The final installment of Fr. Jean-Michel Gleize’s multi-part treatise on papal heresy has at last been published, and barring a statement to the contrary from the SSPX, one may reasonably consider it the Society’s official position.
Fr. Gleize already delivered the stunning punchline in Part 5 by stating that Francis is not teaching heresy in Amoris Laetitia, but rather he is only “promoting heresy.”
This, in my view, is rather like saying that cyanide once ingested could lead to poor health when in fact it is deadly.
In any case, Fr. Gleize outdid himself in Part 6 as he reflected on “the authentic meaning” of those Scripture passages often cited by venerable theologians and philosophers of the past (like Cardinal Tommaso Cajetan) in their own treatment of “papal heresy.”
Following are the relevant Biblical texts given mention by Fr. Gleize:
– “Depart from the tents of these wicked men, and touch nothing of theirs, lest you be involved in their sins.” (Numbers 16:26)
– “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)
– “And we charge you, brethren, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that you withdraw yourselves from every brother walking disorderly and not according to the tradition which they have received of us.” (2 Thessalonians 3:6:)
– “If any man come to you and bring not this doctrine, receive him not into the house nor say to him: God speed you.” (2 John 1:10)
– “A man that is a heretic, after the first and second admonition, avoid.” (Titus 3:10)
As for how these verses apply to a heretical pope, Fr. Gleize writes:
St. Paul says that it is necessary to avoid a notorious heretic, no more and no less.
On the basis of that, nothing proves that a notoriously heretical pope is dismissed from his office, because nothing says that the situation of someone who must be avoided by the faithful is incompatible with the title of the papacy.
Despite the paradoxical attractiveness of this assertion at first glance, it is still possible to avoid having anything to do with a notoriously heretical pope, without therefore considering him as being dethroned from the papacy.
NB: In this, Fr. Gleize is not addressing Francis whom he has already absolved of teaching heresy; rather, he is treating the matter of “papal heresy” in a strictly general sense.
Revealed in the process, however, is the degree to which his thinking on the topic is detached from well-established Catholic principles.
As we see from the above quotation, Fr. Gleize believes that a notoriously heretical pope retains his office…
Though a definitive teaching does not exist concerning precisely how a notorious heretic pope loses his office, it is certain that notorious heresy is incompatible with the Office of Peter.
Canon 2197 of the 1917 Code of Canon Law states that a crime (such as heresy) is “notorious” when it is “publicly known and was committed under such circumstances that no maneuver can conceal, nor any legal defense excuse.”
Let’s be very clear about what we’re discussing here:
“Notorious heresy” is formal heresy; i.e., it is not error mistakenly put forth in ignorance (material heresy), but rather it refers to obstinate adherence to that which constitutes a denial of a truth(s) that we are obligated to believe by divine and Catholic faith.
The result of such heresy is clear:
“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.” (cf Pope Pius XII, Mystici Corporis 23)
Get that?
The heresy under discussion by Fr. Gleize severs a man from the Body of the Church.
Obviously, one cannot be both severed from the Body and, at one and the same time, act as its Head.
Fr. Gleize also makes the incredible assertion that the papacy is not incompatible with someone who must be avoided by the faithful.
To be kind, this is absurd.
The Baltimore Catechism provides the basic teaching as well as anything by plainly identifying the three necessary elements that comprise the unity of the Church:
“The Church is the congregation of all those who profess the faith of Christ, partake of the same Sacraments, and are governed by their lawful pastors under one visible head.”
It is nothing short of irrational to imagine that the faithful can be unified “under one” who must be avoided.
There is but “one fold and one shepherd” (John 10:16).
To suggest, as Fr. Gleize does, that the sheep can at once avoid the person of the shepherd and yet faithfully remain within the flock is, at best, a recipe for schism.
In its teaching “On the power and character of the primacy of the Roman Pontiff,” the First Vatican Council states:
“By unity with the Roman Pontiff in communion, and in profession of the same faith, the Church of Christ becomes one flock under one Supreme Shepherd.” (Pastor Aeternus, Ch. 3, Article 3)
NB: Being “in communion” (that is, gathered together as one in union) with the person of the Roman Pontiff, and professing the same faith, are treated individually; i.e., each one is necessary in order to render the Church of Christ one flock.
Fr. Gleize fails to draw this distinction as is evident when he cites the following taken from the “Declaration of Fidelity to the Positions of the Society of St. Pius X”:
“I, the undersigned, recognize Francis as Pope of the Holy Catholic Church. That is why I am ready to pray in public for him as Supreme Pontiff. I refuse to follow him when he departs from Catholic Tradition, especially in the questions of religious liberty and ecumenism, as also in the reforms which are harmful to the Church.”
Fr. Gleize comments:
“This expression ‘I refuse to follow him’ neatly corresponds to the devita of Saint Paul, and it does not rule out the ‘I recognize.’”
Far be it for me to explain to Fr. Gleize the Declaration that he himself signed, but the only way its text can be understood in a Catholic sense is to say that “I refuse” concerns the avoidance of false teachings; i.e., it means not following the pope in his errors so as to persevere in the “profession of the same faith” invoked in Pastor Aeternus.
It does not mean to say “I ‘avoid’ the person of the pope” – as if a notoriously heretical pope retains his office – a proposition that finds no support in the exhortations of St. Paul.
If all that has been said thus far does not serve to demonstrate the lack of Catholic coherence in Fr. Gleize’s argument, note very well his interpretation of Galatians 1:8, which reads:
“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.”
Of this passage, Fr. Gleize states, “‘let him be anathema,’ in other words, separate yourselves from him.”
In reality, St. Paul is saying quite a bit more than this.
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)
The Catholic Encyclopedia further indicates that “anathema” came to be understood in the Church as a fate worse than excommunication:
All the councils, from the Council of Nicæa to that of the Vatican, have worded their dogmatic canons: “If any one says . . . let him be anathema”. Nevertheless, although during the first centuries the anathema did not seem to differ from the sentence of excommunication, beginning with the sixth century a distinction was made between the two …
This distinction was introduced into the canons of the Church, as is proved by the letter of John VIII (872-82) found in the Decree of Gratian (c. III, q. V, c. XII): ‘Know that Engeltrude is not only under the ban of excommunication, which separates her from the society of the brethren, but under the anathema, which separates from the body of Christ, which is the Church.’ (ibid.)
Once again, we are faced with the obvious: One cannot be anathema; that is to say, separated from the Body of Christ, which is the Church, and yet somehow rule over said Body as its head.
And yet Fr. Gleize is asking us to believe that there is no contradiction between one who is anathema and the papacy!
In light of Part 5 of this regrettable series of articles, I found myself disgusted and deeply disappointed by the position taken by the Society of St. Pius X.
Now, having read Fr. Gleize’s work in its entirety, I am embarrassed for the Society; in particular those good and holy men who comprise its leadership.
In the days ahead, I will (God willing) engage said leadership directly, in the hope that a much-needed correction will soon be issued.
Whether or not it comes, these timeless words of Sacred Scripture shall remain our guide:
It is good to confide in the Lord, rather than to have confidence in man. It is good to trust in the Lord, rather than to trust in princes. (Psalm 118:8-9)
Congratulations Louie, you have made your case and our very well.
It saddens one to think if, this is what Bishop Fellay holds- I believe any honest man can see the fallacies of their position now, patently clear, that they must withdraw from the so called negotiations.
If your clarity has achieved that much, then its a blessing.
If there is obstinacy that can mean worse, but lets give the Bishop a chance to explain the authentic Society position.
Its time to stop the kite flying, to stop looking for signs and wonders, the reality is staring us and him in the face.
Deo gratias
I thank God that I came upon this book [ link below ] soon before the traddie world erupted in discussion of the case of a heretical pope, much of that discussion including references to St. Robert’s words. Naturally I read the thing for myself. It is clear that St. Robert Bellarmine has been misrepresented my some, ignored by others, and discarded by most. But he is right and his explanations are simple, clear, and definitive.
Fr. Gleize is stating heresy. If it is the official position of the SSPX on the question, and there’s every reason to believe that it is, then the SSPX is stating heresy too. A heretic ceases to be a christian by his heresy, ceases to be a part of the body of Christ, ceases to be a member of The Church. How can a body have as a head one who is not even a member?
I encourage everyone to get this book and see for yourself what St. Robert says on the subject. See who is misrepresenting him. See who is stating the Catholic position.
Louie, if you don’t have a copy, shoot me an email and I’ll buy you one.
https://www.amazon.com/Controversies-Christian-Robert-Cardinal-Bellarmine/dp/0991226860/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1490039446&sr=8-1&keywords=controversies+of+st+bellarmine
Pius XII was equally clear in Mystici Corpris, a heretic is out of the church. Logic demands that someone outside cannot be its head. St Robert is very learned and was made a Doctor, but he was never Pope. Pius XII was a Pope (the last one we know of, by the way).
It started officially with the doctrinal declaration of April 2012. To want to be recognised by Francis says it all. The 3 bishops of neo-sspx Should be the ones more so than the other bishops and cardinals condemning Amoris laetitia now Fr Gleize of sspx basically says nothing to look at here , unbelievable. The interview with Tim Sebastian was a joke. I’m not a clever person or a holy person far from it I’m just a practicing catholic but to me it seems really easy to see what’s going on I don’t understand how very clever people and especially holy persons religious and lay don’t seem to see it as it is. This being said I understand the confusion and difficulty of aligning oneself with a particular group it’s the times we are living in the End Times.
Latest on formal correction
http://novusordowatch.org/2017/03/cardinal-muller-formal-correction-risks-schism/
I would contend, Fr. Gleize, that there is only the width of a cigarette paper between teaching & encouraging heresy as a feature article on to-day’s lifesitenews.com
“Archdiocese website suggests ‘do not commit adultery’ doesn’t ban sexual sin” testifies. Cardinal Schönborn is a favourite to replace Cardinal Müller at the CDF & if he can so blatantly post such an article on the Archdiocese website with impunity then it must mean that he has PF’s permission to do so. Perhaps when you engage with the SSPX leadership Louie you could raise this with them. We all have a right to know.
We also have a right to hear from the four Cardinals directly as to why they have not issued the formal correction. If Cardinal Müller put pressure on them then that is a bad sign, as he himself (by all accounts) is no virtuous Catholic & just as Modernist as the rest of them. Bishop Schneider has already stated, a “certain kind of schism” already exists in the CC so why did those that were reputedly backing the four Cardinals get weak knees? When did the SSPX do a U-turn on the incumbent of the Papal Office – would bribery be part of that equation? I hope not. Satan must be working overtime.
Louie wrote:
“….Fr. Gleize believes that a notoriously heretical pope retains his office”
He’s not the only one who believes this. There is NO set teaching from the Church which definitively and clearly says that a heretical pope loses his office. There are writings from theologians, yes, but they also vary in content as to how to deal with a heretical Pope. It an OPINION that a heretical pope automatically loses his office, and only an opinion.
Everything that Louie posts of late has to do with proving that Francis is heretical and therefore not the Pope, and that he has lost his office.
We all know what happens when sedevacantists strive to “correct” other tradiitionalists who aren’t sedevacantists – they are attacked mercilessly, as Fr. Gleize has been attacked here.
I don’t agree with a lot of what Fr. Gleize writes, but now that he’s being attacked just for believing that Francis is the Pope, well, I have to defend him.
This may get me banned, but sedevacantists generally have one trait in common – they are obsessed with sedevancantism, usually to an unhealthy degree. It’s unfortunate that Louie is now a Sede. Reminds me a lot of Thomas Droleskey before he “came out” as a sede about 9 years ago.
Bishop Faure has written that the Resistance is attacked from both the right and from the left….on the left are those who want an accord with Rome, and the attacks from the right come from the Sedevacantists, who are relentless, and a bit unhinged.
Well I certainly agree with what you said about the whole issue being an OPINION.
There are some who are affiliated with the SSPX, both clergy and laity, who have expressed confusion and disappointment in the SSPX. Hopefully Louie can shed some light on these matters which could explain the possible motives and intentions of the SSPX leadership. The current crisis in the Church presents a golden opportunity for the SSPX to be a guiding light for confused Catholics especially now during this horrendous “papacy”. I look forward to Louie’s further comments on this important topic. St. Joseph, Patron of the Universal Church, pray for us!
You are in error. Two of the Seven Great Ecumenical Councils retroactively anathematized Honorius decades after he had died. A dozen Popes including saints like Pope Saint Agatho and Pope Saint Leo II said this was so. This could only be possible had the Pope lost his office de facto via his heresy on a private yet critical act for the Church. Since no trial is possible for a dead man, this crime of heresy could only be applied to one who had already lost his office via the sin of heresy. So don’t act this this is some kind of theoretical question when it is a historic fact. Whether one agrees with the quilt of Honorius this is simply how the Catholic Church has already dealt with a Pope believed to have been a heretic. Knowing the Church Fathers there would have been not one iota of a difference had this scandal emerged while Honorious was still Pope. Not to mention that Saint Athanatius and Saint Jerome both believed that Pope Liberius lost his office for acting like a heretic while he was still on the throne in Rome. Saint Bellarmine in fact agrees that Liberius was eventually deposed by compromising with the Arians. After the Protestant revolt Pope Paul IV also issued a Papal Bull stating that a heretic Pope would lose his office automatically—even Cardinal Burke says the same. These papiolators keep coming out of the woodwork claiming that this is all theory.
You’re basically asking for the SSPX to embrace sedevacantism. They will not do this. Remember, the SSPX was around when St. JPII issued a new code of canon law that for the first time in history allowed public heretics and schismatics to receive communion. When this happened a group of 9 SSPX priests declared themselves to be sedevacantist and were expelled from the society by Archbishop Lefebvre. If the SSPX was going to go sedevacantist, they would have done so then as sins against the first commandment are infinitely greater than sins against the sixth.
Please give us a good source for your Liberius accusation. Funny I could not find that anywhere in my pre V2 Catholic Encyclopedia. And please dont use Cdl Newman. He wrote his famous book when he was a protestant.
It’s been obvious for years that Francis is an avowed public vicious enemy of God and the Holy Faith, and even the natural moral law, and a persecutor of the good, and promoter of the evil enemies of the Faith. Action to warn and declare as to his heresy is glaringly overdue. It is a gross dereliction of duty on bishops not to speak out and demand correction or that failing same bishops ought to declare what is beyond a reasonable doubt as it is repeated flagrantly day after day for four hellish years. Lord have mercy on us.
I basically agree with your premise, just not the example of Liberius.
Which Bishops? As I have said before, modernists do not call other modernists heretics. They cant because the only heresy in modernist Rome is tradition. So please tell me which bishops in the conciliar church today are not modernists and need to speak up? There arent any.
You are right again Ganganelli. The SSPX years ago hitched their fate with the conciliar church. At one time they said reconcilliation would come when Rome returned to tradition. When it became obvious that wasnt happening, they said reconcilliation would come when the conciliar church accepted them as is. Well that day may be here. It would be awkward for them to move the goal posts again.
Excellent, Louie. Razor sharp. May I offer a citation from scripture and the Douay-Rheims commentary which appends it?
“He that knoweth his brother to sin a sin which is not to death, let him ask, and life shall be given to him, who sinneth not to death. There is a sin unto death: for that I say not that any man ask. All iniquity is sin. And there is a sin unto death.” 1 John 5:16-17
Commentary:
“A sin which is not to death: It is hard to determine what St. John here calls a sin which is not to death, and a sin which is unto death. The difference can not be the same as betwixt sins that are called venial and mortal: for he says, that if a man pray for his brother, who commits a sin that is not to death, life shall be given him: therefore such a one had before lost the life of grace, and been guilty of what is commonly called a mortal sin. And when he speaks of a sin that is unto death, and adds these words, for that I say not that any man ask, it cannot be supposed that St. John would say this of every mortal sin, but only of some heinous sins, which are very seldom remitted, because such sinners very seldom repent. By a sin therefore which is unto death, interpreters commonly understand a wilfull apostasy from the faith, and from the known truth, when a sinner, hardened by his own ingratitude, becomes deaf to all admonitions, will do nothing for himself, but runs on to a final impenitence. Nor yet does St. John say, that such a sin is never remitted, or cannot be remitted, but only has these words, for that I say not that any man ask the remission: that is, though we must pray for all sinners whatsoever, yet men can not pray for such sinners with such a confidence of obtaining always their petitions, as St. John said before, ver. 14. Whatever exposition we follow on this verse, our faith teacheth us from the holy scriptures, that God desires not the death of any sinner, but that he be converted and live, Ezech. 33. 11. Though men’s sins be as red as scarlet, they shall become as white as snow, Isa. 3. 18. It is the will of God that every one come to the knowledge of the truth, and be saved. There is no sin so great but which God is willing to forgive, and has left a power in his church to remit the most enormous sins: so that no sinner need despair of pardon, nor will any sinner perish, but by his own fault.” (link below)
http://www.drbo.org/chapter/69005.htm
Please keep in mind the principle charism of the SSPX, which is to provide a constant supply of real Catholic Priests. These Priests operate under a state of emergency in the Church according to Canon Law. Don’t expect the SSPX to declare war on the Church, that is not their calling.
I care not if you agree with me but its Saint Bellarmine you take issue with…folks this is why I actually fork over money to read original sources and not second hand clap trap on the internet. SOURCE Book IV. CH IX ON LIBERIUS AND FELIX. pp183-187 in DE ROMANO PONTIFICE. One specific reference among many is “although Liberius was not a heretic. still he was considered that. on account of the peace he made with the Arians, that he was a heretic and his pontificate could rightly be abrogated” and on the same page “..Felix, after the fall of Liberius, was a true Pope and died for the Catholic Faith”. p187
Agreed.
The benefit of St. Robert and other ancient controversialists is that their work helps give Pius XII, in this case, more oomph by demonstrating as well as defending the common teaching of the Church, what one might call the Ordinary Magisterium, which is also infallible.
Pius XII’s words in Mystici Corporis are so clear as to be unmistakable, and yet, apparently so easy to disregard, even by the likes of the SSPX.
It is an opinion based in fact, that a heretic is no longer part of the church, and could not possibly be its head.
What makes it an opinion is whether a real pope could even be a formal heretic, whether such a thing is even possible.
Francis is not the pope, and not because he is a heretic, but because Benedict did not renounce the office. But, even if Francis were the pope, he would no longer be, because he is a heretic.
Further, Louie is responding the part 6 of the SSPX series, which is in part 6 about the wider subject of the case of a heretical pope, not about such a case as it may or may not apply to Francis. Fr. Gleize answered that in part 5.
This has nothing to do with Sedevacantism. Benedict is the Pope. Francis is an antipope.
But even if Francis were the pope, he wouldn’t be any longer because he is a heretic.
Fr. Gleize in part 5 said that Francis is not a heretic. Here Louie is responding to Part 6, wherein Fr. Gleize deals with the case of a heretical pope, not whether Francis is or is not a heretic.
A heretic leaves the church. A non-member of the church cannot be the head of the Church. Period. That is a fact. As it applies to the pope is clear.
What makes it an opinion is whether a pope can even be a formal, notorious heretic. Granting that such a thing is even possible, the theologians then speculate on the particular cases.
Francis is an antipope. Benedict is the Pope. But even if there were no two-pope situation, Francis would no longer be the Pope, the see would be vacant, and a conclave would have to happen.
One cannot endorse a heretic as pope, or worse, actually pronounce heresy, and patent absurdity, by stating that notorious heresy and the office of the papacy are not mutually exclusive, just to avoid the charge of Sedevacantism.
Garbage.
Benedict is the Pope. Francis is an antipope. Not because of heresy, but because Benedict did not renounce the Papacy.
But even if Francis were the pope, he would not be because he is a heretic. This is not Sedevacantism.
This has always been their position and it is embarrassing.
Let me state this clearly.
Pope Francis is charged by internet theologians of heresy for allowing public sinners against the 6th commandment to receive communion.
Pope Saint John Paul II allowed public sinners against the 1st commandment including public heretics and schismatics of the “Orthodox” Church, “Polish National” Church, etc. to receive communion.
As the law of non-contradiction cannot be falsified, if one were to conclude that PF is not a pope because of “heresy” then JPII could not be pope for a much worse “heresy”.
As for the Benevacantist theory, I put as much stock into that as I do the Siri theory. Now if the Siri theory were true, and Cardinal Siri was really elected in the 1958 conclave instead of Pope St. John XXIII, you’d really have something as all the changes since him would be null and void.
Alas, I don’t believe in fairy tales. I don’t believe President Bush brought down the Towers on 9/11 or President Obama orchestrated Sandy Hook either.
St. Robert Bellarmine has an entire chapter (ch. 30, Book II) in his work “De Romano Pontifice” on the issue of a heretical Pope. He clearly states that a heretic loses his Pontificate ipso facto. Further, St. Robert believes that no declaration of the Church is necessary (and in any case, a declaration could only announce that the Pope had already lost his office by having fallen into heresy).
I’ve read the book and have it at hand whenever I see people refer to Bellarmine on this subject (the vast majority of whom misquote him or willfully take sentences out of context to support their own opinion which runs contrary to that of Bellarmine himself).
(De Romano Pontifice has now also been translated into english, so anyone can easily verify it for themselves without grappling with the original latin.)
Jeff, do you not realize that the problem with the “Benedict is Pope” opinion is that Ratzinger (much like Wojtyla, etc) has professed numerous heresies as well?? This stuff has not started with Bergoglio, though he’s certainly far more open with it, without trying to hide his apostasy behind a fake veneer of Catholicism as the other ones did.
Yeah. I know. He is perfectly clear in his explanations and could be understood by a child.
I linked to the translation by Fr. Kenneth Baker, SJ.
You’re really good at not reading the comment you respond to.
Benedict is Pope because he never renounced the office. He, like all the conciliar popes, have pronounced numerous heresies, but never as such-they are not formal heretics. Francis, though, is a heretic. But that is not why he is antipope. He is antipope because Benedict is still the pope and never renounced the Papacy.
It’s not a theory; Benedict renounced the active exercise of a duty that he considered permanent and forever. His words are explicit and indicate a fatal contradiction and ambiguity in his intention. He never renounced the office.
As for Cardinal Siri, when asked about the conclave he said he was under the vow of secrecy. Others who don’t mind being excommunicated have said that he was elected. Putting that together, he was elected but did not accept. He was never Pope.
“For this reason, and well aware of the seriousness of this act, with full freedom I declare that I renounce the ministry of Bishop of Rome, Successor of Saint Peter, entrusted to me by the Cardinals on 19 April 2005, in such a way, that as from 28 February 2013, at 20:00 hours, the See of Rome, the See of Saint Peter, will be vacant and a Conclave to elect the new Supreme Pontiff will have to be convoked by those whose competence it is.”
http://w2.vatican.va/content/benedict-xvi/en/speeches/2013/february/documents/hf_ben-xvi_spe_20130211_declaratio.html
Well, whether it was Siri or someone else, it’s fact that someone was elected Pope on October 26, 1958. The white smoke (which went on for over 5 minutes) meant that a Pope was elected – ie that a Cardinal was chosen _and_ accepted the office. It’s not a conspiracy, it’s a fact. The only unknown is whether it was indeed Card. Siri, but there are quite a few indications it was him.
As for the heresy issue… quite correct – it applies not just to Bergoglio but to his predecessors as well.
If a public/formal heretic loses his office ipso facto, then Benedict would also have lost it (or would never have been validly elected in the first place, since he was professing and teaching heresy well before he was elected…and also well after). That’s why the Benedict option doesn’t work. We need to be consistent…what applies to Bergoglio needs to be also applied to others in the same situation.
Just curious…has anyone heard any SSPX priest (publicly) speak against any of the heresies and apostasy coming from the NO Church in recent times? I’ve never heard any denunciation or warning against any such, in any of the sermons I’ve heard at SSPX Masses (in various countries and locations) over the last two years or so. Have also noticed lots of other worrying changes, including in the dress code of (especially female) Mass goers which seems to be condoned by the priests. Frankly, there doesn’t seem to be any difference now between SSPX and the Ecclesia Dei institutes (except in that we know beyond doubt that SSPX priests were validly ordained); indeed I know several priests in the Ecclesia Dei groups who are just as orthodox as the best in the SSPX (and some even privately admit sedevacantists might be correct after all).
So by the best will I fail to see what Bp. Fellay is trying to achieve with this “reconciliation” with Satan.
http://novusordowatch.org/fbi-consultant-cardinal-siri-elected-pope-1958/
For a Catholic to identify heresy from a laymen in papal garb is not an opinion.
The man is not the Vicar of Christ on Earth. Period.
Well you guys all go on trying to find out if Cardinal Siri was the Pope and maybe has a “secret” successor, or if Benedict is still the Pope, or Pope Michael or heck if there is no Pope at all.
Meanwhile, I will stand with the Supreme Pontiff of the Holy Roman Catholic Church His Holiness Pope Francis.
And I will make the words of Pope Francis’ saintly predecessor St. Pius X my own, “Therefore, when we love the Pope, there are no discussions regarding what he orders or demands, or up to what point obedience must go, and in what things he is to be obeyed; when we love the Pope, we do not say that he has not spoken clearly enough, almost as if he were forced to repeat to the ear of each one the will clearly expressed so many times not only in person, but with letters and other public documents; we do not place his orders in doubt, adding the facile pretext of those unwilling to obey – that it is not the Pope who commands, but those who surround him; we do not limit the field in which he might and must exercise his authority; we do not set above the authority of the Pope that of other persons, however learned, who dissent from the Pope, who, even though learned, are not holy, because whoever is holy cannot dissent from the Pope.”
I believe that statement of Bellarmine with regards to no declaration being necessary was with regards to Apostasy. Not heresy. (?)
Actually repeatedly we see that Bellarmine states that the judgment of the Church is necessary and his removal must be done by men following fraternal correction and warnings. The act then becomes an act of charity, not jurisdiction.
http://www.trueorfalsepope.com/p/respondnig-to-fr.html
” “Jurisdiction is certainly given to the Pontiff by God, but with the agreement of men [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, 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.””
According to Suarez, a consensus must also be reached juridicially.
““[T]he Church does not validly exercise any act of jurisdiction against the Pope, nor is the [Papal] power conferred [on the man] by the election; rather the Church merely designates a person upon whom Christ confers the power by himself; therefore when the Church would depose a heretical Pope, it does not act superior to him, but from the consensus of Christ the Lord it juridically declares him to be a heretic, and even altogether unworthy of the dignity of Pope; he would then ipso facto and immediately be deposed by Christ.””
“[I]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.”[3]
Of course the question does remain – are the majority of Cardinals and Bishops, themselves who are suspect going to admonish and discern Francis as to whether he is a heretic? Well we at least know that Burke and co, at least according to Pentin are intending to proceed with the step of the fraternal correction, which I presume they are waiting until after Easter to do, which I presume is because they are looking for more support, which according to the anonymous Fra Cristo blog is not going so well, particularly with Mueller being afraid of schism and trying to discourage them from proceeding.
I would agree with Louie that at some point Francis is likely to go so far that any further attempt to wait for a proper proceeding against Francis will be comical…
Perhaps that is the punishment of our times, whether in American politics or in the Church, the ‘authorities’ make no arrests, nor prosecute those occupying places of power. The authorities who should be going up against this have lost all power and the sole reason is that they don’t love either justice, the State or the Church enough to suffer and die for it. Holding Francis to account indeed will lead to schism, just as attempts to hold Obama, Bush, the CIA, and the American Deep State and Globalists to account means civil war.
So it’s looking more likely that Francis will remain a heretic while validly holding office of the Pope under the cowardice consent of the Cardinals and the laity, until God kills him, and the rest of them and many of us along with them.
His will be done.
Yet you have no problem turning to post V2 sources when it comes to the Galileo affair?
The mission of the SSPX is or should be the salvation of souls. How this could be accomplished without publicly and aggressively condemning the errors of the modernist post-conciliar church, especially by the current “pope”, is a mystery to me. We need strong leadership from the SSPX starting at the top and by the priests from the pulpit. I hope the good priests of the SSPX are not being silenced by their superiors.
No, I used the pre V2 Catholic Encyclopedia.
Except what Gags fails to tell you is that the context of St. Pius X’s address (November 1912, to the members of the Apostolic Union of Clergy) was being made directly to Modernists who rejected the Pope’s authority and the Tradition he is to uphold. He was addressing those clergy and theologians who despised and hated him precisely for standing in the way of their innovations taht went against the faith. Innovations that Gaganello embraces so long as they are uttered from the mouth of a Papal office holder without context.
This is why Pius X stated in the opening – “The Pope is the guardian of dogma and of morals; he is the custodian of the principles that make families sound, nations great, souls holy; he is the counsellor of princes and of peoples; he is the head under whom no one feels tyrannized because he represents God Himself; he is the supreme father who unites in himself all that may exist that is loving, tender, divine.” And why Pius X issued the Syllabus of Errors and teh Oath against Modernism.
Pius X was a ‘trad’ fighting against modernists.
Francis is a modernist fighting against Trads.
Big difference. One Gagagoo doesn’t have the capacity to discern.
Soon enough, Francis will deny or redefine the Real Presence of the Eucharist so serve the Lutherans and Anglicans, and Gag will stand right alongside him, but never will Gags stand with Christ. Because as Gag’s erroneously resort to using false quotations that describe the Pope as ‘God’ (not to be confused with being a representative of God, BIG difference!), Gags worships the creature rather than the creator and is as the prophecies describe, believes that men have become god.
So now that the same men, who St. Pope Pius X admonishes for rejecting him, are now THE SAME ONES who are in power and even occupy the Papacy, gagnell is happy to throw everything else Pius X taught in favor of the adultery-promoting, pagan-concelebrating, ecumenistic Popes whose actions Pius X condemned.
So Gagnelli proves that he only happily picks and chooses what teachings of the Popes he will follow. It just so happens that adultery and worshipping with pagans are right up Gag’s alley, so he stands with these. But like a hypocrite, happily quotes Pius X and make Pius serve Gag’s interests. Gag is a true Protestant in spirit! Someone who blatantly ignores historical context for his own subjective interpretation. One who doesn’t realize that it is an act of charity and love also to admonish the Pope if he errs.
“And how must the Pope be loved? Non verbo neque lingua, sed opere et veritate. [Not in word, nor in tongue, but in deed, and in truth – 1 Jn iii, 18]”
Note the last word? ‘IN TRUTH’ ?
“And if Our Lord Jesus Christ said of Himself, “si quis diligit me, sermonem meum servabit,” [if any one love me, he will keep my word – Jn xiv, 23]”
Not that command of Our Lord? Something Francis doesn’t follow with regards to adultery?
So Gags believes he must love a Pope who does not love Christ enough to keep His word?
And Gags who has had his butt handed to him attempting to defend Amoris Letitia in the past by appeals to the disobediences of John Paul II and enshrining Usury as being okay now just dismisses us as ‘internet theologians’ for loving Christ enough to obey His word? Gags doesn’t see the problem because gag’s theology is one where the Pope is ‘God on Earth’ who can do anything, a contradictory god like Allah. Pitiful!
All the more reason why whether Siri or Benedict XVI’s whose contradictory statements and actions or statements attributed to him following his resignation are things that are not up to the common man far removed from the behind-the-scenes to judge and must be left up to the proper authorities, the Cardinals etc. who were there to make a ruling of.
That or something handy from Wikileaks…
But let’s face it. Just as the U.S. Presidents get away with everything, including the Deep State that Gagnellibelly denies exists and who were responsible for orchestrating 9/11, invading other nations under false pretenses and cooperate with, train and arm militant Islamists to do their dirty work for them; and have been doing so since the Cold War; we live in a lawless age where the authorities can do nothing.
High placed U.S. criminals get away with mass murder and phony wars, and the modernist clergy get away with heresy and sexual escapades and simony. Those who should and can do something about it, don’t because just as one wouldn’t want to harm the integrity of the USA and it’s precious democracy, the other doesn’t want scandal, and schism and the honey pit of money coming from government handouts to end their comfortable lives either. So it’s all about perception management rather than Truth and Justice.
But I do find it hilarious that just as Gagnello will obey without thinking the commands of the Vicar Bishop in White and the modernist arm of the Church over just about anything. He will uncritically drink the same kool aid the US State department tells him about 9/11 Saddam’s weapons of Mass destruction, Assad’s chemical weapons attack, the shoot down of MH-17, Saddam’s incubator babies, the Gulf of Tonkin, the USS Liberty etc. A fine model citizen is gagnelli for both the Novus Ordo as well as the New World Order.
For Gagnelli, WTC Building 7 came down for the same reasons that some adulterers, knowing what they are doing can still possess sanctifying grace every night they adultify each other and present themselves to Father for Communion. Their consciences, like the US government’s models of the WTC’s collapse are relying on some of that fine Spadaro math where 2 + 2 = 5 in theology. Neither of which anyone can see because their inner workings are left only to God and those with Highly Confidential Top Secret access.
Also please don’t look into the Insider Trading during 9.11 or the Vatican Bank scandal either. Thank you!
In defense of the SSPX fella, I believe he’s trying to stretch the obvious…
Francis is clearly at the very least a material heretic.
Charging him as a formal heretic is another matter, that must be done. This can only practically be done by a council.
He must be dragged before a public gathering, just as I’m sure the doctor and nurse force a Pope to take his medicine and shots and take their medical advice even when he doesn’t, despite him being the most powerful man on Earth, God’s own representative, who is to be judged by no one yadda yadda, and made to state clearly his awareness of the doctrine, informed about it in case his formation was due to the usual Vatican II deficiencies, and see if he will back down or double down on it perniciously.
Once that occurs, it will be plain for all the world to see. No vagaries, no escape clauses, no modernist gobbledegook, have the press and cameras all there to witness this, Francis likes cameras.
Put him in a hot seat in a hot room and when he asks why the air conditioning is not on, say it is part of our effort to fight climate change. He is not to leave the room until he answers everything. Have all the documentation ready, don’t let him say he conveniently doesn’t remember what the heretical footnotes in his own documents say.
Have the press snapping pictures, children present requiring to make his responses as simple as possible and not to loose his cool before this crowd, and Gaganelli personally flown to Rome to keep washing and massaging his feet. Heck, invite the Sedes in too so they can engage him in polite ecumenism to their satisfaction.
Then either Francis upholds Church Tradition and destroys all his work by definitively stating Catholic Truth that will be documented and enforced against every German and Maltese heretic who thinks circumstantial adultery is okay now.
Or he admits he’s a Heretic and Proud of it and he would’ve gotten away with it too if it weren’t for those meddling neo-pelagian rosary-counting Trads. now get me out of here I need an AC!!! And we can book him a first class seat back to Beauno Aeries where he’s free now to contact the UN about that World Religions Council initiative. Gaganelli will stand with him there and accuse us all of following the next antiPope who God-willing will actually implement what Pope St. Pius X intended against modernism which Gaganelli ignores.
But failing any of that from occurring, which I think is most likely, we have ourselves some global chastisements to look forward to. If the Clergy can’t do their jobs, there’s always the nuclear option. If the Muslims don’t fill them with bullets and arrows first.
At Jonno
Bravo! Spot on, on every level. That’s what I call a realist. Oh and je suit geocentrist, aussi!
You need to read the actual texts from Bellarmine, and not the writings of the quoted modern non-theologian authors who falsify him to fit their (contrary) opinion.
From Bellarmine’s De Romano Pontifice (ch. 30);
The fourth opinion is of Cajetan [322]. There, he teaches, that a manifestly heretical Pope is not ipso facto deposed; but can and ought to be deposed by the Church. Now in my judgment, such an opinion cannot be defended. For in the first place, that a manifest heretic would be ipso facto deposed, is proven from authority and reason. The Authority is of St. Paul, who commands Titus [323], that after two censures, that is, after he appears manifestly pertinacious, an heretic is to be shunned: and he understands this before excommunication and sentence of a judge. Jerome comments on the same place, saying that other sinners, through a judgment of excommunication are excluded from the Church; heretics, however, leave by themselves and are cut from the body of Christ, but a Pope who remains the Pope cannot be shunned. How will we shun our Head? How will we recede from a member to whom we are joined?
Now in regard to reason this is indeed very certain. A non-Christian cannot in any way be Pope, as Cajetan affirms in the same book [324], and the reason is because he cannot be the head of that which he is not a member, and he is not a member of the Church who is not a Christian. But a manifest heretic is not a Christian, as St. Cyprian and many other Fathers clearly teach [325]. Therefore, a manifest heretic cannot be Pope.
…
Next, the Holy Fathers teach in unison, that not only are heretics outside the Church, but they even lack all Ecclesiastical jurisdiction and dignity ipso facto. Cyprian says: “We say that all heretics and schismatics have not power and right” [327]. He also teaches that heretics returning to the Church must be received as laymen; even if beforehand they were priests or bishops in the Church [328]. Optatus teaches that heretics and schismatics cannot hold the keys of the kingdom of heaven, nor loose or bind [329]. Ambrose and Augustine teach the same, as does St. Jerome who says: “Bishops who were heretics cannot continue to be so; rather let them be constituted such who were received that were not heretics” [330]. Pope Celestine I, in an epistle to John of Antioch, which is contained in Volume One of the Council of Ephesus, ch. 19, says: “If anyone who was either excommunicated or exiled by Bishop Nestorius, or any that followed him, from such a time as he began to preach such things, whether they be from the dignity of a bishop or clergy, it is manifest that he has endured and endures in our communion, nor do we judge him outside, because he could not remove anyone by a sentence, who himself had already shown that he must be removed.” And in a letter to the clergy of Constantinople: “The Authority of our See has sanctioned, that the bishop, cleric or Christian by simple profession who had been deposed or excommunicated by Nestorius or his followers, after the latter began to preach heresy, shall not be considered deposed or excommunicated. For he who had defected from the faith with such preaching, cannot depose or remove anyone whatsoever.”
Absolutely correct. A tour de force. I believe he is a freemason doing his master’s bidding. I the fifth Joyful Mystery we are taught to ask for God’s grace “to be obedient to God’s word” not to man’s. Can someone gag this nelly? He is pure unadulterated poison.
We’ve been at SSPX for a couple years from our local NO Parish. It is an anachronism in the best sense of that word. Completely Orthodox, corrections of VII errors mentioned as fitting. Very modest and appropriate attire, veils and reverence. But, absolutely no mention of current events in the Church, Amoris Laetitia, Dubia, Pope Francis, none whatsoever. Personally, I stick to small talk at coffee, as my thinking towards the Conciliar Popes leans heavily sede and I suppress these thoughts even in my own head so I don’t even trust myself to discuss these issues. Leaving those thoughts unformed until further developments. Definitely an elephant in the room w/us.
And if you don’t like what Bellarmine, St. Alphonsus de Liguori, St. Francis de Sales and countless others have believed in this regard (that a heretical Pope loses his Pontificate _ipso facto_) there is also Canon Law which states the same (when a cleric – i.e. any cleric – publicly defects from the Faith he automatically, by the law itself, without any declaration, loses his office).
Code of Canon Law (1917), Canon 188.4:
Canon 188: “Ob tacitam renuntiationem ab ipso iure admissam quaelibet officia vacant ipso facto et sine ulla declaratione, si clerus … (4) a fide catholica publice defecerit.”
Canon 188: “There are certain causes which effect the tacit resignation of an office, which resignation is accepted in advance by operation of law, and hence is EFFECTIVE WITHOUT ANY DECLARATION. These causes are: (4) if he has publicly fallen away from the Catholic faith.”
(By the way, if you have an annotated copy of the 1917 Code of Canon Law you will see in the notes that this very canon (188.4.) lists among its sources the Bull of Paul IV, Cum Ex Apostolatus Officio (which clearly means that the Code of Canon Law considers the said Bull to be still valid and applicable).
I appreciate the sentiment but it is still the error of conciliarism (14th Century version) to think a valid Pope can be put on trial and then juridically removed. There is no canon law for this and a valid Pope is above all other authority. It may sound like semantics but all is required is that a group of faithful Bishops and maybe cardinals if they can be found–to declare that Francis has lost his office via heresy and leave it at that (while the option of electing a new pope remains but that is also problematic for confused Catholics while Francischurch would still control all of the official structures–Arian style–ironically this would be the “church of the poor” that Benedict longed for! As for regular Catholics Saint Bellarmine says that we can only judge externals so we would have the right to withdraw submission to a heretical pontiff like Francis in the meantime.
Argumentem ad hominem.
Yes, of course, when compared to NO. 🙂
I was comparing the SSPX of today to the SSPX of 5+ years ago. And since I travel a lot I’ve been noticing these changes (for the worse) in every SSPX church/chapel, regardless of country. Don’t think their priests have suddenly come to accept the false faith of the NO Church, but it seems obvious that they are no longer allowed (by their superiors) to speak out as they used to in earlier times. Thus, their sermons are now literally indistinguishable from those of the priests in the Ecclesia Dei communities (ICKSP, FSSP, etc). I also see huge numbers of women at SSPX Masses in pants, with no veils, and often even in way too short skirts, etc – especially in Europe and South America (something rarely ever seen in the past). And then you have the ultra-modernist and totally non-Catholic looking new chapels they’ve recently built (and are building) in several places…truly as horrendous as the worst of the modern architecture of the NO churches.
The faithful seem to be a mix of everything… plenty of sedevacantist-leaning ones, as well as many very in favor of the “reconciliation” with apostate Rome. Fwiw, priests (both in SSPX and in the Ecclesia Dei groups) don’t seem to object to the faithfuls’ sedevacantist opinions (at least that’s my experience, and I’ve been completely open about it for several years). They just avoid discussing it in public (for fear of getting into trouble, I assume).
In any case, we need to pray much and do all we can to keep the Faith. I think as long as a priest (who is validly ordained and only says the true Mass) doesn’t say or teach anything contrary to Faith, it’s ok to go to his Mass/chapel. I’d certainly like them to denounce the heresies coming out of the NO Church, but if that was our criteria for going to Mass we may soon end up staying at home.
Quite. And even if (and that’s a big IF) there were still a few bishops who held the true Faith, they will certainly not speak out. If the world’s bishops went along with the apostasy of Vatican II (at the time when a large number of them were still Catholic), we can hardly expect to see any heroic courage today. In fact I think those bishops at the Council were far more culpable than the heretics/apostates of today – because they knew better.
That is a brilliant find TC! So we do have Paul IV’s teaching cited as authoritative by the 1917 Code of Canon Law itself and a reference to a papal document that specifically addressed the automatic loss of office by a Pope! This is a game changer.
Indeed; the Church can only declare that he had lost his office by the very fact of having fallen into heresy (or, more apt in the case of Bergoglio, for having apostatized from the Faith). But of course there won’t be any group of cardinals or bishops (and much less an imperfect Council) within the NO Church to do any such thing. So we’re back at square one. There are several (sedevacantist) bishops who publicly denounce Bergoglio as anti-Pope, but of course nobody will listen as they are outside of the NO. Humanly speaking I don’t see any solution… it’s truly in God’s hands now. (Sure, Bergoglio will die at some point, but it’s a given than another heretic or apostate will be elected once again.)
On this page you’ll see the scan of the relevant page of the 1917 Code – the annotations list among sources Paul IV’s Cum Ex Apostolatus (and the subsequent Bull of St. Pius V which confirmed it), specifically paragraphs 3 and 6 (of Cum Ex…).
https://forocatolico.wordpress.com/2016/03/06/vigente-cum-ex-apostolatus/
The scan is genuine. I’m not a canon lawyer so perhaps someone more familiar with the way the annotations work may want to look at it, but it seems clear enough and quite self-explanatory.
(Btw, most of the copies of the Code of Canon Law come without annotations, but there are some annotated ones, so anyone can get their hands on a physical exemplar with a bit of effort).
Btw, here is the entire book (1917 Code of Canon Law, annotated) – you can look up code 188, and will see the same annotations (as on the other link).
https://archive.org/details/codexiuriscanoni00cath
Sorry, canon 188, not code. 🙂
And Johnno boy once again fails to address the central issue which is why the SSPX can’t embrace sedevacantism.
Let me repeat this slowly for you Johnno boy.
Saint John Paul II allowed public heretics and schismatics including members of the “Orthodox” Church and the “Polish National” Church to receive communion while Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre LIVED. When 9 SSPX priest embraced sedevecantism due to this break with 2000 years of tradition, the Archbishop kicked THEM out.
The reason you HAVEN’T addressed this is because you CAN’T.
The SSPX has hitched its wagon to a falling star, the NO church. They will go down with the false church they so desperately seek reconcilliation with. All will seem ok for a while but when they want a new bishop, Rome will insist on the 1968 Rite of Episcopal Ordination. It will be downhill from there. I am sure others can come up with more scenarios where sspx is forced to compromise little by little.
…..Meanwhile, I will stand with the Supreme Pontiff of the Holy Roman Catholic Church His Holiness Pope Francis. …..
AMEN!
Thanks to all for the discussion. (I won’t lie – I haven’t had time to read each reply).
.
Just to make sure we’re clear:
.
This post concerns the merits of Fr. Gleize’s latest wherein he addresses “papal heresy” in *general terms* – having nothing to do with Francis in particular.
.
Fr. Gleize makes the case that notorious heresy (and being “anathema”) is not incompatible with the Office of Peter. I believe that position is demonstrably false.
.
If Fr. Gleize’s arguments were true, a non-member of the Church – a notorious heretic or one who has been anathematized and thus severed from the Body of the Church – could be elected pope without ever having returned to communion. Clearly, that is an error.
.
As I wrote, precisely how a notoriously heretical pope is deposed is another matter altogether, and not relevant to the present discussion concerning the merits of Fr. Gleize’s arguments.
The expulsion of the 9 priests wasn’t primarily due to sedevacantism (though their refusal to use the 1962 Missal with the changes of John XXIII was certainly based on their conviction that Roncalli was not a true Pope). I have no doubt Abp. Lefebvre, if he was alive today, would denounce Bergoglio as an anti-Pope. Indeed he said and wrote sedevacantism-supporting statements on countless occasions (during Wojtyla’s reign), including in a conference he gave in the US in the early 80s (where he clearly said it was very possible that JPII wasn’t a true Pope, but that he himself was not yet ready to state so publicly at that time). Abp. Lefebvre oscillated between considering the post-VII Popes (esp. Montini and Wojtyla) as possible anti-Popes and the NO Church as a schismatic sect, and (at other times) considering them to be valid Popes and the NO to be the Catholic Church… Oddly enough, now that the NO and its “Pope” are even more obviously non-Catholic the SSPX superiors have adopted the pro-Conciliar view.
Fr. Gleize is an intellect completely founded upon the teachings of St. Thomas Aquinas and the Church’s Magisterium. I doubt he made a mistake in his analysis, especially when it is published only after strict review by other SSPX theologians. As for the above article – it seems as if it were written by a Sedevacantist. He’s just trying to throw more dirt on the SSPX and trying to prove that he’s smarter than people who have the grace of state to address these issues. It sniffs of pride.
The SSPX priests are NOT being silenced by their superiors. Our Society priest has called out the errors of Pope Francis on several occasions.
Exactly mate! Spot on.
Melanie, our family is the same as you. We have came to Tradition a couple of years ago from NO and went first to our local Latin Mass Community but since then have moved to the SSPX Chapel in our City after further education in the true Catholic Faith. We have not heard any aberrations and the Priests whom we have heard this last year have spoken about the errors of VII and this present “Pope.” It is hard not to be confused because we come from a place where we practically knew nothing of the True Faith and have yet so much to learn. Now we hear that there is a “resistance” within the resistance and are very confused. Have tried to get a clear picture on what has been happening since 2012 (Doctrinal Declaration)with the Society but it is very difficult to filter through and understand. With everything I have been reading and in light of what Louie has been reporting, I am more concerned than ever. I do not want to be led astray and am scared that since we are such babies in the Faith (even though we’ve been practicing NO Catholics all our lives) we may make a wrong choice. I am thankful for Louie’s site and pray that we all remain within the Ark of the One, True, Catholic and Apostolic Faith!
Fr. Gleize might well be a great priest, but in this case he goes against ALL of the Church Fathers, saints, Doctors of the Church, and theologians across centuries. None of them believed a manifest heretic could be a true Pope. By the way, even St. Thomas himself taught that heretics and schismatics lose their jurisdiction and if they act from their jurisdiction their acts are null and void (Summa, 2a 2ae, q. 39, art. 3).
No matter how good, pious and orthodox any priest may be, if the entire weight of theological opinions (spanning nearly 2000 years) is contrary to what he believes, it would be rather foolish to go with his opinion. It is not pride to side with all the saints, Doctors, Church Fathers and renowned theologians – quite the opposite.
Sincere advice: BEGONE, SEDE……!
Repent, repent, repent, lest….!
Sigh…so you’re condemning all the saints, theologians, Doctors, Popes (as well as the Code of Canon Law)… on the basis of your unfounded and purely emotional reaction.
Well, good luck with that. We will all give account to God one day.
TC: There is the question of formal heretic vs. material heretic. A material heretic does not cease to be Catholic, if I have that right.
It is a very confusing time. While I do not agree with SSPX on all issues, I have no doubt as to the validity of their orders and sacraments. So you shouldn’t worry about attending their chapels uf you are fortunate enough to live near one. This confusion is exactly what is to be expected when the flock has no true shepard. This is why we need a true Catholic Pope and not modernist pretenders like Roncalli, Montini, Luciani, Wojtyla, Ratzinger, or Bergolio.
I saw that new building in Madrid soon after going to SSPX & now this Personal Prelature thing. Made me think, “I knew this was too easy to be true.” I don’t think SSPX can be Catholic in a vacuum; the Church has got to be Catholic. You can’t make everything alright by ignoring the Magisterium and the Popes when clearly something is terribly wrong there. I just pray our Catholic Priest at SSPX stays put regardless of what goes on in Rome. Can’t really reason further than that, not a lot makes sense.
Dear Gwaredd,
You are blessed to have this priest. I am happy for you and also somewhat envious of you. So far, not one word in our chapel and we have had several priests over the past few years. Many of us are wondering what is going on. Thanks for your response.
Thank you Tom A as that is what my husband and I have been discussing. We are staying put for those very reasons and unless something concrete changes in the way of the Sacraments (or heresy being promoted,) this is the place to be. I am grateful for this site and a couple others where I can gain some clarity in the current disorientation.
We’re staying put too Linda. I just feel a little less secure that things won’t change around us but so so grateful for our Priest.
When there’s no limit to our imagination, it may become our worst enemy…..pride!
I wish everyone – and myself – a happy journey toward the only real aim in life: salvation.
Jesu Maria Joseph I love You, save souls!
I know from much experience that most Slavs tend toward a simplistic view that blind obedience to clergy is the source and summit of all Catholic virtue (centuries of indoctrination and having to be Catholic among very bad neighboring powers). You will never get any other idea into many of their heads. They will march in a most orderly fashion, obediently following Bergolio to perdition. And they expect a medal of valor for doing so.
…… You will never get any other idea into many of their heads…….’This un- sound opinion, comes from the mouth of none other, but a proud, ‘stiff-neck’ sede……’
PAX!
For many Poles, the church is a sign of national identity. Many suffer from a cult of Wojtyla. I cant say I blame them after what they went thru but I have witnessed it first hand in my own family. JP2 is a saint to them and to tell them the facts is useless. They are blind to his heresies. Also, life in Poland still includes a Catholic ethos, all but lost in the rest of the former Catholic strongholds. They have yet to truly witness Catholic life under true V2 carnage.
Same to you. 🙂
My comment was to FromPoland, these responses don’t always work sequentially. 🙂
I can’t argue heresy for or against from anyone’s position. I can only say what I believe from the bottom of my heart, although even there I admit trepidation.
My simple Catholic conscience, which I certainly hope is well formed, tells me that this pope teaches heresy, and where he is not teaching outright heresy, he is teaching scorn for the faith and for tradition. He even dismisses God in his way. This combination of factors means, I don’t have to listen to him on anything, and if I do, I very well may end up in perdition. Therefore, to me, he is already anathema.
The SSPX is not in my world. I do not have access to them or their Mass, although I understand the history and that they have been the guardians of tradition.
But, the fact that they have been silent, given the obvious apostasy we are experiencing from the See of Peter, means they have (for me) thrown away their own credibility, and in all likelihood, have “sold out” for whatever reason, to this pope and this hierarchy. Now, to me they are irrelevant.
I am waiting and hoping for a strong, bold, and true defense of Jesus Christ and the faith. I’ll know it when I hear the words “heretic” and “heresy”, and admonitions about the faithful and who we should follow or not follow. If it doesn’t come, ever, which looks likely, we will persevere with what we have, not giving in to this NO church that we have no interest in except as much as we have to.
God bless all here, and may He help us.
….. many but not all. Always, remember there’s a ‘remnant’ that carries the ‘torch’ of faith, in every age, and in every corner of the world. The same stands for those Catholics that are infected with Americanism. Let us keep all in perspective, discern but do not presume, that you are free of ‘error’. Sedevacantism is the worst of heresies, as is Protestantism.
Remember, we are nothing but dust…….
Dear Evangeline, (love your name).
Are you attending Latin Mass or Novus Ordo Mass?
Do you believe that there’s only One Holy Catholic Apostolic Church?
Do you believe that there’s One Truth, that Jesus Christ has established His kingdom on earth, that is, His Mystical Body, the Church, of which He is her Head, and His Vicar of Christ?, or do you believe that the His Church is hiding in the basements and caves, and that we have no pope since Pope Pius XII?
Do you believe, that where’s Peter (Pope), there is the Church, visible not hidden, not in the basements, hotel rooms or caves?
Do you believe, that Our Lord is a ‘liar’ (God forbid!), and the gates of hell have destroyed the Church?
Do you believe, that God gave to each one of us the authority, to pronounce heresy, judge the Vicar of Christ, and to pronounce anathema, rather then, the next Pope, or the next Council?
Do you believe that we all have ‘our truth?’
Do you believe that ‘sedevacantism’ is a heresy, as is Protestantism? Or, is this were you take a shelter, awaiting the end of the world, the anti-Christ…..in despair? (God forbid).
‘…..I am waiting and hoping for a strong, bold, and true defense of Jesus Christ and the faith…..’
Dear Evangeline, if that was true what you despair of……..the holy Church would not stand on the ‘rock’ for two thousand years…..would collapse, as if it was build on the sand. Do not fear the enemy as the cowards do, who are hiding under the bushel, rather, then do what the Society of Saint Pius X, by His Providence has always fought the good fight in fearless faith, now ready to face the enemy face to face, following His Royal Way of the Cross, the only ‘way’, that Our Lord Jesus Christ has paved for those who are His soldiers, armored with faith, love for God, and holy fear of God! Pray for holy perseverance, holy hope….and ride the storm. Discern, but do not despair. Trust in His Providence! Not our will, but His Will Be Done!
Above all, keep the faith, don’t worry! All is in God’s hands, He chooses in His time, wisely what He wills, even chastises us, for our own good…..for He is Our Father, who art in Heaven….!
You are getting ridiculous with your animosity towards me and people who think like me. If you are trying to convince me that my sede way of seeing the world is wrong then you need to find a new approach. You keep thinking that a valid pope can lead souls to hell through his universal (NOT PRIVATE) teachings such as AL….I’ll keep believing that this is an impossibility.
A Church without a Pope, is like a country without a President…..did you get that!
PAX!
To: FromPoland, it is easier for me to repost so as to answer.
Dear Evangeline, (love your name).
(Thank you!)
Are you attending Latin Mass or Novus Ordo Mass?
(We attend the Holy Mass in the Extraordinary Form whenever we can and much prefer it. It is not near our home. Our diocese does not offer it. We attend the most reverent NO Mass we can find. This may not always be the case. Too much shenanigans, and we will have to rethink.)
Do you believe that there’s only One Holy Catholic Apostolic Church?
(yes)
Do you believe that there’s One Truth, that Jesus Christ has established His kingdom on earth, that is, His Mystical Body, the Church, of which He is her Head, and His Vicar of Christ?, or do you believe that the His Church is hiding in the basements and caves, and that we have no pope since Pope Pius XII?
(I do believe in the first, but also see there is a crisis right now, the proportions of which are hard to determine. I do not happen to believe the church is only hiding in basements and caves. Regarding the popes since Pius XII, this I do not know, and file under the category “God’s business not mine”. I would say I tend to believe popes have been validly elected and are actual, true popes. I have heard fair arguments otherwise, but that is what I tend to think. I don’t worry about it however.)
Do you believe, that where’s Peter (Pope), there is the Church, visible not hidden, not in the basements, hotel rooms or caves?
(Not anymore.)
Do you believe, that Our Lord is a ‘liar’ (God forbid!), and the gates of hell have destroyed the Church?
(No, Our Lord cannot ever be a liar, and the gates of hell have not apparently destroyed the Church. Wicked men have done great damage.)
Do you believe, that God gave to each one of us the authority, to pronounce heresy, judge the Vicar of Christ, and to pronounce anathema, rather then, the next Pope, or the next Council?
(Difficult question. I believe if our conscience is well formed, we are to live accordingly, and make decisions based on what we believe and know to be true. We must make individual, personal choices based on that formed conscience. For most of us, that will never go outside the realm of the personal, we have no authority nor ability to denounce anyone, although we could try, and we have that right, I believe. We must judge words, actions, behavior, yes, and make our decisions again, based on our well formed Catholic conscience. Do we follow? Do we not follow?.)
Do you believe that we all have ‘our truth?’
(We all have subjective opinions and varied levels of knowledge. No two are identical even in these.)
Do you believe that ‘sedevacantism’ is a heresy, as is Protestantism?
(I do not know if sedevacantism is a heresy. I believe Protestantism is, although I feel much kinship with certain sects of Protestantism, such as the Southern Baptists, and feel in many cases they are a far better example of fidelity to the Gospel and love for Christ than many Catholics, including myself.) Or, is this were you take a shelter, awaiting the end of the world, the anti-Christ…..in despair? (God forbid).
(I can find solace in Protestantism, yes. I have always said for me it is mainly about Jesus Christ, I can fellowship with the best of them, if we are talking about Jesus Christ. My love for the Roman Catholic Church is great. I am a convert, and love all the Church offers, feeling it to be THE Church Christ founded. I do not live in despair, because our home is not here, and we are just pilgrims passing through. I am very concerned about many things, actually hoping 2017 is a year we see remedies to our current crisis, but if it is not, onward Christian Soldiers, marching as to war.)
‘…..I am waiting and hoping for a strong, bold, and true defense of Jesus Christ and the faith…..’
Dear Evangeline, if that was true what you despair of……..the holy Church would not stand on the ‘rock’ for two thousand years…..would collapse, as if it was build on the sand. Do not fear the enemy as the cowards do, who are hiding under the bushel, rather, then do what the Society of Saint Pius X, by His Providence has always fought the good fight in fearless faith, now ready to face the enemy face to face, following His Royal Way of the Cross, the only ‘way’, that Our Lord Jesus Christ has paved for those who are His soldiers, armored with faith, love for God, and holy fear of God! Pray for holy perseverance, holy hope….and ride the storm. Discern, but do not despair. Trust in His Providence! Not our will, but His Will Be Done!
(Wise words. I do not believe I despair, unless it is short lived, lol. I am concerned, very. I am even frustrated, maybe cranky at times, but not despairing. I am disappointed, extremely, in the men who have taken vows and have clearly abandoned them, or at least found their responsibilities inconvenient to say the least, and are silent! This is something that grieves me, very much. The SSPX would do well to open their mouths and defend Christ and the Gospel NOW, and do not delay! Christians are suffering, suffering so greatly, and one soul lost is too many. It is not my responsibility, it is theirs, as well as all Cardinals, Bishops, priests, religious.)
Above all, keep the faith, don’t worry! All is in God’s hands, He chooses in His time, wisely what He wills, even chastises us, for our own good…..for He is Our Father, who art in Heaven….!
(Amen, and Amen! God will not leave us, nor abandon us, He is my rock, and my salvation! God bless you, and thank you for asking my opinion. Anyone who reads my opinion should know I don’t know anything but my own opinion, and not give it too much weight.) God bless all here.
Beautiful answer. We all have our subjective experiences in living the one objective truth of Jesus. We all come to this crisis from many different backgrounds. We all agree there is a huge crisis in the Church. We all try to make sense out of the mess by examining the facts before us. We come to many differing conclusions. We have no answer because we do not have a Pope who is clarifying the issues. Francis or Bergolio (however you address him) is not doing his job. He is causing confusion. It is my opinion that the facts favor the see of peter being vacant. Others disagree, thats fine. Sedevacantism is not dogmatic because no Pope has declared it dogmatic. Likewise, no Pope has declared sedevacantism a heresy so we shouldnt hurl that charge around either. Christ and His Church will win this battle even though it looks bleak at the moment. When a true Pope again sits on the Chair of Peter, we will have some answers.
I know your opinion, I just fully disagree with it. Pax to you as well my friend.