As reported on January 20th by Rorate Caeli, The Bergoglian Persecution Begins.
Surely, the persecution began quite some time ago (just ask Cardinal Raymond Burke whose marginalization began shortly after making disparaging comments about Evangelii Gaudium in late 2013), but what the Rorate report does suggest is that the persecution has perhaps entered a new phase.
At issue is the case of Fr. Luis Carlos Uribe Medina of the Diocese of Pereira, Columbia, who has been officially “suspended from the exercise of the priestly ministry” for the high crime of expressing “publicly and privately his rejection of the doctrinal and pastoral teachings of the Holy Father Francis, mainly regarding Marriage and the Eucharist.”
According to the articles set forth in the Decree issued by his ordinary, Bishop Rigoberto Bermudez, Fr. Medina “is prohibited from diffusing his ideas contrary to the Catholic faith and the ecclesiastical discipline.”
The Decree cautions the faithful, not just of the diocese, but “of the Catholic Church not to follow the teachings of the aforementioned priest as long as he does not accept the doctrine and teachings of the Vicar of Christ.”
So there you have it; the so-called “Catholic faith and ecclesiastical discipline” is no longer that which is founded upon Sacred Scripture, sacred Tradition, and the bi-millennial practice of the Church; it is heretofore synonymous with “the doctrine and teachings” of Jorge Mario Bergoglio.
The bluntness of this proclamation is a shock to the Catholic system, to be sure, but let’s be clear:
The actually coup took place more than 50 years ago when the Faith that comes to us from the Apostles was largely supplanted by a body teaching firmly grounded in nothing more stable than the whims of worldly men at Vatican Council II.
Pope John Paul the Great Ecumenist perhaps put the situation into perspective best when he wrote in his inaugural encyclical:
Entrusting myself fully to the Spirit of truth, I am entering into the rich inheritance of the recent pontificates. This inheritance has struck deep roots in the awareness of the Church in an utterly new way, quite unknown previously, thanks to the Second Vatican Council. (cf Redemptor Hominis 3)
While much is written these days about the stark contrast between Amoris Laetitia and Familiaris Consortio, the “deep roots” that supplied sustenance to the pontificate of John Paul II are precisely the same that feed the Bergoglian enterprise; each drawing upon the conciliar well-spring of doctrinal evolution (modernism) in service to the ever-changing circumstances and demands of modern men (humanism).
It has been said in this space numerous times before but bears repeating:
Unless and until the errors of the Council are plainly condemned (something that will not happen until the requests of Our Lady of Fatima are met, thus inviting an outpouring of Divine grace), the crisis at hand is certain to continue.
So too will the persecution of faithful priests who, like Fr. Medina, dare to speak out against the Bergoglian agenda; likely with increasing intensity.
As this happens, the schism already present in the Church will slowly but surely come into ever-sharper focus.
Painful though it most certainly will be, I welcome any process whereby the battle lines are more clearly drawn between the followers of Christ and the followers of Francis.
That said, I would much prefer to see the situation brought to a head quickly by a solemn anathematization of Jorge Mario Bergoglio; an action long since overdue.
Good one Louie!
The first article I ever read by you was “It all comes back to the Council”, and it was a turning point for me.
https://akacatholic.com/back_to_the_council/
I think I could summarise your whole oeuvre in that sentence.
This is how Bergolio will answer Burke et al. With suspensions and eventually excommunications. What remains to be seen is if these modernist novus ordo neo conservatives have to fortitude to fight back. I hope they do, but my money is on compromise since they already compromised when they accepted the novus ordo.
To all priests out there: Are you ready to make a decision? A really big one? OK, then make it. Are you on the side of the Catholic Church or the side of Francis? If Francis, don’t worry about a thing. You offered the pinch to Caesar and can go on your merry way. If you side with the Church and get ready for all sorts of nasty things to happen to you because Caesar and his followers don’t like being questioned and if they choose, they can make your life miserable. However, God will watch over you and say; Well done, good and faithful servant.
VCR- Your comment is perfect. However, it should be addressed not only to priests, but also to the Catholics in the pew who, like lost sheep, blindly following the wolves in shepherd’s clothing.
All bishops and priests of the Catholic Church are bound by the Faith to reject the doctrine of Pope Francis, it being alien to the doctrine of the Faith.
Luke 16:18
Every one that putteth away his wife, and marrieth another, committeth adultery: and he that marrieth her that is put away from her husband, committeth adultery.
1 Cor 6:9
Know you not that the unjust shall not possess the kingdom of God? Do not err: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers,
Two quotes from Scripture; one from Jesus and one from St Paul, warning very clearly and specifically against adultery. It is almost as if the very words of Jesus Christ do not even matter to Catholics anymore.
Since the Catholic Church has been mocking the First Commandment for 50 years now and has even “canonized” the GREATest of all mockers why the surprise and outrage when they decide to start mocking the Sixth commandment. It was inevitable that this would eventually happen.
Which is worse: Divorced and remarried receiving Holy Communion or pro-abortion “catholic” politicians receiving Holy Communion. Our nation is polarized around the abortion issue and the Catholic Church is largely to blame. Millions of women (many, I’m sure, who are “catholic”) proudly and gleefully proclaim that they are willing to kill their baby growing inside of them. These protests are not about equality, its about a women’s right to kill her child. It’s demonic. Let us pray for our nation. Let us pray for our new President. Our Lady of Fatima, come to our aid. Only you can help us now.
Perfect timing, my2cents, since tomorrow (Monday) is a Day of Prayer and Penance in reparation for sins against life in the U.S.
The Catholic Church has never mocked the 1st Commandment. The Conciliar Church has, but not the Catholic Church.
PS- Bergolio is the head of the Conciliar Church. He is not the Pope of the Catholic Church.
Please stop refering to the V2 NO sect as Catholic. They are anything but Catholic.
Dear Tom A: I agree with you wholeheartedly. The V2 NO sect is no longer One, but Many. It is no longer Holy but Wholly. It is no longer Catholic but Protestant. It is no longer Apostolic but Ecumenical.
We know that the persecution began much longer prior to the year 2013. What has never happened before in history is the multitude of the humans in the institution built on the faith and rock of St. Peter have not only abandoned Christ, but live and act as if He never existed, never was crucified to redeem them, and is neither the true Son of God nor does He have any rights whatsoever within the temporal life of man.
The men occupying the Chair of Peter who taught and teach the flock the lies of Satan cannot be Vicars of Christ. They are Judases; enemies of the Most High. It is impossible that God would allow His spotless Bride to be infiltrated with such filth, such unspeakable evil that these men brought into His House. Their speech and their acts convict them of sacrilege and blasphemy. Woe to them. Woe to anyone who believes the lie that Judas could lead Christ’s Holy Church.
As if it is possible for the Evil One to convict those who follow him.
If you cite those passages from Sacred Scripture to a Modernist, they reply that these were simply rules that pertained to that time in history. They will say that man has evolved since then and with the enlightened man, it cannot be true that God meant these words for all times. They will argue that it must be obvious by now that a merciful God would not prohibit anyone from getting to Heaven.
The V2 sect has never been the Catholic Church.
Which is worse: a supposed pope praying to and worshipping false gods in world-wide, recorded events or the creation of an abominable, sacrilegious, man-centered liturgy?
Noah built his ark for 100 years. 100 years since Fatima. We’ve had almost 100 years for which to prepare. The Blessed Mother IS The Ark of the Covenant. She is our ARK, our literal safety when it hits! Have we been Living the Fatima message? This is how we stay close to the Ark. Pray that we are on board before God seals the door shut. These past 100 years we have seen wicked, but with that we have been shown Mercy, through Our Blessed Mother at Fatima. Are we going to do as She’s requested. It DOES take some work. At least we don’t have to BUILD The Ark. Our Lord, in His Mercy, has provided Her throughout this storm. Our Safety, Our Hope, Our Ark!
Be strong! You must not give in
where it is not necessary to give in (…)
“You must fight, not half-way,
but with courage instead;
not in hiding but in public;
not behind closed doors,
but out in the open.”
(Saint Pius X)
–
A solemn anathematization of Jorge Mario Bergoglio IS an action long overdue, as you have said, Louie.
The consecration of Russia to the Immaculate Heart of Mary, as Our Lady requested at Fatima, is even longer overdue.
———— 2017 ————-?
How will it end?
“In the end, My Immaculate Heart WILL Triumph.”
———- Our Lady of Fatima
–
When everything will seem lost and paralyzed, that will be “the happy beginning of the complete restoration. This will mark the arrival of my hour, when I, in a marvelous way, will dethrone the proud and cursed Satan, trampling him under my feet and fettering him in the infernal abyss.”
————- Our Lady of Good Success
(aka: Our Lady of the Great Event)
Great Event = Triumph of Her Immaculate Heart
Thank you Servant of Our Lady I needed this boost in these depressing desperate times.
You are welcome, dear Anastasia.
–
Here is a bit of good news:
http://www.lifenews.com/2017/01/23/president-donald-trump-signs-executive-order-to-defund-international-planned-parenthood/
You quoted Redemptor Hominis, “Entrusting myself fully to the Spirit of truth, I am entering into the rich inheritance of the recent pontificates. This inheritance has struck deep roots in the awareness of the Church in an utterly new way, quite unknown previously, thanks to the Second Vatican Council.” That was in 1979, 14 years after V-II’s end. We’re now 52 years since the end of V-II, 38 years since RH and 12 years since JPII’s death. The “awareness of the Church” now is that V-II was a gigantic mistake, as shown by the retched actions of Francis. It’s now clear V-II must be replaced by going back to orthodox Catholic teaching. Francis’ great work is to show us there is no more compromise. With AL and his actions, he has pulled down the veil and exposed the true nature of the heretics for anyone, even the most nearsighted, finally to see.
Thank you Frank III. Such clarity is a rare gift. Who will rise up to this challenge?
A Novena to Our Lady of Good Success – starts today. See the Web site by the same name.
The Remnant takes action against Bergoglio:
http://www.remnantnewspaper.com/web/index.php/articles/item/3001-did-vatican-attempt-to-influence-u-s-election-catholics-ask-trump-administration-to-investigate
God bless America. God bless President Trump. God bless all who take action against this evil man.
Right, I should have said Catholics within the Catholic Church, which would include popes, bishops and laymen, instead of Catholic Church.
Yes, I would refer to them as CINO’s or catholics in name only.
CINO’s or catholics in name only.
Exactly what I was going to say! Thank you, Simple Shepherd.
–
Day One for the novena to OLGS:
http://www.traditioninaction.org/OLGS/D003olgs_Novena_Day1.htm
Day One for the novena to Our Lady of Good Success starts today:
http://www.traditioninaction.org/OLGS/D003olgs_Novena_Day1.htm
The Pope is the visible unity of the bonds of Faith and Social Charity in the Church.
Try plugging Francis into that:
Francis is the visible unity of the bonds of Faith and Social Charity in the Church.
See how it cannot possibly be true?
One has to go, and that means either Francis, or the Catholic Church.
Take your pick.
You should also replace the word “within” with “who leave, by their own act”
“Right, I should have said Catholics who leave, by their own act, the Catholic Church, which would include popes, bishops and laymen, instead of Catholic Church.”
Since the Church is indefectible, She cannot make mistakes like this.
Therefore, the only Catholic explanation is that these things did not come from the Church, but from some counterfeit source.
Unless you are a “critical thinker”. Then you can have a Church which can lead souls to Heaven and hell, depending upon what day of the week it is. It’s all a game of luck.
Papap Subject: maybe I’m wrong but I always thought even if one commits a mortal sin or even a million mortal sins for that matter they are still considered within the Catholic Church as members but just not in a state of sanctifying grace.
Catholic Church may be indefectible but Popes aren’t.
Why did our Lady of Fatima ask us to pray for the Pope if he is always 100% infallible, indefectable, pure, and golden?
Thanks John, I thought the same thing, which was that we just had to live side by side with heretics, consider them fellow Catholics, and just “get over it”.
You are correct in that sinners are still members of the Church. If they are in the state of grace, they are “living members”; if they are in the state of mortal sin, they are “dead members”.
Pius XII teaches this in Mystici Corporis:
“Men may lose charity and divine grace through sin, thus becoming incapable of supernatural merit, and yet not be deprived of all life if they hold fast to faith and Christian hope.”
He said, however, that there is a difference between every other sin, and the sins of heresy, schism and apostasy, which truly sever one from the Mystical Body of Christ, the Church:
“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.”
He also gives the definition of membership in the Church:
“Actually only those are to be included as members of the Church who have been baptized and profess the true faith, and who have not been so unfortunate as to separate themselves from the unity of the Body, or been excluded by legitimate authority for grave faults committed.”
“…if a man refuse to hear the Church, let him be considered – so the Lord commands – as a heathen and a publican.”
http://w2.vatican.va/content/pius-xii/en/encyclicals/documents/hf_p-xii_enc_29061943_mystici-corporis-christi.html
The Pope is the guarantee of indefectibility.
Unfortunatlely, Francis is just not stacking up, and the more time goes by, the more painfully obvious it becomes. I wish it were otherwise.
I thought Church was considered both human and divine and it’s “indefectibility” was really just about the divine (Jesus), but not the human (popes).
Good question.
So is Pope Pius XII talking just about popes here or all laymen.
All members of the Church it would appear. There is no distinction between laity and clergy given, since the Church is made up of both, and Mystici Corporis is on the Church. No one can publicly deny something that God has revealed and remain in the Church, since it impugns the truthfulness God Himself. A member of the clergy only makes it worse, since they are the teachers.
It is, but the Church cannot teach error or heresy, period.
Yes it is made up of men, but the Church is Divinely protected from teaching anything contrary to the Deposit of Faith.
The Church has always prayed for the Pope.
Praying for the Pope (and the Church) is not just a pius custom, it is a necessity, all the more so for our times, as the Queen of Prophets warned us.
Right now we should praying FOR A Pope.
Traditionalists never accepted it, and were proven correct in their assertion that the Tridentine Rite was never abrogated.
Sedevacantism Debunked In A Nutshell
–
The dogmatic sedevacantist position is one that may appear as a legitimate solution to this crisis in the Church (the worst in Her history, it would seem), but only to those who have not yet fully explored its ramifications or do not know Her teaching well enough. In point of fact, there are at least several “one-shot kills” of the position – simple facts that, in and of themselves, render it logically impossible and, actually, leading directly to material heresy. We will explore a few of them here, and then briefly explore the false basis of the sedevacantist position.
–
1) The Fourth Ecumenical Council of Constantinople, Canon 10: The Church directly and formally considered the question of whether or not the faithful can formally separate from any prelate sans judgment by the Church, and the answer – of course – was no. Sedevacantists live materially under the anathema the council declared:
–
“… this holy and universal synod justly and fittingly declares and lays down that no lay person or monk or cleric should separate himself from communion with his own patriarch before a careful enquiry and judgment in synod, even if he alleges that he knows of some crime perpetrated by his patriarch, and he must not refuse to include his patriarch’s name during the divine mysteries or offices.”
–
2) The Church teaches that the public acceptance by a moral unanimity of the Church of a supreme pontiff is itself proof of his validity; the theologians agree that this constitutes what is known as a “dogmatic fact,” which is a matter so closely related to a dogma that it must be infallibly true for the dogma to have meaning (that dogma in this case being essentially papal infallibility). It is a mortal sin against Faith to reject a dogmatic fact.
–
What if Pius V had lost his office due to heresy, and his ratification of the Council of Trent was thus null? If Catholics could not rely on the dogmatic facts of papal acceptance, absolutely nothing in the Church would be certain! Would Christ have constructed such a house of cards?
–
(Note that the exceptions such as the Western Schism do not undo this rule: In such cases there obviously was *not* universal acceptance of the pontiff.)
–
3) The Visibility of the Church: The Church’s visibility is one of her three attributes – necessary qualities that follow directly from her nature – and sedevacantism leads directly to a denial of it (or her indefectibility, which is probably an even more serious breach of Catholic doctrine).
–
This visibility has both material and formal aspects: Materially, people can identify the Church by her visible members & hierarchy and, formally, know the Catholic Church is the true Church, by her Marks. For God to command that souls enter this Church (as He does) as the Ark of Salvation, it must be formally visible. As Christ’s incarnate, physical Body was visible, so is that of His Church. (And as He is composed of two natures, divine and human, so is the Church – one can err, one cannot.)
–
The notion of an invisible Church (with visible members) was, of course, one of the primary errors/denials of the early “Reformers,” and that is exactly where sedevacantists have pitched their tent today – as with the Protestants, it is essentially a *necessary* consequence of their position. Sede leaders have advanced models of the Church that are identical to the Protestant definition. But the Church cannot be invisible; it cannot be hidden; it cannot be some visible entity other than what it was in the past. Any of these things destroy the Church’s teachings regarding her visibility. Sedevacantism tosses this to the wind with their constant talk of the “false church of Vatican II”. If this Church is now false, where, now, is the Catholic Church? Clearly they cannot point to any specific Church that *has her four Marks and necessary attributes*. They know this and do not try; that is how they end up with the Protestent definition of the Church as merely a collection of visible members.
–
(Somewhat related to visibility is the mark of universality (catholicity). Theologians have discussed two two aspects of catholicity: right & fact. The former of these means that the Church always had the aptitude to spread throughout the world, and the latter that it did, in fact, do so. Van Noort, among others, notes that once the Church became universal in fact (spread to many nations) this characteristic became a permanent, necessary quality of it. Thus, once the Church (visible as she always has been and will be) became spread broadly among many nations, this so-called moral universality became a permanent property. The Church is now formally visible throughout virtually the entire world, perpetually – everyone (generally speaking) knows of the Catholic Church. It can never be the case that the Church that was once so broadly visible can cease to be formally visible.)
–
We’ve got three separate, unrelated matters that each kill the sede hypothesis dead in one shot.
–
Now that we have taken a look at some things that destroy the sedevacantist position before it gets out of the gate, we’ll look at the root of their errors.
–
As we all know, the core tenet of sedevacantism is that the post-conciliar popes (as well as more than a few others some of them also condemn) either were never popes or lost their office due to heresy (the *sin* of heresy as opposed to the crime, they say, this being an important distinction).
–
Concerning that critical determination of heresy, it is here where the dogmatic sedes first go wrong – and these errors in premise result in large errors in conclusion (as John Salza likes to say). The demonstrated fact (it’s been demonstrated very thoroughly by Salza & Siscoe) is that there is no theologian in the history of the Church who ever sanctioned what the sedes do: Making the critical determination of formal (obstinate) heresy a matter of private judgment.
–
I’m going to include only one link in this little piece, and that’s this one: http://www.trueorfalsepope.com/p/whyfr.html
–
Bellarmine has long been the sedevacantists’ “go-to theologian,” but he, like all the rest of them, clearly taught that *the Church* (not Fr. Cekada, Mario Derkson, John Lane, or any of the rest of them) must make a judgement of pertinacity in heresy for a pontiff to be separated from his office.
–
(Bellarmine, the canon “Si Papa” which was Church law for eight centuries, and other theologians note that the crime of heresy is the one exception to the rule that “the First See can be judged by no one.”)
–
There is more. Related to the determination of pertinacity, sedes all make a critical error in confusing the sin vs. the crime of heresy. They have long based their position on thesis that *sin* of heresy (which lives in the *internal* forum) results in the loss of ecclesiastic office, which is a matter of the *external* forum. In fact, neither the Church in any capacity nor any theologian has ever taught such a thing. God alone, of course, judges the internal forum, and nothing in the internal forum can possibly sever one from the *Body* of the Church (sedes typically make no distinction whatever between the Body and the Soul of the Church), which is where ecclesiastic office resides. (All the evidence for these assertions is in “True or False Pope,” and it is irrefutable.)
–
As Bellarmine also said, to paraphrase, as the Church is directly involved in elevating a man to the papacy, so it must be involved in separating him from it, should that occur.
–
Aquinas condemned the “judgement by usurpation” endemic to an individual claiming to have the power to depose a prelate from his office (in congruence with the Fourth Council of Constantinople referenced above).
–
This has been a very high-level view of the fatal issues with sedevacantism, intended to be extremely succinct. Rest assured that for every objection raised, there is an answer, and they can pretty much all be found in “True Or False Pope.”
–
God hasn’t given us a Church – perpetual, indefectible, and immaculate, the infallible Ark of Salvation – yet so ridiculously fragile and subject to individual whim as the sede thesis claims. It can’t have been meant to work that way and it does not work that way. Realizing how terrible this crisis of modernism is, seeing the Church bruised and bloodied, is indeed impetus for *exploring* notion such that the pontiffs who have ruled over this ruin were and are not truly popes. However, it simply is not possible to conclude so without embracing not only logical absurdities but material heresy as well.
–
One can see that some of these things can’t really be explained in sound bytes; it seems that sedes do tend to like things simple. They throw out Fr. Cekada’s syllogism again & again without realizing it is full of oversimplifications and other errors. Sorry, but we can’t demand a Theology of Bumper Stickers.
–
But, actually, this IS simple – look above. Sedevacantism quickly leads to logical nonsense, contradicts de fide teachings of the Church, and, according to the theologians, entails anathema or mortal sin in at least two areas (formal separation from a prelate without judgement from the Church, and rejection of the dogmatic fact of a pontiff’s election & reign).
Papal Subject – Pius XII never taught anything close to what you are.
–
Asserting that someone who commits the *sin* of heresy loses membership in the *Body* of the Church is quite false, and a gross oversimplification of Catholic doctrine – according to ALL authorities that have ever taught on the matter (and according to common sense as well).
–
Suarez: “I affirm: if he were a heretic and incorrigible the Pope would cease to be Pope **just when a sentence was passed against him for his crime, by the legitimate jurisdiction of the Church**. This is the **common opinion among the doctors**” (De Fide, disp. X, sect. VI, nn. 3-10, p. 316). This is what is all theologians and popes who have spoken *on the question of loss of ecclesiastical office, which is a matter of the external forum* agree on: a person must be convicted of the *crime* of heresy to be severed from the Body. This means that every person on the Internet cannot decide for himself which popes are or were actually valid popes.
–
(In addition to the “common opinion of the doctors,” the above position is also the *most liberal* on the matter – the other school of thought (the so-called Dominican) holds that a pontiff, once judged a pertinacious heretic **by the Church**, must still be deposed by an (imperfect) general council of the Church. John of St. Thomas also held that the declaration of heresy can *also* come only from such a council, citing the historical examples of popes Marcellinus (Council of Sinuesso) and Symmachus.)
–
With sedevacantism, it’s all about what establishes establishes formal heresy, or even what “is” heresy as referred to by the theologians (because this is also misunderstood). The *sin* of heresy separates one from the Soul of the Church (as a mortal sin against the divine virtue of Faith, it divests one entirely of Faith as well as sanctifying grace), but is actually totally unrelated to the external forum, in which ecclesiastical office lies. The *crime* of heresy, on the other hand – which is declared *by the Church* – *can* sever a man from ecclesiastical office. (There is more to it in the case of a pope, since he is not subject to canon law and cannot be judged by the Church for any *other* crime, which is why the case of deposition of a heretical pontiff is treated very much as a “special case” by the mind of the Church.)
–
Let’s start with the definition of formal heresy. What it is, in fact – its very nature – is *rejection of the Church as the rule of faith*. This is what a manual of dogmatic theology will tell you. Note that that is more than simply the willful rejection of a specific (implicit or defined) dogma: The subject must consciously reject the Catholic Church *as* the arbiter of truth. As Cardinal Billot puts it, “… the nature of heresy consists in withdrawal from the rule of the ecclesiastical Magisterium” (“De Ecclesia Christi”).
–
Next, there is the question of how the guilt of such a crime – the worst there is, actually – can be determined. Can I determine a pope is a formal heretic, as the sedevacantists insist? No, actually, I cannot; no individual can do such a thing, because none of us can judge the soul of a man, which is what is necessary to know that he does, in fact, willfully reject the Church
–
This frustrates sedevacantists, and, in a sense, this frustration is understandable. I am faced with a personal detestation of Pope Francis again & again, every time I hear some new blasphemous comment, clearly erroneous statement, insult of faithful Catholics trying to live their faith, etc. But I recognize that any personal judgements I might make of his soul, however tempting and even seemingly obvious, are simply meaningless. They can’t change the fact that he’s the pope, and it’s patently ridiculous to believe otherwise. It’s an emotional comfort to some, but nothing more.
–
(Here’s a little mind game we can play. They will quote Bellarmine stating that heresy cuts a man off from the Church, not realizing that he is referring to the *crime* of heresy (as determined by the Church, by definition), rather than the personal sin of heresy. If they are correct in what they’re asserting – that the SIN of heresy cuts a man off from the *Body* (as opposed to the Soul, which is actually the case) – then they really ought to become Protestants in fact as well as spirit, since this makes the Church nothing but a house of cards. Consider: Pope Pius V, some time before he ratified the Council of Trent, committed the sin of heresy, cut himself off from the Church, and became an anti-pope. Thus, Trent’s dogmas are nothing; they are not truth. Its anathemas are likewise meaningless. This is what the sedevacantist mindset does to the Church: It neuters it completely. In reality, the answer to this crisis of the Church, as history shows us was the case with prior abuses of papal power and papal error, is to recognize valid ecclesiastical authority but resist its public material errors, in the very rare cases such exist.)
–
So, as Suarez himself tells us above, it’s the common opinion – and the alternative opinion is further yet from the sedevacantist thesis of private judgement – that a pope loses his office when, but certainly not before, a judgement of heresy against him by the Church. Let’s now take a look at the common sede “objection” (which are de facto objections to the mind of the Church): The pope cannot be judged by the Church; he is not subject to canon law.
–
While it’s indeed true that the pope is *not* subject to canon law, the common opinion is that heresy is the one exception to the rule that a sitting pope cannot be judged.
–
St. Bellarmine, Doctor of the Church: “We must point out, besides, that the faithful can certainly distinguish a true prophet (teacher) from a false one, by the rule that we have laid down, but for all that, if the pastor is a bishop, they cannot depose him and put another in his place [recognize]. For Our Lord and the Apostles only lay down that false prophets are not to be listened to by the people [resist], and not that they depose them [recognize]. And it is certain that the practice of the Church has always been that heretical bishops be deposed by bishop’s councils, or by the Sovereign Pontiff” (from “De Membris Ecclesiae”, as quoted in “True Or False Pope”, pp 645-646; bracketed portions are from True of False Pope). So, the sedes’ go-to theologian tells us that false prophets are “not to be listened to” *and* specifically that they “not depose him”.
–
Pope Adrian II: “It is true that Honorius was posthumumously anathematised by the Eastern churches, but it must be borne in mind that he had been accused of heresy, **the only offense which renders lawful the resistance of subordinates to their superiors, and their rejection of the latter’s pernicious teachings**” (Cited by Billot, “Tractatus de Ecclesia Christi”, as quoted in “True or False Pope”, pp 647, emphasis mine).
–
The canon Si Papa, part of canon law for around eight centuries, says this: “Let no mortal man presume to accuse the Pope of fault, for, it being incumbent upon him to judge all, he should be judged by no one, **unless he is suddenly caught deviating from the faith**.” (This quote is sometimes attributed directly to Pope Innocent III; it is likely not his, but clearly reflects not just theological opinion but Church law. It is also used by sedevacantists to justify individuals’ formal separation from/deposition of a pontiff, but it clearly justifies no such thing.)
–
This (“a pope cannot be judged by the Church”) is the only objection the sedevacantists have against these teachings (which are what Bellarmine, Suarez, and every other theologian who spoke on the matter taught). It’s not a real objection. The sedes have no answer to the fact that heresy has long been recognized as the sole exception to this rule. (And it’s far from an arbitrary exception: Heresy does indeed make a man until to hold any ecclesiastical office, much less the highest, but the judgement of heresy has to be that of the Church. As Bellarmine also noted, just as the Church is intimately involved with binding a man to the form of the papacy, so must she be involved in severing the bond. If this were not the case, the result would be de-facto anarchy at any time.)
–
Note that these Doctors of the Church, popes, and theologians taught these things knowing full well that the supreme pontiff has full juridical authority over the Church Militant (this was taught since the time of the Fathers – the teaching was formalized, not invented, at Vatican Council I).
–
(Regarding he canonical warnings given to a possibly heretical pope, as John Salza states, “Because the Church has no authority over the Pope, these warnings **do not constitute an act of jurisdiction (as they would for other Catholics), but only an act of charity, as St. Thomas teaches in regard to fraternal correction. Although the Pope is not subject to the positive law of the Church, because these warnings are rooted in Divine Law, and are afforded to lesser clerics in the hope of their amendment, they most certainly are afforded to the Vicar of Christ, both as a matter of justice as well as under the philosophical principle omne majus continet in se minus – ‘the greater includes the lesser.’”)
–
So, while shouting “Francis is NOT MY POPE” might satisfy a certain inner urge, it can’t undo reality.
The men occupying the Church often don’t act Catholic these days – just like, say, during the Arian crisis – but the Church is still the Church. To say otherwise is heresy, since the perpetual visibility of the Church is dogma.
The perpetual visibility of the Church, which you deny, is also Catholic dogma.
–
You make no distinction whatsoever between binding teaching in faith & morals and everything else. What kind of kindergarten logic is this?
Preposterous oversimplifications. According to you, the Church failed when St. Peter denied Christ. Or during the Arian crisis when 95% or more of the bishops defected to material heresy. Or, take your pick.
Sedevacantism Debunked In A Nutshell
–
The dogmatic sedevacantist position is one that may appear as a legitimate solution to this crisis in the Church (the worst in Her history, it would seem), but only to those who have not yet fully explored its ramifications or do not know Her teaching well enough. In point of fact, there are at least several “one-shot kills” of the position – simple facts that, in and of themselves, render it logically impossible and, actually, leading directly to material heresy. We will explore a few of them here, and then briefly explore the false basis of the sedevacantist position.
–
1) The Fourth Ecumenical Council of Constantinople, Canon 10: The Church directly and formally considered the question of whether or not the faithful can formally separate from any prelate sans judgment by the Church, and the answer – of course – was no. Sedevacantists live materially under the anathema the council declared:
–
“… this holy and universal synod justly and fittingly declares and lays down that no lay person or monk or cleric should separate himself from communion with his own patriarch before a careful enquiry and judgment in synod, even if he alleges that he knows of some crime perpetrated by his patriarch, and he must not refuse to include his patriarch’s name during the divine mysteries or offices.”
–
2) The Church teaches that the public acceptance by a moral unanimity of the Church of a supreme pontiff is itself proof of his validity; the theologians agree that this constitutes what is known as a “dogmatic fact,” which is a matter so closely related to a dogma that it must be infallibly true for the dogma to have meaning (that dogma in this case being essentially papal infallibility). It is a mortal sin against Faith to reject a dogmatic fact.
–
What if Pius V had lost his office due to heresy, and his ratification of the Council of Trent was thus null? If Catholics could not rely on the dogmatic facts of papal acceptance, absolutely nothing in the Church would be certain! Would Christ have constructed such a house of cards?
–
(Note that the exceptions such as the Western Schism do not undo this rule: In such cases there obviously was *not* universal acceptance of the pontiff.)
–
3) The Visibility of the Church: The Church’s visibility is one of her three attributes – necessary qualities that follow directly from her nature – and sedevacantism leads directly to a denial of it (or her indefectibility, which is probably an even more serious breach of Catholic doctrine).
–
This visibility has both material and formal aspects: Materially, people can identify the Church by her visible members & hierarchy and, formally, know the Catholic Church is the true Church, by her Marks. For God to command that souls enter this Church (as He does) as the Ark of Salvation, it must be formally visible. As Christ’s incarnate, physical Body was visible, so is that of His Church. (And as He is composed of two natures, divine and human, so is the Church – one can err, one cannot.)
–
The notion of an invisible Church (with visible members) was, of course, one of the primary errors/denials of the early “Reformers,” and that is exactly where sedevacantists have pitched their tent today – as with the Protestants, it is essentially a *necessary* consequence of their position. Sede leaders have advanced models of the Church that are identical to the Protestant definition. But the Church cannot be invisible; it cannot be hidden; it cannot be some visible entity other than what it was in the past. Any of these things destroy the Church’s teachings regarding her visibility. Sedevacantism tosses this to the wind with their constant talk of the “false church of Vatican II”. If this Church is now false, where, now, is the Catholic Church? Clearly they cannot point to any specific Church that *has her four Marks and necessary attributes*. They know this and do not try; that is how they end up with the Protestent definition of the Church as merely a collection of visible members.
–
(Somewhat related to visibility is the mark of universality (catholicity). Theologians have discussed two two aspects of catholicity: right & fact. The former of these means that the Church always had the aptitude to spread throughout the world, and the latter that it did, in fact, do so. Van Noort, among others, notes that once the Church became universal in fact (spread to many nations) this characteristic became a permanent, necessary quality of it. Thus, once the Church (visible as she always has been and will be) became spread broadly among many nations, this so-called moral universality became a permanent property. The Church is now formally visible throughout virtually the entire world, perpetually – everyone (generally speaking) knows of the Catholic Church. It can never be the case that the Church that was once so broadly visible can cease to be formally visible.)
–
We’ve got three separate, unrelated matters that each kill the sede hypothesis dead in one shot.
–
Now that we have taken a look at some things that destroy the sedevacantist position before it gets out of the gate, we’ll look at the root of their errors.
–
As we all know, the core tenet of sedevacantism is that the post-conciliar popes (as well as more than a few others some of them also condemn) either were never popes or lost their office due to heresy (the *sin* of heresy as opposed to the crime, they say, this being an important distinction).
–
Concerning that critical determination of heresy, it is here where the dogmatic sedes first go wrong – and these errors in premise result in large errors in conclusion (as John Salza likes to say). The demonstrated fact (it’s been demonstrated very thoroughly by Salza & Siscoe) is that there is no theologian in the history of the Church who ever sanctioned what the sedes do: Making the critical determination of formal (obstinate) heresy a matter of private judgment.
–
I’m going to include only one link in this little piece, and that’s this one: http://www.trueorfalsepope.com/p/whyfr.html
–
Bellarmine has long been the sedevacantists’ “go-to theologian,” but he, like all the rest of them, clearly taught that *the Church* (not Fr. Cekada, Mario Derkson, John Lane, or any of the rest of them) must make a judgement of pertinacity in heresy for a pontiff to be separated from his office.
–
(Bellarmine, the canon “Si Papa” which was Church law for eight centuries, and other theologians note that the crime of heresy is the one exception to the rule that “the First See can be judged by no one.”)
–
There is more. Related to the determination of pertinacity, sedes all make a critical error in confusing the sin vs. the crime of heresy. They have long based their position on thesis that *sin* of heresy (which lives in the *internal* forum) results in the loss of ecclesiastic office, which is a matter of the *external* forum. In fact, neither the Church in any capacity nor any theologian has ever taught such a thing. God alone, of course, judges the internal forum, and nothing in the internal forum can possibly sever one from the *Body* of the Church (sedes typically make no distinction whatever between the Body and the Soul of the Church), which is where ecclesiastic office resides. (All the evidence for these assertions is in “True or False Pope,” and it is irrefutable.)
–
As Bellarmine also said, to paraphrase, as the Church is directly involved in elevating a man to the papacy, so it must be involved in separating him from it, should that occur.
–
Aquinas condemned the “judgement by usurpation” endemic to an individual claiming to have the power to depose a prelate from his office (in congruence with the Fourth Council of Constantinople referenced above).
–
This has been a very high-level view of the fatal issues with sedevacantism, intended to be extremely succinct. Rest assured that for every objection raised, there is an answer, and they can pretty much all be found in “True Or False Pope.”
–
God hasn’t given us a Church – perpetual, indefectible, and immaculate, the infallible Ark of Salvation – yet so ridiculously fragile and subject to individual whim as the sede thesis claims. It can’t have been meant to work that way and it does not work that way. Realizing how terrible this crisis of modernism is, seeing the Church bruised and bloodied, is indeed impetus for *exploring* notion such that the pontiffs who have ruled over this ruin were and are not truly popes. However, it simply is not possible to conclude so without embracing not only logical absurdities but material heresy as well.
–
One can see that some of these things can’t really be explained in sound bytes; it seems that sedes do tend to like things simple. They throw out Fr. Cekada’s syllogism again & again without realizing it is full of oversimplifications and other errors. Sorry, but we can’t demand a Theology of Bumper Stickers.
–
But, actually, this IS simple – look above. Sedevacantism quickly leads to logical nonsense, contradicts de fide teachings of the Church, and, according to the theologians, entails anathema or mortal sin in at least two areas (formal separation from a prelate without judgement from the Church, and rejection of the dogmatic fact of a pontiff’s election & reign).
Cath Thinker, where is the Church with unity of faith? That too is a mark of the Church.
Fair enough question.
–
Materially, is there a practical unity of faith? Not really. We all know half the people in the pews at the local Novus Ordo parish don’t even believe in or understand that Christ is physically present in the Eucharist! And 75% or more of them practice artificial contraception, and their priests would never dare to say a word about it. (In my own marriage prep class, 10 years ago, the priest told the class flat out that this Church teaching was outdated and bound to change.)
–
However, the distinction between the material and the formal is quite important. Formally, the teachings of the Catholic Church have not changed *at all*, since the set of de fide teachings is exactly the same as it was in 1958. No new implicit dogma has emerged (that’s impossible, since by definition it would have had to be present since the beginning of the Church) and no new explicit dogma have been declared. NOTHING has changed, formally.
–
In that sense the Church is still the Church, and to brush off this fact is very silly. It is exactly in this (and in the fact that the Tridentine Rite Mass was never abrogated as the neo-Catholics claimed for decades) that we see the Holy Ghost protecting His Church.
–
It’s like Salza & Siscoe say – and I must admit I find this a bit of brilliance – the Church, the Lord’s Body, is now disfigured, bruised, and bloodied, just as His physical Body was in the Passion. This is the Passion of the Church (or one of them, and the worst yet).