are those to whom the authority of the Church is sufficiently own; while material heretics are those who, being in invincible ignorance of the Church herself, in good faith choose some other guiding rule. So the heresy of material heretics is not imputable as sin, and indeed it is not necessarily incompatible with that supernatural faith which is the beginning and root of all justification… if you understand by the expression material heretic those alone, who, while professing subjection to the Church’s Magisterium in matters of faith, nevertheless still deny something defined by the Church because he did not know it was defined, or, by the same token, hold an opinion opposed to Catholic doctrine because he falsely thinks that the Church teaches it, it would be quite absurd to place material heretics outside the body of the true Church; but on this understanding the legitimate use of the expression would be entirely perverted.” (“De Ecclesia Christi,” as quoted in “True Or False Pope,” p102-103.
–
Note what Cardinal Billot is saying here: 1) Material heretics, by definition, are in *invincible ignorance* about the true Church – thus it is beyond dispute that they are NOT (and never were) baptized Catholics; 2) Material heresy, by definition, *is not sin*; 3) If the phrase “material heretic” could apply to Catholics, it would be “absurd” to consider them outside the Church (did you hear that, Cyprian?); 4) The legitimate use of the term “material heretic” is thus restricted to non-Catholic Christians – Protestants.
–
Things get worse for sedevacantist novelty when we learn that Bellarmine taught that the interior virtue of faith is not necessary for Church membership, and that this is the common opinion of the Church (according to the esteemed theologian Msgr. Joseph Fenton for one). In fact, it seems that for any theologian who considered the effect on the Church’s visibility, the answer was clear: Faith cannot be a necessary attribute for membership because then *members of the Church are not visible.* We don’t want a Protestant definition of the Church, do we?
–
So, we see that sedevacantist insistence that the sin of heresy (or even less – what they mistakenly call “material heresy” of a Catholic) makes one a non-member of the Catholic Church is pure bunk. And this is far from the end of their problems: Note that every theologian describing the criteria for membership in the Church specifies submission to the supreme pontiff as necessary (at least formally; material resistance to non-binding error is another subject). The sedes, of course, deny that there IS a supreme pontiff, OR valid bishops with jurisdiction, or any visible Church at all now. The fact that this is regarded universally as a necessary criteria of membership in the Body is a large hint that sedevacantist ecclesiology is seriously broken: In fact, they have adopted a Protestant-style, heretical definition of the Church as an invisible body of scattered true believers (this is the subject of another essay).
–
The notion that stating a material error would instantly make one a non-Catholic is, in fact, preposterous, both based on reason and doctrine and the fact that it has been entirely obvious for 2,000 years that the Church does not operate that way. Many Catholics make statements, at one time or another, contrary to some de fide teaching, unintentionally; there is no pertinacity in error, no rejection of the Church as the rule of faith. The Church in no time has indicated such people are no longer Catholics, just as those temporarily failing one of the other three bonds of external unity (such as reception of the sacraments) are not suddenly excommunicated.
–
We could cite many historical examples, but a particularly good one has to do with St. Bellarmine himself, Doctor of the Church, who always considered a fellow theologian who had been teaching heresy for years, and been rebuked by the Holy See for it multiple times, as a Catholic in good standing, because he had not been condemned by the Church as a formal heretic and excommunicated. Another is the case of Pope St. Pius Xth declaring, in a specific case, that even family’s long-term attendance at Protestant services, instead of Mass, and public denial of Catholic dogma on the Eucharist, did not separate them from the Church; even that was not even to conclude they had left the Catholic faith because they continued to publicly profess that they were Catholics. Most certainly, today’s sedevacantists, with their entirely novel definitions of heresy and Church membership, would have a quite a difficult time getting their heads around how the sainted popes and doctors of the Church *really* treated towards even those Catholics openly professing heresy (but not indicating overtly they rejected the Church as the rule of faith). (If Steven Speray hears of the latter case he will likely declare Pope St. Pius Xth an antipope; he’s done the same with others for less than that.)
–
In short, sedevacantists generally make no distinction whatever between the Body and the Soul of the Church and simply have no idea what the Church teaches about membership in the Church. They take quotes regarding the sin of heresy causing the absence of Faith and the loss of sanctifying grace to mean lack of membership in the visible Body, which IS what the term “member of the Church” refers to.
I need to post this now that Fr. Kramer is being cited as an authority here.
–
Fr. Kramer’s Lack Of Confidence
–
Fr. Kramer has been publicly attacking the book “True Or False Pope” since sometime in mid-2016, but in a fashion that is difficult to describe as something other than “cowardly.”
–
Fr. Kramer has been speaking to his followers via two means since he began this crusade: Via his Facebook page and private emails. Both of these mediums have the advantage of making him (or so he apparently imagined) immune from criticism. On Facebook, he immediately blocked Messrs. Salza & Siscoe when they responded to what he posted, which was clearly and absolutely based on a false understanding of their teachings (it became clear immediately that he simply had not read the book, and furthermore that he’d already decided for himself that Francis was an “anti-pope.”
–
After a period of indirect confrontation, with Fr. Kramer spreading erroneous teachings of his own and distortions of what True Or False Pope explains (which is simply an exposition of Catholic teaching), one of Fr. Kramer’s own friends approached him with the suggestion the he, Fr. Kramer, submit his writings along with Salza/Siscoe’s to an independent panel of traditional theologians that *both parties agreed to* – from the SSPX, ICK, and/or FSSP.
–
Could any reasonable person who had confident his theological teachings fail to agree to something so generous? Apparently there is not a single theologian Fr. Kramer trusts to evaluate his “antipope” thesis.
–
He refuses to have his work evaluated by Traditional theologians – and was trained in what he himself now calls the counterfeit Novus Ordo church!
–
Salza & Siscoe put it well: “Evidently, Kramer’s cult followers on Facebook are quite impressed with his credentials. And this is why Kramer refuses to submit his work to a panel of his peers for their judgment on his work; because he can’t bully them and play the ‘cleric card’ as he has done with us. Never mind that all the Cardinals and bishops (not mere laymen) of the Catholic Church also reject Kramer’s ‘antipope’ Francis position. Kramer does not want to be refuted by our fellow priests and seminary professors, whether it be from the Society of St. Pius X, the Institute of Christ the King, the Fraternity of St. Peter, or even by his fellow friends in the so-called ‘Resistance,’ who also support our work. Fr. Kramer evidently suspects that he would not fare very well with such priests, just like he hasn’t fared very well with us.”
–
Fr. Kramer also associates with (is the spiritual director for) Eric Gajewski, an apparently mentally ill man who now claims to the “Great Catholic Monarch” foretold by some prophets, and quotes & approves of Steven Speray, a sedevacantist who rejects not only Popes John XXIII forward but also numerous pre-Vatican II popes as well (based, as always, on his private judgment that they were heretics).
–
Fr. Kramer’s following is indeed best described as a cult of personality. His followers are generally exposed to little or no counter material; Fr. Kramer makes sure of that to the extent possible. But they should consider the question of why, if he is so certain he is correct that he is able to determine himself that Francis is an antipope, there is apparently no theologian in the world he’s confident will agree with him.
–
http://www.trueorfalsepope.com/p/thekramer-files-cowardice-of-fr.html
A Catholic Thinker,
You didn’t address my comment, nor the quotes from Satis Cognitum.
Please do so.
Thanks.
St. Cyprian in the vast majority of this debate almost always relies on the teaching of a Pope, Saint, or Theologian of the Church for his position (or even just to demonstrate that Catholic Thinker’s position is erroneous). Catholic Thinker always attacks St. Cyprian’s arguments as if St. Cyprian came up with them himself. He states, e.g., “I posted this before, but I’ve got a newer version that, among other things, addresses some of Cyprian’s recurring errors above”.
–
The errors, if they are errors, are not mine; they would be the errors of the Pope, Saint or Theologian of the Church I am relying on. But if some internet genius like Catholic Thinker continually attacked Pope Pius XII, St. Jerome, Van Noort, Coronata, Vernz, etc. one might ask, who does this internet genius think he is to question the teachings of such august personages!
–
Instead, Catholic Thinker engages in the dark arts of alchemy. He chooses to restart the debate in a new part of the thread, and by his dark arts, an opinion of Pope Pius XII or Van Noort suddenly becomes that of St. Cyprian. Well, St. Cyprian is far too modest to take credit for the opinions of these learned men, and demands that Catholic Thinker stop giving him credit for them. Further, if Catholic Thinker believes that a Pope, Saint or Theologian is wrong about something, he should just say it! After all, he is the “Catholic Thinker”!
–
In any case just to give the reader an example of Catholic Thinker’s alchemy, he wrote this lengthy effort at obfuscation so he could state this and be taken seriously by his Irish acolyte:
–
“THE NOTION THAT STATING A MATERIAL ERROR WOULD INSTANTLY MAKE ONE A NON-CATHOLIC IS, IN FACT, PREPOSTEROUS, BOTH BASED ON REASON AND DOCTRINE AND THE FACT THAT IT HAS BEEN ENTIRELY OBVIOUS FOR 2,000 YEARS THAT THE CHURCH DOES NOT OPERATE THAT WAY. Many Catholics make statements, at one time or another, contrary to some de fide teaching, unintentionally; there is no pertinacity in error, no rejection of the Church as the rule of faith. The Church in no time has indicated such people are no longer Catholics, just as those temporarily failing one of the other three bonds of external unity (such as reception of the sacraments) are not suddenly excommunicated.” [caps added for emphasis]
–
St. Cyprian investigated the claim appearing in the emphasized portion above and found a discussion of the issue in a quote from a book by the theologian Van Noort. This is what VAN NOORT, not ST. CYPRIAN, had to say:
–
“PUBLIC HERETICS (AND A FORTIORI, APOSTATES) ARE NOT MEMBERS OF THE CHURCH. THEY ARE NOT MEMBERS BECAUSE THEY SEPARATE THEMSELVES FROM THE UNITY OF CATHOLIC FAITH AND FROM EXTERNAL PROFESSION OF THAT FAITH. Obviously, therefore, they lack one of three factors—baptism, profession of the same faith, union with the hierarchy—pointed out by Pius XII as requisite for membership in the Church. The same pontiff has explicitly pointed out that, unlike other sins, heresy, schism, and apostasy automatically sever a man from the Church. ‘For not every sin, however grave and enormous it be, is such as to sever a man automatically from the Body of the Church, as does schism or heresy or apostasy’.
–
BY THE TERM PUBLIC HERETICS AT THIS POINT WE MEAN ALL WHO EXTERNALLY DENY A TRUTH (for example Mary’s Divine Maternity), or several truths of divine and Catholic faith, REGARDLESS OF WHETHER THE ONE DENYING DOES SO IGNORANTLY AND INNOCENTLY (A MERELY MATERIAL HERETIC), OR WILLFULLY AND GUILTILY (A FORMAL HERETIC). It is certain that public, formal heretics are severed from the Church membership. IT IS THE MORE COMMON OPINION THAT PUBLIC, MATERIAL HERETICS ARE LIKEWISE EXCLUDED FROM MEMBERSHIP. THEOLOGICAL REASONING FOR THIS OPINION IS QUITE STRONG: IF PUBLIC MATERIAL HERETICS REMAINED MEMBERS OF THE CHURCH, THE VISIBILITY AND UNITY OF CHRIST’S CHURCH WOULD PERISH. If these purely material heretics were considered members of the Catholic Church in the strict sense of the term, how would one ever locate the ‘Catholic Church’? How would the Church be one body? How would it profess one faith? Where would be its visibility? Where its unity? For these and other reasons we find it difficult to see any intrinsic probability to the opinion which would allow for public heretics, in good faith, remaining members of the Church.” [caps added for emphasis]
–
Dogmatic Theology Volume II: Christ’s Church, Van Noort, p. 241-242
–
What do we learn from this quote from Van Noort? Van Noort believes that the issue WHICH CATHOLIC THINKER BELIEVES IS SETTLED according to Van Noort REMAINS A MATTER OF OPINION. So Catholic Thinker is wrong at the start. He doesn’t even know that the issue of whether material heretics or Catholics in error (depending on how one characterizes such individuals) are members of the Church has not been settled definitively (at least according to Van Noort). So Catholic Thinker’s first error constitutes representing a situation as settled that according to one theologian, is still a matter of opinion. So unless one believes that John Salza can settle these matters definitively, St. Cyprian is not in error for holding a position that Catholic Thinker disagrees with.
–
The second error Catholic Thinker makes is believing that the position which he adopts as the correct position, if he would admit that the issue is a matter of opinion, is THE MAJORITY OPINION. According to Van Noort, Catholic Thinker’s position is actually the MINORITY OPINION. Van Noort represents the majority opinion as follows: “IT IS THE MORE COMMON OPINION THAT PUBLIC, MATERIAL HERETICS ARE LIKEWISE EXCLUDED FROM MEMBERSHIP. THEOLOGICAL REASONING FOR THIS OPINION IS QUITE STRONG: IF PUBLIC MATERIAL HERETICS REMAINED MEMBERS OF THE CHURCH, THE VISIBILITY AND UNITY OF CHRIST’S CHURCH WOULD PERISH.”
–
Van Noort goes on to state why it is problematic to believe that public material heretics remain members of the Church as follows:
–
” If these purely material heretics were considered members of the Catholic Church in the strict sense of the term, how would one ever locate the ‘Catholic Church’? How would the Church be one body? How would it profess one faith? Where would be its visibility? Where its unity? For these and other reasons we find it difficult to see any intrinsic probability to the opinion which would allow for public heretics, in good faith, remaining members of the Church.”
–
Given that Catholic Thinker is always harping on the harm done by sedevacantism to the visibility of the Church he would know and admit the harm his own position does to the visibility of the Church, wouldn’t one think? Why did Catholic Thinker not fess up and admit the problems identified by Van Noort? And after this simple demonstration of how Catholic Thinker operates with his proxy attacks on Popes, Saints and Theologians of the Church why anyone would take him seriously is beyond me.
“St. Cyprian in the vast majority of this debate almost always relies on the teaching of a Pope, Saint, or Theologian of the Church for his position (or even just to demonstrate that Catholic Thinker’s position is erroneous).”
–
That is preposterous. I don’t care if you don’t realize it: Others do. Reasonable people do. People honestly searching for the truth do.
–
You post snippets and misunderstand or distort them. The people you’re quoting don’t believe what you believe about the Church, which we know as fact.
–
You also contradict yourself again & again. You post extended quotes from books you either don’t have or haven’t read, because you miss the overarching teachings, definitions of terms, etc.
“The second error Catholic Thinker makes is believing that the position which he adopts as the correct position, if he would admit that the issue is a matter of opinion, is THE MAJORITY OPINION. According to Van Noort, Catholic Thinker’s position is actually the MINORITY OPINION. Van Noort represents the majority opinion as follows: “IT IS THE MORE COMMON OPINION THAT PUBLIC, MATERIAL HERETICS ARE LIKEWISE EXCLUDED FROM MEMBERSHIP. THEOLOGICAL REASONING FOR THIS OPINION IS QUITE STRONG: IF PUBLIC MATERIAL HERETICS REMAINED MEMBERS OF THE CHURCH, THE VISIBILITY AND UNITY OF CHRIST’S CHURCH WOULD PERISH.”
–
You are just beyond all belief. Do you even read what I post now? Again, these quotes referring to “material heretics” BY DEFINITION refer to Protestants, NOT Catholics. I have posted quotes from three different saints/bishops/theologians stating that directly now.
–
You’re a Protestant proof-texter. Your mechanisms are theirs and your errors just as large.
–
And, yes, YOU are outside the Church: You have renounced the Church. You declare that the visible Catholic Church, which is the very Body Christ instituted, built on Peter, with his perpetual successors, is not the Church, but there can be no other.
Oh, I’ll get to it. We’re off to Mass shortly.
Let’s go back to Square 1 for Cyprian for a moment: He can know his exegesis is false since no one in the Church ever taught what he believes on the core matter at hand.
–
Every Theologian Who Ever Spoke On The Topic Agrees A Judgement By The Church Is Necessary For A Heretical Pope To Be Deposed
–
Sedevacantists constantly quote Bellarmine, completely out of context, believing he support their (insane) view that the sin of heresy separates a Catholic from the Body of the Church and hence from ecclesiastical office, but he did not teach that – no theologian did.
–
There were essentially two schools of debate on the matter, one of them – led by Bellarmine and his contemporary Suarez – teaching that a pope would be deposed immediately upon his conviction of the crime of heresy by the Church, and the other – led by John of St. Thomas and Cajetan – being even *more* conservative, and opining that after this judgment of heresy, another step by the Church was necessary before a pope could be deposed by Christ: A judgment by an “imperfect council” that he was to be avoided.
–
In the end, the debate is academic, since absolutely nowhere is the sedevacantism position to be found. That position arose completely from a misreading of Bellarmine (with probably a good deal of wishful thinking), not understanding that when Bellarmine speaks of a “heretical pope,” he means one have been *judged so by the Church*.
–
That this is indisputable is proven, among other things, by his refutation of the “Second Opinion” (he outlined five opinions on the matter):
–
“The second opinion is that the Pope, in the very instant in which he falls into heresy, even if it is only interior, is outside the Church and deposed by God, for which reason he can be judged by the Church. That is, he is declared deposed by divine law, and deposed de facto, if he still refused to yield. This is of John de Turrecremata, but it is not proven to me. For jurisdiction is certainly given to the Pontiff by God, but with the agreement of men, as is obvious; ***because this man, who beforehand was not Pope, has from men that he would begin to be Pope, therefore, he is not removed by God unless it is through men***. But a secret heretic cannot be judged by men, nor would such wish to relinquish that power by his own will. Add, that the foundation of this opinion is that secret heretics are outside the Church, which is false, and we will amply demonstrate this in our tract de Ecclesia, bk 1.”
–
Now for many years – and probably still today – one could never find this quote on any of the sede websites, even though there was no doubt they knew of it. Why was that?
–
As for the new objection that he was speaking only of occult heretics, that may have been the opinion he was refuting, but his statement that men (the Church) must be involved in deposing a pope (as dispositive cause) applies to any scenario.
–
Furthermore, since sedes constantly, in their inconsistency, *also* argue that the sin of heresy (which lies in the internal forum) severs a man from the Body of Christ (completely false) and thus from his office, there is further relevance (that is another topic and one equally easy to refute).
–
We’ve taken care of Bellarmine – what of his contemporary, Suarez?
–
Suarez: “Therefore, others [e.g., Azorius] affirm the Church is superior to the Pope in the case of heresy, but this is difficult to say. For Christ the Lord constituted the Pope as supreme judge absolutely; even the canons indifferently and generally affirm this; and at length the Church does not validly exercise any act of jurisdiction against the Pope; nor is the power conferred to him by election, rather merely designates a person upon whom Christ confers the power by himself; ***Therefore on deposing a heretical Pope, the Church would not act as superior to him, but juridically and by the consent of Christ she would declare him a heretic and therefore unworthy of Pontifical honors; he would then ipso facto and immediately be deposed by Christ***…”
–
Suarez said also, “***In no case, even that of heresy, is the Pontiff deprived of his dignity and of his power immediately by God himself, before the judgment and sentence of men. This is the common opinion today.***”
–
Now, Suarez and Bellarmine had the *same* opinion, something that cannot even be doubted (despite the evidence) since Suarez never could have claimed that his opinion was the common one if the great theologian Bellarmine had a contrary view.
–
Now, remember, John of St. Thomas and Cajetan required even *more* from the Church before they believed a heretical pope would be deposed by Christ (as the efficient cause).
Since “Cyprian” does not read or fails to understanding anything posted that contradicts his novel theology – and, yes, indeed it is HIS/the sedes’ theology, not that of St. Bellarmine, Van Noort, Ott, Pope St. Pius Xth, or any other authority that ever existed in the Church – let’s address one of his root errors one more time. And if he again responds with the same false position that underlies his confusion – that “material heretics” refers to members of the Catholic Church – I’ll respond again. And the audience will who is expressing truth and who is bound by will & emotion.
–
A Protestant can have the theological virtue of Faith (and be bound to the Soul of the Church by desire, possibly), but he does not, by definition, have the external habit of Catholic faith, by definition. Nor can Catholics ever be called “material heretics” – that phrase applies to those outside the Body entirely (meaning Protestants, not Catholic). Cardinal Billot explains:
–
“Heretics are divided into formal and material. Formal heretics are those to whom the authority of the Church is sufficiently own; while material heretics are those who, being in invincible ignorance of the Church herself, in good faith choose some other guiding rule. So the heresy of material heretics is not imputable as sin, and indeed it is not necessarily incompatible with that supernatural faith which is the beginning and root of all justification… if you understand by the expression material heretic those alone, who, while professing subjection to the Church’s Magisterium in matters of faith, nevertheless still deny something defined by the Church because he did not know it was defined, or, by the same token, hold an opinion opposed to Catholic doctrine because he falsely thinks that the Church teaches it, it would be quite absurd to place material heretics outside the body of the true Church; but on this understanding the legitimate use of the expression would be entirely perverted.” (“De Ecclesia Christi,” as quoted in “True Or False Pope,” p102-103.
–
Note what Cardinal Billot is saying here: 1) Material heretics, by definition, are in *invincible ignorance* about the true Church – thus it is beyond dispute that they are NOT (and never were) baptized Catholics; 2) Material heresy, by definition, *is not sin*; 3) If the phrase “material heretic” could apply to Catholics, it would be “absurd” to consider them outside the Church (did you hear that, Cyprian?); 4) The legitimate use of the term “material heretic” is thus restricted to non-Catholic Christians – Protestants.
–
I’m going to try to avoid putting every other sentence in ALL CAPS as does Mr. Cyprian, but, the point: BY THE VERY THEOLOGIAN DEFINITION OF THE TERM, “MATERIAL HERETIC” REFERS TO PROTESTANTS. (I can’t just say “non-Catholics,” even though most people – like anyone RAISED Catholic – would know what I mean (a baptized Catholic who hasn’t renounced the Church (like sedes) or been excommunicated), because Cyprian thinks he can decide who in the world is or is not a member of the Catholic Church by deciding which of them have uttered material heresy at any time in the past – according to his judgement.)
–
This is also entirely clear in the book by Van Noort that Cyprian quotes from – he just doesn’t include that part. I will, before long, but that is enough. AND it’s clear by the gift of reason and the way the Church has actually BEHAVED for 2,000 years.
–
Cyprian, your spiritual blindness and anger are more evidence at every turn. Is this the result of sedevacantist that we see so often? It certainly is. Consider abandoning your errors and returning to the Church to fight modernism within her instead of throwing stones from the outside.
@Catholic Thinker: Why did you split your reply to my SINGLE comment into FIVE separate comments posted back-to-back? To push my comment off the comment stack and to obscure it. If you are so sure of your position and your powers of persuasion why are you acting in this manner? You’re the one who said this: “We can see from this short treatise that the entire sedevacantist foundation is a load of CHAFF.” You obviously understand the comment of “jamming” from electronic warfare, and this is exactly what you are doing here. You’re flooding this thread with duplicative comments to obscure those comments you don’t like from the view of others.
–
Regarding your claim that Van Noort, when he was speaking of material heretics, was only speaking of protestants, is refuted by Van Noort himself. He started his discussion as follows: “BY THE TERM PUBLIC HERETICS AT THIS POINT WE MEAN ALL WHO EXTERNALLY DENY A TRUTH.” He then drew the distinction between formal and material heretics. I don’t think Van Noort was speaking of protestants here; in any case, his formulation certainly includes all catholics both those who formally deny a truth and those who mistakenly in good faith deny a truth – that is the clear scope of “BY THE TERM PUBLIC HERETICS WE MEAN ALL WHO EXTERNALLY DENY A TRUTH”. Such a formulation encompasses both categories of Catholic.
@Catholic Thinker: St Cyprian engages in disputation because he is trying to figure out how, as a Catholic, he should be disposed to the current crisis in the Church. St. Cyprian does not exclude the possibility that he will be persuaded that sedevacantism is erroneous. Since my pursuit is ultimately about the truth, I cannot exclude this as a possibility.
–
I spent the day trying to find support for my interpretation of Van Noort regarding so-called “material heretics”. Even a sede article on the subject said it is incorrect to characterize a catholic in good faith who has adopted an erroneous position a “material heretic” because the Catholic in good faith is assumed to submit to the Church as the rule of faith and that is what Church membership depends on.
–
So regarding the Van Noort quote, until I find support for my interpretation of the second paragraph, I withdraw my statements regarding the majority and minority positions. Nonetheless, the teaching of Van Noort regarding formal heretics still stands:
–
“PUBLIC HERETICS (AND A FORTIORI, APOSTATES) ARE NOT MEMBERS OF THE CHURCH. THEY ARE NOT MEMBERS BECAUSE THEY SEPARATE THEMSELVES FROM THE UNITY OF CATHOLIC FAITH AND FROM EXTERNAL PROFESSION OF THAT FAITH. Obviously, therefore, they lack one of three factors—baptism, profession of the same faith, union with the hierarchy—pointed out by Pius XII as requisite for membership in the Church. The same pontiff has explicitly pointed out that, unlike other sins, heresy, schism, and apostasy automatically sever a man from the Church. ‘For not every sin, however grave and enormous it be, is such as to sever a man automatically from the Body of the Church, as does schism or heresy or apostasy’.
–
BY THE TERM PUBLIC HERETICS AT THIS POINT WE MEAN ALL WHO EXTERNALLY DENY A TRUTH (for example Mary’s Divine Maternity), or several truths of divine and Catholic faith, REGARDLESS OF WHETHER THE ONE DENYING DOES SO IGNORANTLY AND INNOCENTLY (A MERELY MATERIAL HERETIC), OR WILLFULLY AND GUILTILY (A FORMAL HERETIC). IT IS CERTAIN THAT PUBLIC, FORMAL HERETICS ARE SEVERED FROM THE CHURCH.
–
The most relevant portion of the Van Noort quote is that public formal heretics SEPARATE THEMSELVES from the unity of Catholic Faith. Public formal heretic certainly includes Catholics. In addition,
“So could you please stop setting up strawman? I don’t believe the internal sin of heresy means we could disregard a claimant to the papacy, but MANIFEST heresy.”
–
More than one sedevacantist here HAS suggested that the SIN of heresy makes any Catholic a non-Catholic and thus non-pope. This is based on misunderstanding of Mystici Corporis Christi, generally, though not always. I’m typically debating four or five people here at once, and sedes constantly change tactics: As soon as one road is blocked, they start a different line of false reasoning. So your accusation was not warranted.
–
“And sedevacantism doesn’t destroy in the indefectibility of the Church one bit. The Catholic Church doesn’t need a human head at all moments, as proven by interregnums. She always has Christ as the Head. The Church has never put a limit on how long an interregnum can be.”
–
Vatican I defined, infallibly, that Peter will have perpetual successors until the end of time. Obviously (to anyone reasonable) interregnums do not do violence to this teaching. See my other posts here relating the dogma and theological commentary on it. There has never, in nearly 2,000 years, been an interregnum longer than short of two years, and that was very rare. There is nobody who calls six decades an “interregnum,” *especially* because according to the sede position *there is no way to elect a pope*! This is most definitely a violation of the Vatican I teaching and the way it’s been interpreted by the theologians.
–
“And how would you reply to a sedevacantist bringing up the following – Pope Leo XIII, Satis Cognitum (# 9), June 29, 1896: ‘The practice of the Church has always been the same, and that with the consenting judgment [i.e. consensus] of the holy fathers who certainly were accustomed to hold as having no part of Catholic communion and as banished from the Church whoever had departed in even the least way from the doctrine proposed by the authentic Magisterium.’”
–
First you complain that sedes’ (frequent) suggesting the *sin* of heresy separates one from the Body (external membership) is a straw man, and now you’re clearly suggesting exactly the same thing – or even less! (“Departing in the least way” could be not imputable as sin; honest misunderstanding of dogma.)
–
Does the quote above include the qualification of manifest heresy? Clearly not: “… departed in even the least way…” is the sole criteria given. So, here’s lesson #1: Stop proof-texting. Stop reading snippets of papal encyclicals and believing you can interpret them infallibly, assuming the are meant to be de fide teachings in isolation, just as Protestants do with snippets of Scripture.
–
Of course, manifest (formal) heresy in the case of a Catholic is proven only by DIRECT denial of the Church as the rule of faith (as sedevacantists do when they label the Catholic Church a “false church”) or by some ecclesiastical action – NOT by any private person who believes he can judge the internal forum.
–
“The Arians, the Montanists, the Novatians, the Quartodecimans, the Eutychians, did not certainly reject all Catholic doctrine: they abandoned only a certain portion of it. Still who does not know that they were declared heretics and banished from the bosom of the Church?”
–
Did you notice the parts about these formal heretics being DECLARED HERETICS (by the Church) and BANISHED (by the Church)? And you seriously present this to justify the sedevacantist position? Of course it does exactly the opposite.
–
So, what the text says – directly – is that THE CHURCH judges pertinacity in heresy. In doing so it establishes that the critical element of heresy is present: The rejection of the Church as the rule of faith. (Again, “heresy” = “choosing,” literally.)
–
I’m going to stop here rather than continue with the other snippets. The pattern has been established.
–
–
In the case of bishops, an ecumenical council of the Church condemned any Catholic who would dare to formally separate himself from his bishop *without a judgement by the Church.* In the case of the bishop of Rome, Vicar of Christ, every theologian who ever spoke on the topic agreed that there is an ecclesiastical process of formal warning that must be undertaken to establish pertinacity in heresy. Etc.
–
It is indeed a terrible tragedy that there is such immense confusion in the Church today. This confusion has to be laid, primarily, at the feet of the prelates, including popes, who have imbibed diabolical disorientation and thus failed to consistently publicly articulate the true teachings of the Catholic Church (and even contradict it). But, no, this doesn’t mean they’ve magically lost their ecclesiastical offices in the external forum. That requires judgement *by the Church,* not by you or any other individual, as every theologian (and council, and pope) who ever spoke on the matter taught clearly. See my other essays here for details.
–
Finally, for the 10th time or so here, if you believe what you’re suggesting here, you should abandon any pretend of the Catholic faith, because you should be able to realize in about two seconds that no teaching of the Church could possibly be certain. You can’t possible know if any past pope deviated from the faith in any way – even publicly – you could only know if he were CONDEMNED BY THE CHURCH, as there would be a record of that. Since all dogma are either authored by or ratified by a pope, you are declaring you have no moral certainty in any Catholic dogma. This is one of the many ways sedevacantism undoes itself. It is, honestly, madness.
Here it is:
–
“So could you please stop setting up strawman? I don’t believe the internal sin of heresy means we could disregard a claimant to the papacy, but MANIFEST heresy.”
–
More than one sedevacantist here HAS suggested that the SIN of heresy makes any Catholic a non-Catholic and thus non-pope. This is based on misunderstanding of Mystici Corporis Christi, generally, though not always. I’m typically debating four or five people here at once, and sedes constantly change tactics: As soon as one road is blocked, they start a different line of false reasoning. So your accusation was not warranted.
–
“And sedevacantism doesn’t destroy in the indefectibility of the Church one bit. The Catholic Church doesn’t need a human head at all moments, as proven by interregnums. She always has Christ as the Head. The Church has never put a limit on how long an interregnum can be.”
–
Vatican I defined, infallibly, that Peter will have perpetual successors until the end of time. Obviously (to anyone reasonable) interregnums do not do violence to this teaching. See my other posts here relating the dogma and theological commentary on it. There has never, in nearly 2,000 years, been an interregnum longer than short of two years, and that was very rare. There is nobody who calls six decades an “interregnum,” *especially* because according to the sede position *there is no way to elect a pope*! This is most definitely a violation of the Vatican I teaching and the way it’s been interpreted by the theologians.
–
“And how would you reply to a sedevacantist bringing up the following – Pope Leo XIII, Satis Cognitum (# 9), June 29, 1896: ‘The practice of the Church has always been the same, and that with the consenting judgment [i.e. consensus] of the holy fathers who certainly were accustomed to hold as having no part of Catholic communion and as banished from the Church whoever had departed in even the least way from the doctrine proposed by the authentic Magisterium.’”
–
First you complain that sedes’ (frequent) suggesting the *sin* of heresy separates one from the Body (external membership) is a straw man, and now you’re clearly suggesting exactly the same thing – or even less! (“Departing in the least way” could be not imputable as sin; honest misunderstanding of dogma.)
–
Does the quote above include the qualification of manifest heresy? Clearly not: “… departed in even the least way…” is the sole criteria given. So, here’s lesson #1: Stop proof-texting. Stop reading snippets of papal encyclicals and believing you can interpret them infallibly, assuming the are meant to be de fide teachings in isolation, just as Protestants do with snippets of Scripture.
–
Of course, manifest (formal) heresy in the case of a Catholic is proven only by DIRECT denial of the Church as the rule of faith (as sedevacantists do when they label the Catholic Church a “false church”) or by some ecclesiastical action – NOT by any private person who believes he can judge the internal forum.
–
“The Arians, the Montanists, the Novatians, the Quartodecimans, the Eutychians, did not certainly reject all Catholic doctrine: they abandoned only a certain portion of it. Still who does not know that they were declared heretics and banished from the bosom of the Church?”
–
Did you notice the parts about these formal heretics being DECLARED HERETICS (by the Church) and BANISHED (by the Church)? And you seriously present this to justify the sedevacantist position? Of course it does exactly the opposite.
–
So, what the text says – directly – is that THE CHURCH judges pertinacity in heresy. In doing so it establishes that the critical element of heresy is present: The rejection of the Church as the rule of faith. (Again, “heresy” = “choosing,” literally.)
–
I’m going to stop here rather than continue with the other snippets. The pattern has been established.
–
–
In the case of bishops, an ecumenical council of the Church condemned any Catholic who would dare to formally separate himself from his bishop *without a judgement by the Church.* In the case of the bishop of Rome, Vicar of Christ, every theologian who ever spoke on the topic agreed that there is an ecclesiastical process of formal warning that must be undertaken to establish pertinacity in heresy. Etc.
–
It is indeed a terrible tragedy that there is such immense confusion in the Church today. This confusion has to be laid, primarily, at the feet of the prelates, including popes, who have imbibed diabolical disorientation and thus failed to consistently publicly articulate the true teachings of the Catholic Church (and even contradict it). But, no, this doesn’t mean they’ve magically lost their ecclesiastical offices in the external forum. That requires judgement *by the Church,* not by you or any other individual, as every theologian (and council, and pope) who ever spoke on the matter taught clearly. See my other essays here for details.
–
Finally, for the 10th time or so here, if you believe what you’re suggesting here, you should abandon any pretend of the Catholic faith, because you should be able to realize in about two seconds that no teaching of the Church could possibly be certain. You can’t possible know if any past pope deviated from the faith in any way – even publicly – you could only know if he were CONDEMNED BY THE CHURCH, as there would be a record of that. Since all dogma are either authored by or ratified by a pope, you are declaring you have no moral certainty in any Catholic dogma. This is one of the many ways sedevacantism undoes itself. It is, honestly, madness.
“@Catholic Thinker: Why did you split your reply to my SINGLE comment into FIVE separate comments posted back-to-back? To push my comment off the comment stack and to obscure it.”
–
Does the judgement of internals know no bounds? You should realize that your accusation is rash and also a good example of calumny. But that’s Ok. And, I do not fear your comments. (Further, do five short comments take up more space than one comment with the same text?!)
–
I was replying quickly because I had little time; we were getting ready for Mass and have four little kids. It was touch & go. Perhaps I should have waited until I had a good block of time – of course, I’ve also been accused here of being defeated, etc., if I don’t respond to some facile argument in what has been determined to be a reasonable amount of time.
–
These things will all be made known on the last day, when every thought, word, and deed of all will be made known.
–
I only skimmed your replies but I noted something about being willing to consider being wrong. That’s great. No shame in that; we’re all extremely fallible. I’ve been wrong about a number of things in my life. This crisis is the fault of the bishops and popes with “itching ears” longing for the approval of the world.
–
I may have to be finished for the evening, though.
Thank you again for taking the time and making the effort to explain things with such perspicuity. Very helpful in this time of such evil in the Church. And thanks to Cyprian and others who’ve put up arguments that you’ve dealt with so clearly and patiently. We are all suffering great trauma from this unprecedented crisis in the Church. Lord, preserve us in the Faith
Per Canon Law (1917)- Heresy is the obstinate denial of just one article of faith, no declaration is needed. It seems that ACT may be confusing apostasy with heresy when he keeps claiming that the rule of faith needs to be rejected. Regardless, he keeps on telling us that a declaration is needed for one to be a formal heretic. He is mistaken. What makes this frustrating is that he refuses to submit to what most people would consider common sense. He is obviously a very intelligent man but here he is unable to connect the dots. According to his line of thinking, no anathema in the past should ever be taken seriously since we could never act on them ourselves anyway.
–
ACT would have written the anathemas similar to this: If any man ever says…, let him be anathema; but only after we declare that particular person anathema.
–
THE NEW CANON LAW
A Commentary and Summary of the New Code of Canon Law
By Rev. STANISLAUS WOYWOD, O.F.M.
With a Preface by Right Rev. Mgr. PHILIP BERNARDINI, J.U.D.
Professor of Canon Law at the Catholic University, Washington
New Edition, Augmented by Recent Decrees and Declarations
–
Commentary on 1917 Canon 1325
1168. The faithful are in conscience obliged to profess their faith publicly whenever their silence, subterfuge, or manner of acting, imports an implicit denial of their faith, a contempt of religion, or an insult to God, or scandal to the neighbor. A baptized Christian, who calls himself a Christian, yet obstinately denies or calls into doubt any of the truths to be believed by Divine and Catholic faith, is a heretic; if he abandons the Christian faith altogether he is called an apostate; if, finally, he refuses to be subject to the Supreme Pontiff, or to have communication with the members of the Church subject to the Roman Pontiff, he is a schismatic.
–
The Catholics shall not enter into any dispute or conferences with non-Catholics, especially public ones, without permission of the Holy See, or, in urgent case, of the Ordinary. (Canon 1325.)
–
One last thing, concerning Vatican I’s teaching on the papacy.
–
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.
–
This teaching was directed towards the Eastern schismatic churches that deny the supremacy of Peter’s successors over the whole Church. It simply does not mean that a human person has to be holding the papacy at all times. If I am incorrect here, please offer commentary from non-SSPX Monday night quarterbacks that would correct me.
–
According to ACT, one is not a formal heretic if they reject the Vatican I teaching until the Church declares that particular individual to be a formal heretic.
–
And as one of his predecessors put it: Père Joseph de Sainte Marie O. Carm
–
Some people think that they can justify their indiscriminate attitude by convincing themselves that the bishops – and the pope, the Abbé de Nantes adds – are heretics, and have consequently cut themselves off from communion with the Church. They must be reminded that only the formal sin of heresy or schism has the effect of excommunication, and not error in good faith. And in order for the sin of heresy or schism to be formal, the person who is materially in error must have been admonished by the hierarchy and called upon to retract his error or disobedience. As the hierarchy has today given up complying with this duty, the sin of schism or heresy is not consummated, nor, consequently, is communion with the Church broken. (Lettre à un Ami, No 16, 24th March 1975)
–
This was taken from Michael Davies, An Evaluation, by John S. Daly, chapter III.
–
http://novusordowatch.org/wp-content/uploads/michael-davies-evaluation.pdf
–
How convenient it is to now say a declaration is needed for one to be a formal heretic and in the next breath admit that the “hierarchy has today given up complying with this duty”! And we have certainly been witnesses to this dereliction of duty.
–
I recommend a close read of chapter III of John S. Daly’s book. At least you get the Sedevacantist argument uninterrupted and also a first hand account of the same argument we are having here.
ACT, please see page 145 of the book linked to below, p. 175 of the pdf. This shows that opinion II only deals with internal/occult heresy. It also lists a form of opinion IV to be heretical (Conciliarism).
–
http://www.traditioninaction.org/Questions/WebSources/B_612_AX-English.pdf
–
I have not finished reading this part of the book but wanted to share with you and others how the author understood Bellarmine. I have also come to learn that Michael Davies understood opinion II to only refer to occult heresy. Again, Salza & Siscoe seem to be the only ones I know of who have understood Bellarmine’s opinion II to include manifest/formal heresy.