Robert Siscoe & John Salza have launched a new podcast! Episode one was posted on YouTube on April 30. Unfortunately, it was it of a bit train wreck. There was, however, a few bright spots, including evidence that they’ve had a major change of heart…
In this episode of the akaCatholic Podcast, I’ll address Robert and John’s numerous mistakes and inconsistencies. For those who prefer to read, a transcript follows.
TRANSCRIPT
LOUIE: Welcome back to the akaCatholic Podcast. I’m your host, Louis Verrecchio.
Most of you are familiar with Robert Sisco and John Salza, primarily thanks to their anti-sedevacantist handbook, True or False Pope.
Now, as many of you know, at one time we were confrères of sorts in the traditionalist recognize-and-resist movement, occasionally spending time together at conferences where we were either speaking or just there in attendance.
And I have to say, I genuinely enjoyed their company back in the day. I did. And while I have no regrets whatsoever about pursuing and embracing the truths of the faith that brought me to this place, I do look back on that time, and those two guys, with some fondness.
I can also say in all sincerity that even though I disagree with their conclusions, one of the important things that we still have in common, and it’s somewhat rare, is a willingness to renounce previously held positions in favor of what we sincerely have come to believe to be true – even when that means creating distance between certain friends and colleagues and communities to which we once belonged.
And I respect that. I take it as a sign of hope. Who knows? Maybe one day we’ll find ourselves back on the same side of this battle. I sincerely hope so.
The way things currently stand, however, Siscoe and Salza are keen to insist that men who repeatedly, and publicly, and knowingly profess errors and heresies, false doctrines that stand in stark opposition to that which the sacred magisterium teaches, somehow these men remain members of the Mystical Body of Christ the Church.
And what’s more perplexing than this is that they believe that such men might even be the visible head of that Mystical Body, the Holy Roman Pontiff.
In this episode, I’m going to throw my old friends a lifeline that God willing they’ll take hold of and it just might open their eyes to the reality of this situation. Not according to my opinion, no, but as articulated and explained by the very theologians that they’re pleased to cite along the way.
Now the big news, if you haven’t heard it yet, is this: John and Robert have launched a new podcast of their own. Episode one of their podcast was posted on YouTube back on April 30th.
Unfortunately, I have to say it was a bit of a train wreck, not due to any personality flaws or bad production value or anything like that. It was a train wreck because their attempt to prove their point failed and it failed miserably.
About midway through the podcast, I was surprised – and to be honest about it, somewhat honored – that they chose one of my blog posts, one that I published back in 2018, to pick apart.
ROBERT SISCOE: This is an article from Louie Verrecchio, “Is Francis Catholic: The burden of proof. So here’s what he says:
Is Jorge Bergoglio (aka Francis and “the God of Surprises”) Catholic?
Yes, I know, this question has been posed many times by any number of persons. Usually, however, it is glossed over as an exercise in sarcasm or hyperbole; in particular by those who would answer “yes.”
Not only is this a serious question, it is the most important question facing the Catholic Church in our day, and, therefore, humanity as a whole.
While some might argue that the burden of proof is on those who would insist that Francis is not Catholic, they have it exactly backwards; their position being nothing more than a misapplication of the American judicial principle (that only applies when it pleases the government) that one is presumed innocent until proven guilty.
In Catholic thought, however, one is not simply presumed to be a member of the Church until proven otherwise; rather, there are well-established criteria that must be met in order for one to legitimately lay claim to such membership.
Then he quotes Mystici Corpus Christi…
LOUIE: Okay, first of all, I have to say, no insult intended, but you guys have made an art out of taking things out of context. So let me repeat for you the title to the post that you’re talking about. It’s titled: “Is Francis Catholic? The Burden of Proof.”
Okay, so this post was about Jorge Bergoglio specifically, and about his claim to membership in the Church. And as we’re going to get into in some detail here, membership in the Church is a visible reality, not just for popes, but for every member of the Church.
Likewise, non-membership in the Church is visible. It’s knowable. In the case of Francis, there was no mystery to be had there. It was pretty clear whether or not this man was a member of the Church. We’ll get into this.
Now remember, this article was written five years into the Bergoglian Reign of Terror.
It was written two years after the blasphemous and heretical Amoris Laetitia. In the face of reams of undeniable evidence that Jorge Bergoglio did not have the Catholic faith, I’d say, yeah, the burden of proof is on you to defend, and to maintain, that this man was a member of the Church just the same. I think that burden of proof is insurmountable.
That said, let’s take look at what Pope Pius XII had to say in Mystici Corporis, as I quoted in my article:
“Now since its Founder willed this social body of Christ to be visible, the cooperation of all its members must also be externally manifest through their profession of the same faith and their sharing the same sacred rites, through participation in the same Sacrifice, and the practical observance of the same laws.” (Mystici Corporis 69)
This profession of the same faith, which the Holy Father referred to elsewhere in this encyclical as “the true faith,” the Catholic faith, it’s not optional. And what’s more, it cannot be hidden. The Holy Father is very clear about this. He said it must be “externally manifest.”
Simple, right?
Commenting on this part of my article, Robert says:
ROBERT SISCOE: And so he says, “The signs that attest to one’s membership in the Church must be externally manifest, not determined by way of an examination of things otherwise hidden.”
“In other words, one’s Catholicity is not presumed,” says Louie, “rather it’s made evident in an external observable way.”
Okay. So, how would you verify then that someone’s a member of the Church? So, Louie, we’re supposed to assume that – and not just Louie the other sedevacantist – that all the bishops, you know, the pope, they’re not members of the Catholic Church, much less much less bishops of the Catholic Church? The pope’s not the pope? The local pastor of the Church is not a Catholic, not the pastor?
How would a Catholic say, in the 1900s, confirm that the purported pope is a member of the Church? How would they have verified that for themselves?
LOUIE: Okay, let’s begin with a point on which we all agree. Membership in the Church is not hidden. It’s not secret. Rather, it’s visible and knowable. No serious Catholic – and I’m including Robert and John in this as far as I know – no one denies this.
And it’s visible and knowable thanks in part to the unity of faith. That is, by virtue of the fact, as Pope Pius XII clearly teaches, that the profession of the true faith must be externally manifest.
We’ll talk about what that external manifestation of the true faith means as we move on.
Now anybody that has an issue with this has an issue, not with me, but with the constant teaching of the Catholic Church. And this being so, it’s not really necessary for us to assume anything when it comes to membership or non-membership in the Church. Again, my article is about Jorge Bergoglio, and say what you will about the guy, but he made no apologies for his heterodoxy. He wore it on his sleeve. He was proud of it.
Now, more broadly speaking, we have to say that we should, in charity, give the benefit of belief to someone who claims to be a member of the Church. We don’t need to play the role of the Inquisitor. Rather, we should accept their claim to be a member of the Church. We should accept that it’s genuine, provided, and this is important, provided there’s no substantial reason to doubt that claim, or perhaps to conclude otherwise.
Now in the case of a person with an extensive public record of giving witness to their faith, whether it’s a politician, or a high profile cleric, an author, or even more so a pope, there’s absolutely no reason to speculate at all.
So, Robert asked a question. He asked, how would a Catholic in centuries past confirm that the purported pope is a member of the Church?
Well, I have to say these appeals to bygone ages, they’re very popular with anti-sedevacantist types, but they’re totally irrelevant. Totally irrelevant.
The well-established criteria for membership in the Church don’t change based on date and time. They’re the same, whether news travels fast, or news travels slowly, or very little at all. In other words, a manifest obstinate heretic in Rome isn’t a member of the Church whether or not the faithful in some far away place even know the guy’s name
The truths of the faith regarding membership, its visibility, its knowability, they’re unchanging, regardless of the date and time.
That said, I find Robert’s choice of words here pretty interesting. He talked about a purported pope, which suggests to me that he’s thinking of situations where there’s reasons for doubt about the man’s claims to the papacy.
If Francis doesn’t come to your mind when you hear that, I don’t know what to tell you. Of course it does.
In any case, if the man in question really is the pope, then we don’t have to assume that he’s Catholic. We’ll know for a fact that the guy’s Catholic. If he’s the pope, he has to be! This is obvious.
Now, in fairness, it appears to me that what Robert is really asking is this. On what grounds would a Catholic be justified in concluding that a particular putative pope isn’t a member of the Church at all, much less the visible head of the Church on earth? And more importantly, is that even possible?
Well, the good news is, yes, of course it’s possible. Pope Pius XII made this plain, that membership in the Church must be externally manifest. And one of the ways in which it is visible and knowable is by way of the profession of the true faith.
The truth is, look, any man who’s claiming to be the pope is necessarily going to profess a faith, right? True or otherwise. And he’s going to do so in an externally manifest way, right? He’s going to teach it. He’ll defend it. He’ll explain it. Why? Well, because that’s what a pope can be expected to do. And the same can be said for an anti-pope, right?
Now, in this information age in which you and I live, this teaching and preaching on the part of the man who’s claiming to be the pope, it’s going to be widely known. It’s going to be readily accessible. And we don’t have to apologize for the fact that Catholics in some distant age didn’t have the same access to information that we have. It’s irrelevant.
Where things get interesting is when a man claiming to be Pope, or simply claiming to be Catholic, publicly professes not the true faith, but rather a false faith, one that stands in opposition to the true faith.
One of the reasons that I believe Siscoe and Salza are struggling here, seems to me, is because they’re not paying sufficient attention to the negative aspect of the positive requirement to profess the true faith. Namely, the reality that professing a false faith in an externally manifest way is incompatible with membership in the Church. In fact, it gives evidence to non-membership in the Church.
One of the theologians that Robert and John often quote, Cardinal Louis Billot, he addressed this very directly saying:
Unity of the profession of faith, which is dependent on the visible authority of the living magisterium, is the essential property by which Christ wanted his Church to be adorned forever. It follows clearly that those cannot be part of the Church who profess differently from what its magisterium teaches. (Billot, De Ecclesia)
What Cardinal Billot is explaining here is the negative aspect of Pope Pius’ teaching regarding the profession of the true faith. And it’s just common sense, right? I mean, those who profess differently from what the Church teaches cannot be considered part of the Church. It makes perfect sense.
And I want you to notice that neither Pius XII nor Cardinal Billot give any indication at all that the requirement to profess the true faith in an externally manifest way is limited to just like a short list of very basic doctrines. Okay, now maybe we’ll come back to this point later.
The bottom line is this: Jorge Mario Bergoglio had an extensive public track record of professing differently from what the magisterium teaches. And this is precisely what, according to Cardinal Billot, disqualifies him as part of the Church. This isn’t me speaking. This is Cardinal Billot, someone that Robert and John turn to frequently for insights into how to apply the primary sources like Mystici Corporis to our understanding of the Church, and to things like membership.
In that context, the question that I posed in my article stands and it demands an answer. I asked this:
How specifically was Bergoglio’s membership in the Catholic Church made externally manifest in his profession of the Catholic faith?
Now this is a question that Robert and John can’t answer because they know as well as anybody that Bergoglio did not profess the Catholic faith.
They know very well that he professed, frequently and in an externally manifest way, a different faith on many topics. And what’s more, when he was called to account to renounce his errors and to reaffirm his acceptance of the true faith, he steadfastly refused every time.
Robert went on to suggest that sedevacantists “believe that the profession of the true faith is something that someone says on a daily basis.”
Now, I’m pretty sure that he was engaging in some hyperbole for the sake of emphasis, but even so, I want you to consider what St. Thomas Aquinas taught.
It is not necessary for salvation to confess one’s faith at all times and in all places, but in certain places and at certain times, when namely, by omitting to do so, we would deprive God of due honor, or our neighbor of a service that we ought to render him. In cases of necessity where faith is in danger, every one is bound to proclaim his faith to others. (See Summa Theologica, II-II, q. 3, a. 2)
St. Thomas is addressing salvation specifically, but the point is simply this:
There are times in the life of the Catholic when he is duty bound to profess the true faith. And it goes without saying that this is an ever-present duty on the part of a pope. I mean, I think this is obvious, right? As the citation from Cardinal Billot explained, one is never justified in professing differently from what the sacred magisterium teaches. And he that does so publicly and obstinately and knowingly the way that Jorge Bergoglio did, he cannot be considered part of the Church.
Again, this isn’t me speaking, it’s Cardinal Billot.
Look, this isn’t rocket science, guys. Our Catholic faith is eminently reasonable. It makes sense. Faith and reason are never opposed to one another. The fact of the matter is, and it’s undeniable, Jorge Bergoglio executed a nearly 13-year assault on the Catholic faith, he expressed his hatred for Catholic tradition and his hatred for those who hold fast to it in more ways than we can count.
To point to a man like that as a member of the Catholic Church, this is to deny that the Church is one. It’s to deny the unity of faith. It’s to deny the objective reality right before our very eyes. And ultimately, it’s to deny reason itself – something that a Catholic is never required to do.
Look, it doesn’t take a degree in sacred theology to recognize who’s Catholic and who isn’t.
Monsignor Van Nort, which is another eminent, pre-conciliar theologian that Robert and John like to cite, he states the following:
One can discern, using one’s external senses, which men profess the same doctrine, frequent the same sacraments, and obey the same rulers. (Msgr G. Van Noort, Dogmatic Theology Volume II: Christ’s Church, No. 2.)
Here, Van Noort is touching on the threefold unity of faith, worship, and governance. This unity that is shared by all true members of the Catholic Church. In other words, he’s saying that one can recognize by simple observation alone who is Catholic and who is not.
St. Robert Bellermine says something similar. He says:
That someone could absolutely be called part of the true Church, on which the Scriptures speak, we do not think any internal virtue is required, but only the external profession of faith, as well as the communion of the Sacraments which is taken up in that sense. For the Church is a body of men that is just as visible and palpable as the body of the Roman people, or the Kingdom of France, or the Republic of Venice. (De Contraversiis I.3.ii.)
It logically follows that the converse of these things is true as well. In other words, one can discern using one’s external senses which men do not profess the same doctrine and thus are not part of the Church. And such is visible and palpable, to borrow Bellarmine’s words.
Now, for the sake of context, because I don’t want to be accused of taking Cardinal Billot out of context, after the quote that I offered to you, he went on to say this:
Notorious heretics are those who by their own admission do not follow the rule of the ecclesial magisterium. Therefore, they have an obstacle that prevents them from being included in the Church. (ibid.)
Now, it’s really important to understand here that when Billot speaks of those who “by their own admission” do not follow the magisterium, he doesn’t mean to suggest that this applies only to those who hold a press conference, or take out an ad in the New York Times, and proclaim: I hereby reject the sacred Magisterium of the Catholic Church. That’s not what it means. That’s not what heretics do.
I’ve heard Robert and John argue in other venues that someone has to essentially declare their departure from the Church, but that’s not what he’s teaching at all. In saying “by their own admission,” Cardinal Billot is referring to the public nature of heresy. In other words, those who are notorious for publicly professing differently from what the magisterium teaches, and we have to add knowingly and obstinately – that is after multiple attempts to correct them and to plead with them to reaffirm the true faith – if they still refuse to follow the rule of the ecclesiastical magisterium, this is what amounts to an admission that one does not follow the rule of the magisterium.
And it describes Jorge Bergoglio to a tee, does it not? Of course it does.
At this point in the podcast, John jumped back in to take a swing at those of us who did make use of our external senses to recognize that Francis publicly professed differently from what the magisterium teaches,which is our right. Take a look:
JOHN SALZA: Right. Well, they make up their own terms and they also falsify the burden of proof which John Lane is an example who does that as well. Louie doesn’t understand that once a person is baptized into the Catholic Church, or received into the Catholic Church, if he was validly baptized outside the Church, you know, once he is received by lawful authority in the church, there’s not only a presumption, Louie, that he’s Catholic, he is Catholic. Period. Okay, so that’s the juridical bond, that three-fold bond that that Pius XII refers to, in his words, “juridical bond” in Mystici Corpus Christi. And so it’s not just a presumption, which is the opposite of what Louie is arguing. He’s arguing, you presume no. No, you actually don’t even presume yes. He is a Catholic in reality.
LOUIE: Yeah, sure, John, look, we’re in agreement in the sense that a man who makes a baptismal profession of faith, which in the Catholic Church is a recitation or an affirmation of the Apostle’s Creed. Once this man emerges from the waters of baptism and the rite is concluded, he’s marked with the indelible baptismal character. That’s the truth. And no one would argue that this guy, at that moment, isn’t a member of the Church. He is.
In fact, at one time, believe it or not, this was true of baby boy Bergoglio too, okay? But that has nothing whatsoever to do with the topic that we’re discussing.
Recall what one of your favorite theologians, Cardinal Billot, explained. He spoke of those who “ceased to be part of the Church’s visible body from the time they publicly became heterodox after their baptism.”
Are you and Robert prepared to argue that Jorge Bergoglio did not become publicly heterodox after baptism? I doubt that you are, but if that’s the hill you guys want to die on, go for it. But die on it you will, and you’ll be dying for a lie.
John went on then to flirt with explaining, not really explaining, but just kind of flirting with and touching on how one might cease to be a member of the Church after baptism. Take a look at what he said:
JOHN SALZA: And as that same PXII says, he would only cease to be a Catholic at such time as either, as you know, he either openly leaves the church, let’s say for another religion, or you know, publicly defects, or is cut off by the Church’s judgment, you know, through a declared excommunication, you know, for example, otherwise, that juridical bond remains upon acceptance in, you know, into the Church by lawful authority. So, it’s just the opposite and even worse, right.
LOUIE: So, John, I have to challenge you here. Can you point out exactly where Pope Pius XII said that these are the only ways that a man might cease to be a Catholic?
Let me save you some time. He didn’t say anything of the sort. It sounds to me like you’re downplaying the reality of how one ceases to be a Catholic. Pope Pius XII did not limit the way in which a baptized man might cease to be a Catholic to the things that you listed.
One of the things that he did state in Mystici Corporis is this:
… 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. (ibid. 23)
And you’ll note that even here, the Holy Father does not say, nor does he even suggest, that schism, heresy, and apostasy are the only ways that a man might sever himself from the body of the Church of their own nature, meaning apart from any official declaration or judgment on the part of the Church to nullify the juridical bond. He doesn’t say that those are the only ways.
It’s not necessary for the notorious public obstinate heretic to openly leave the Church for another religion. That person might go to his parish Mass every holy day. He might be a daily communicant. He might make a great show of vehemently insisting that he’s a Catholic, that he’s a “son of the Church” as Bergoglio called himself. He can say these things all he wants, but he’s not, and it’s evident by virtue of his notorious public obstinate heresy.
And what’s more, his lack of membership, just as his notorious heresy, would be visible to all of us who just use our senses to discern as much.
We wouldn’t have to read an official decree from Rome in the diocesan newspaper. You know, we would be able to see it with our external senses, just as Van Noort said.
It must be said, of course, in many cases, even though membership and non-membership are visible and knowable and discernible, it might not necessarily be perfectly obvious in every single case. In the case of Jorge Bergoglio, however, there’s no mystery here, and Catholics are not required to pretend otherwise. We’re never asked to deny objective reality in the practice of our faith.
In fact, I would say that it’s irresponsible, and it might even be sinful if one knows better, to insist that a man like Jorge Bergoglio, who consistently professes differently from what the magisterium teaches, to say that that man’s the Holy Roman Pontiff, it could be sinful and it’s definitely irresponsible.
And why? Well, because it poses a danger to souls. It distorts Catholic ecclesiology, it distorts the Church’s doctrine on membership, the Church’s doctrine on the papacy, and so forth.
At this point, Robert jumped back in to suggest that the baptismal profession of faith is exactly what Pius XII had in mind when he said that the profession of the true faith must be externally manifest. Take a listen.
ROBERT SISCOE: So, it’s the juridical bond, it’s a legal bond profession through faith. It begins with being received into the Church, which requires a public profession of faith. So, Father Fenton, commenting on this quote from Mystici Corporis Christi says this:
“The outward or bodily bond of union joining men to our Lord and to each other in His Church is made up of the baptismal profession of the true faith, communion of the same sacraments, subjection to legitimate ecclesiastical pastor.”
The baptismal profession. If you’re baptized in the Church, you profess the true faith, as long as you remain subject to the Church’s teaching office.
LOUIE: In this very same work from which Robert is quoting, Monsignor Fenton reiterated what Pope Pius XII taught regarding membership. He said that it belongs only to those who, “have not cut themselves off by way of public apostasy or heresy or schism.”
Okay. Did you get that? A man can, and in fact many men have, and many men do, cut themselves off from the body of the Church by way of public heresy after baptism, after he makes a baptismal profession of faith.
Robert does offer this half-hearted disclaimer “as long as you remain subject to the Church’s teaching office.” But for some reason, he and John never address what that entails, much less do they apply it to Jorge Bergoglio, a man who very clearly rejected what the magisterium teaches on a number of points.
Robert seems to be suggesting that the baptismal profession of the Apostles’ Creed confers what amounts to an irrevocable lifetime membership in the Mystical Body of Christ. Now, I know he doesn’t believe that, but that’s what he’s strongly suggesting here, and it’s an indefensible position, one that finds no support at all in Catholic tradition. In fact, the contrary can be found abundantly in Catholic tradition.
Even so, John picked up on that very same theme by making an impassioned plea to their viewers. And really, it’s nothing short of stunning to me. I couldn’t believe my eyes and ears when I saw this. Listen for yourself.
JOHN SALZA: That’s a great point, Rob, and we want all of our viewers to make this association. Anytime they hear a sedevacantist say, “Do you profess the true faith?” Make this association right now. The profession of faith is the baptismal profession of faith. Let’s repeat that: Baptismal profession of faith. Being baptized, that forms the juridical bond of the profession, and of course union with the sacraments under your bishop who has received you, and of course then under his authority or governance as well. That’s the three-fold juridical bond there, and it relates to the act of forming, that is the baptismal profession of faith.
Honestly, I find this incredible. The baptismal recitation of the Apostles’ Creed and the profession of faith that Pius XII said must be externally manifest in order for one to be counted as a member of the Church most certainly are not one and the same thing. The Holy Father made that clear when he also stated in Mystici Corporis the following:
Actually, only those are to be included as members of the Church who have been baptized and professed the true faith, and who have not been so unfortunate as to separate themselves from the unity of the body. (Mystici Corporis 22)
Did you get that? The Holy Father states that only those who have been baptized and professed the true faith are included as members of the Church. These are two separate things. Remember, he also said that this profession of the true faith must be externally manifest.
If the externally manifest profession of faith necessary for membership in the Church, if it really is nothing more than the baptismal profession, membership would thus be rendered invisible.
And why is that? Well, it’s because one cannot observe whether or not one’s neighbor is baptized. The theological virtues of faith, hope, and charity conferred by baptism are interior virtues. The indelible mark on the soul of the baptized is not visible. You can’t see it by way of observation, unlike membership. Right?
Now recall what Monsignor van Noort said when he was referring to Mystici Corporis and the profession of faith. He said, “one can discern using one’s external senses which men profess the same doctrine.”
In other words, which men are members, and which men are not. It’s not just the baptismal profession. It cannot be. Otherwise, membership would be invisible. This external testimony to one’s claim of membership is part and parcel of the Church’s visibility.
You take that away and the Church is reduced to a secret society with anonymous members, and that’s not the Catholic Church.
Even so, John doubles down on the unfounded idea that the baptismal profession of faith is the externally manifest profession of faith of which Pius XII speaks, and without which one is not a member of the Church. Take a look.
JOHN SALZA: I think of Father Sylvester Berry who also said that, you know, the profession of the faith, this baptismal profession, that juridical bond is maintained, you know, effectively through your ongoing subjection or submission to the magisterium, the hierarchy, remaining in external communion with your bishop. How do you do that? Well, you worship in union with your bishop. You go to the churches that are under his authority and jurisdiction, and hence then you’re aligned with the pope. So, it’s this ongoing external submission to the Church’s hierarchy whereby you maintain that juridical bond. It has nothing to do, like I’ve always said, with your oral articulation of doctrine.
LOUIE: John, I’m sorry, actually the profession of faith has a great deal to do with one’s oral articulation. This is one of the ways in which it becomes externally manifest. As I previously mentioned, Aquinas teaches that in certain places and at certain times, it’s necessary to confess one’s faith – so much so that the 1917 Code of Canon Law even binds Catholics to that obligation. It reads:
The faithful of Christ are bound to profess their faith whenever their silence, evasiveness, or manner of acting encompasses an implied denial of the faith, contempt for religion, injury to God, or scandal for a neighbor. (Canon 1325 § 1)
Now, did you notice the part about silence? Clearly, there are times when one is bound to make an oral articulation of the true faith. That’s undeniable. Remember what we said earlier as well: The positive requirement to externally manifest the true faith has a prohibitive or a negative aspect as well.
Writing in his 1918 commentary on the Pio-Benedictine Code, the eminent canonist Dom Charles Augustine said about the canon that binds Catholics to profess their faith this:
The Apostle says: “With the heart we believe unto justice; but with the mouth confession is made unto salvation” (Romans 10:10). This and the declaration of Christ: “He that shall be ashamed of me and my words, of him the Son of man shall be ashamed” (Luke 9.26, Matth 10.32), clearly indicate a double duty, namely: 1) To profess the Christian religion, and 2) Not to deny it.
Dom Augustine goes on to say:
… a prohibitive or negative law obliges always, whereas an affirmative or a positive law does not oblige at every moment or on every occasion.
So, did you get all that? With the mouth, confession is made. In other words, oral articulation makes externally manifest what would otherwise be hidden in the heart. And to what end? Salvation. Salvation. And outside the Church, there is no salvation. So, all of this touches on membership.
Now, if anybody has a problem with this, you’re going to have to take it up with St. Paul. And I wish you luck!
As far as our obligations go in this regard, as Dom Augustine explained, one is bound always and everywhere not to deny the true faith. And how does one deny the true faith? Well, by word, by deed, in writing and speaking, all of which goes to demonstrate whether or not one actually submits to the Church’s teaching authority.
And as we have acknowledged many times today, those cannot be part of the Church who profess differently from what the magisterium teaches. Okay?
Now with all of this in mind, John, even though you’ve always said the profession of faith necessary for membership has nothing to do with one’s oral articulation, now you know better. You’re welcome.
At this point, Robert jumped back in to confirm John’s erroneous notion that the profession of the faith under discussion is really nothing more than the baptismal profession.
Robert, I give you credit, you got your friend’s back, but unfortunately it’s a dead end.
Robert offered a quote from Father Berry that, oddly enough, on closer examination, this quote utterly destroys the point that Robert was trying to make. So, allow me to provide the necessary context taken directly from Father Berry’s work entitled The Church of Christ.
Okay. Under the heading “Members of the Church,” Father Berry provides a paragraph under the subheading “Initiation.” It’s only one paragraph in length, and it’s short and to the point because it’s a very simple idea, one that’s pretty much known to everybody. And he sums it up by saying, “Baptism, therefore, is the rite of initiation in the Church.”
Simple. But guess what? Nowhere in Father Barry’s treatment of baptism does he even mention the profession of faith that is part of the rite. He doesn’t mention it at all. But recall what John said:
JOHN SALZA: I think of Father Sylvester Berry who also said that, you know, the profession of the faith, this baptismal profession…
LOUIE: No, John, actually, Father Berry made no such claim as this. Rather, after addressing baptism, he moved on to the next subheading, that was titled, “Profession of Faith.” Two distinct and separate things. Baptism is the initiation. The profession of faith comes after.
Membership, he wrote, consists of:
The reception of Baptism and the preservation of the unities,—unity of faith, unity of worship, and unity of government; or, in other words, the reception of Baptism and submission to the teaching and ruling authority of the Church. (Berry, Church of Christ)
Again, this isn’t rocket science, Initiation via baptism establishes the threefold juridical bond, but that bond must be preserved moving forward. And what’s more, it must be preserved not internally, but rather in a visible, externally manifest way.
And how is the unity of faith preserved? Well, Pius XII told us, by the external manifestation of the profession of the true faith. Father Berry reiterates this point, but he goes a little bit further by defining for us what constitutes the true faith, as if it’s even necessary. He writes:
In regard to the Church, there must be unity in the external profession of the true faith, which Christ committed to the teaching authority of the Church. Therefore, the profession of faith necessary for membership in the Church practically resolves itself into submission to her teaching authority. (ibid.)
Now, Robert shared this exact quote as if it supported their claims. But what Father Berry is stating here is just Catholic common sense. It doesn’t support their claims at all. He’s telling us that externally professing the true faith, this amounts to professing the same faith that is entrusted to and is taught by the sacred magisterium, obviously. And this being so, professing the true faith is tantamount to submission to the Church’s teaching authority. And that submission is made visible by this external manifestation of the true faith. Okay?
So, at this, I want to move on to respond to a challenge that John issued to me in the comment section of their podcast on YouTube. He writes:
“The burden is on you [Louie] to prove for magisterial teaching what Bergoglio specifically did that would have prevented him from assuming supreme jurisdiction over the Church, or losing it afterwards. And all the while the entire college of bishops accepted him as Pope.” – John Salza
LOUIE: I appreciate this, John, I really do because it takes, you know, all the theoretical generalizations that we’ve talked about, and it applies them to a flesh and blood human being, Jorge Bergoglio, and an historical circumstance, and a set of details and facts that we can’t deny. And it makes this teaching real for people. So, I appreciate you throwing this challenge out there.
I want to begin by saying that your challenge only makes sense if you believe that it’s possible that there’s something Bergoglio might’ve done to prevent himself from being a true pope. Or maybe something that he might’ve done that resulted in him losing the papacy, if in fact he ever had it.
And furthermore, it seems to me that built into your question is the assumption that if such a thing occurred, it would be recognizable even to laymen like us. And I think that’s a step forward for you as far as I can see. It looks like you’re moving in the right direction and I’m glad to see it.
Anyway, I’m going to stay focused on the topic at hand here and that’s membership in the Church. And this is key. And it’s key because membership in the Church precedes any claims to the papacy, obviously, since a non-member of the Body of the Church, as I’m sure you know and agree, John, can’t be the visible head of that same body. Right?
Now that said, even though I want to stay focused on membership, I do want to touch on the last thing that you talked about. And that’s the, the entire college of bishops accept that Bergoglio was pope. Obviously, you’re referring here to so-called “peaceful universal acceptance.” And it’s a real thing, and it’s substantial, and it probably deserves a podcast of its own.
But let’s be clear about what it can and cannot do. “Peaceful universal acceptance” can heal at the root procedural issues or mistakes in a papal election. What it cannot do, it can’t turn a heretic into a Catholic. Okay? That’s impossible.
Maybe we’ll get into that in more detail on another podcast.
So. anyway, to your question: How has Jorge Bergoglio made it perfectly plain that he wasn’t a member of the Church?
Well, John, obviously, Bergoglio’s public record of professing differently from what the magisterium teaches is so extensive we could be here all afternoon talking about some of the examples. But for the sake of time, I’m going to focus on just one thing, and that’s Amoris Laetitia, no. 303, because I think that alone suffices with such clarity that we need not look any further. That article reads:
It [conscience] can also recognize with sincerity and honesty what for now is the most generous response which can be given to God, and come to see with a certain moral security that it [persistence in adultery] is what God himself is asking amid the concrete complexity of one’s limits, while yet not fully the objective ideal. (AL 303)
Now, for an educated Catholic, the presence of heresy in what I just read is entirely obvious. In fact, it’s genuinely sickening is what it is.
Even so, for the sake of thoroughness, consider a couple of things. First, from the Council of Trent:
If any one saith … that the works that are evil, God worketh as well as those that are good, not permissively only, but properly, and of Himself… let him be anathema. (cf Council of Trent, Session VI, Chapter XVI, Canon VI)
Consider as well divine revelation:
Let no man, when he is tempted, say that he is tempted by God. For God is not a tempter of evils: and he tempteth no man. (James 13:1)
Finally, I want you to recall that Francis was asked many times by priests, theologians, and even bishops to clarify this specific article in Amoris Laetitia 303. In fact, this particular heresy was addressed in the Dubia that was sent to him by Cardinal Burke and company. I’m sure you remember it, and it reads:
Does one still need to regard as valid the teaching, based on Sacred Scripture and on the Tradition of the Church, that excludes a creative interpretation of the role of conscience and that emphasizes that conscience can never be authorized to legitimate exceptions to absolute moral norms that prohibit intrinsically evil acts by virtue of their object? (Dubium submitted to Anti-Pope Francis)
Now, in essence, what is being asked in this dubium is, Will you reaffirm the true faith? Will you clarify for us what you mean in Amoris Laetitia 303? I mean, clearly, it’s evident from the objective meaning of the words that you’re saying that God sometimes wills adultery and that the divine law is sometimes too hard for us to keep.
But, as you know, in the face of numerous public pleas, corrections, filial appeals like this made to Francis over the course of years, he steadfastly refused to renounce his heresy and to profess with the magisterium professes.
In other words, he held his silence in the face of errors, his own errors, ones that encompass contempt for religion, injury to God, and scandal to the faithful.
And what’s the result of this? Well, he made it perfectly plain to all that he could not have been considered part of the Church, to use the words of Cardinal Billot one last time.
Now, I’ll grant you, this is an uncomfortable truth to acknowledge. I get that. But the alternative, Robert and John, is to suggest that you and Francis shared a unity of faith.
Is that so? I mean, do you really profess the same faith as Jorge Bergoglio? Are you one in faith with Francis who professed that persisting in adultery is sometimes the most generous response that we can give to God in light of the Sixth Commandment?
Look, it’s been a long time since I’ve had any real conversation with either of you guys, but I’m pretty confident that, your obvious confusion aside, there is a major division that exists between the faith that was professed by Jorge Bergoglio and the faith that the two of you guys profess.
Either way, one thing is absolutely certain: There is a chasm between what Bergoglio professed over the past dozen years and the true faith as it’s taught by the sacred magisterium of the Holy Catholic Church. This much is absolutely undeniable.
And it most certainly cannot be said that this was due simply to ignorance concerning what the Church actually teaches. His heresy was manifest, it was notorious, and he persisted in it with obstinacy. And the result of that is to acknowledge he separated himself from the Body of the Church, ceasing to be a member at all, of anyrank.
Any well-formed Catholic is capable of recognizing that Jorge Bergoglio wasn’t a member of the Church. In fact, even the Protestants could see that. And to be very clear though, that’s not an authoritative judgment. It’s not a binding declaration. It’s simply an observation of objective reality, something we’re never required to deny as Catholics. Right?
It’s an observation of reality that Bergoglio professed differently than the Church taught. And therefore, to me and to many others, he was as a heathen and a publican, a man to be avoided and no Pope at all, and thus no member of the Church at all either.
Now, at one time, as some of you viewers know, John and Robert took great exception to the idea that individual Catholics like us can draw such conclusions as these. On their website, trueorfalsepope.com, they criticized those who quote:
…actually believe that it is the responsibility of each individual Catholic in the pew to “discern” whether or not a professing Catholic (whether it be a simple layman or the Pope himself) sufficiently “professes the Faith.” If they discern that the individual does not sufficiently do so, then they believe they are entirely justified – nay, required – to publicly declare that he is not a member of the Church. (see trueorfalsepope.com)
John and Robert used to insist that Catholic laymen, like us, cannot discern that an individual does not sufficiently profess the true faith and thus is not a member of the Church.
Today, however, I have a question for you guys. Robert, John, tell me:
When did you change your mind? When did you come to the conclusion that individual Catholics like yourselves are in fact able to declare that so-called professing Catholics like me are not members of the Church? When did you change your mind?
I’m sure you recall how you ended your podcast:
ROBERT SISCOE: That’s them [sedevacantists]. They’ve rejected the authority. They’re not members of the Church. That’s obvious. They’re not members of the Church. They’ve separated from the Church.
JOHN SALZA: And that is why, when they reject the pope, they ultimately reject the Church as well. They reject the entire visible society, the social unit, the hierarchy, the Church that Christ Himself established.
ROBERT SISCOE: Absolutely.
So at this, I’m going to end with a little bit of good news.
For those of you who haven’t picked up on it, John Salza and Robert Siscoe have done an about face. They’ve done a 180.
After years and years of denial, they now agree with sedevacantists in believing that individual Catholics are, in fact, able to discern when other self-identified Catholics insufficiently profess the true faith and thus are notto be considered true members of the Catholic Church.
Big step forward guys, I’m proud of you. I’m glad you’ve made this about face because it gives me hope that we will one day stand on the same side of the battle lines. I look forward to that day and I hope it comes soon.
Thank you for watching. I’m Louie Verrecchio.
