Catholic Info
Traditional Catholic Faith => Crisis in the Church => Topic started by: Pepin on January 17, 2021, 04:13:48 PM
-
The Church is indefectible, therefore, any Pope accepted by the body of Bishops is de facto a valid Pope, even if his ɛƖɛctıon were invalid. For the body cannot go astray following a false head.
However, the fathers and doctors of the Church all agree that IF a Pope ever were a manifest heretic, he would cease to be a valid Pope, for one cannot be the head of a Church of which one is not a member, and heretics are automatically excommunicated.
So how is it that most papal accusers claim Francis is valid, and that he has committed heresy? Both those claims cannot be true.
Why won’t the papal accusers answer this simple question: If Francis is guilty of heresy, apostasy, and idolatry, as you claim, how can he be the valid Pope? They won’t answer because they don’t want people to know that they are schismatics who reject the Pope.
Bellarmine: “a Pope who is a manifest heretic, ceases in himself to be Pope and head, just as he ceases in himself to be a Christian and member of the body of the Church: whereby, he can be judged and punished by the Church. This is the opinion of all the ancient Fathers, who teach that manifest heretics soon lose all jurisdiction….”
And that includes Bishops as well. Any Bishop who is a manifest heretic “ceases in himself to be a Christian and member of the body of the Church”. Bishop Carlo Vigano and Bishop Athanasius Schneider are both manifest heretics, they both have lost all jurisdiction, they both have ceased to be Christians, in the fullest sense, and ceased to be full members of the body of the Church. There is some sense in which heretics and schismatics might be members implicitly, or in the sense of having the indelible characters of the three Sacraments. But they no longer have the authority of Bishops.
Therefore, Vigano and Schneider cannot propose to correct the Roman Pontiffs based on their role as Bishops. They have lost that role, that authority, and so they cannot appeal to what they have lost as a way to rebuke a Pope or a Council.
https://ronconte.com/2020/10/20/is-pope-francis-the-valid-pope-2/
-
“However, the fathers and doctors of the Church all agree that IF a Pope ever were a manifest heretic, he would cease to be a valid Pope, for one cannot be the head of a Church of which one is not a member, and heretics are automatically excommunicated.”
Ahem, no, they very obviously do NOT agree, lest we pretend Bellarmine, Cajetan, JST, Billot, Billuart, Suarez, Vitoria, et al. were all on the same page (with most opposing the quoted statement)?
-
It is just Ron Conte's Opinion and nothing else. Theology is not based on personal opinions and personal emotions to prove if
Francis is a real Pope. He actions has proven the contrary for everyone to see.
-
“However, the fathers and doctors of the Church all agree that IF a Pope ever were a manifest heretic, he would cease to be a valid Pope, for one cannot be the head of a Church of which one is not a member, and heretics are automatically excommunicated.”
Ahem, no, they very obviously do NOT agree, lest we pretend Bellarmine, Cajetan, JST, Billot, Billuart, Suarez, Vitoria, et al. were all on the same page (with most opposing the quoted statement)?
Here I got two of them on the same page, with "the Holy Fathers unanimously".
I'll start with St. Robert Bellarmine:
Finally, the Holy Fathers teach unanimously not only that heretics are outside of the Church, but also that they are "ipso facto" deprived of all ecclesiastical jurisdiction and dignity. St. Cyprian (lib. 2, epist. 6) says: 'We affirm that absolutely no heretic or schismatic has any power or right'; and he also teaches (lib. 2, epist. 1) that the heretics who return to the Church must be received as laymen, even though they have been formerly priests or bishops in the Church. St. Optatus (lib. 1 cont. Parmen.) teaches that heretics and schismatics cannot have the keys of the kingdom of heaven, nor bind nor loose. St. Ambrose (lib. 1 de poenit., ca. 2), St. Augustine (in Enchir., cap 65), St. Jerome (lib. cont. Lucifer.) teach the same.
strobertbellarmine.net (http://strobertbellarmine.net/bellarm.htm)
Note that St. Robert gives his sources!
This is also enforced by the fact that the ipso facto excommunication is codified in Canon Law (it truely is divine law). Even the Antichrist himself has got it in his "Canon Law"!
After St. Robert Bellarmine there's Francisco Suárez S.J.:
Chapter 21: From the vision of Revelation chs.17 and following the new error about Antichrist is refuted rather than confirmed.
[...]
8. In whatever way, then, that prophecy be understood, therefrom can it not only not be collected that Rome is already now antichristian, but also neither can it with any likelihood be inferred that the Church, which is now at Rome, either is already, or will at some time be, antichristian and infidel, because although many citizens and members of it should defect from the faith, they come to be by that very fact outside the Church, which always remains faithful. And much less does it follow that the head of the true Church is or will ever be Antichrist, because although the city is thoroughly destroyed because of apostasy, or for any other cause whatever, the head and rock of the Church could stand firm, or reside elsewhere, or go into hiding. Nay, although God should permit the person of some Pontiff in those times to fall and to yield to the tyrants by professing errors, not for that reason would the Pontiff, as he is Pontiff, fall, nor would the Church fall, but, after deposing him, the Church could for itself create a Pontiff. Which is said for exaggeration and for more explaining the thing; for it is more credible that God will not permit it, especially during so great a tribulation and oppression of the Church.
aristotelophile.com (https://www.aristotelophile.com/current.htm)
I don't believe that Billot, Billuart, or Vitoria (who is JST?) say anything different. Why would they want to argue against St. Optatus, St. Ambrose, St. Augustine, and St. Jerome? I believe you fell for Freemason John Salza et. al.
Please, feel free to put meat to your statement, which looks worse than fishy to me!
-
Here I got two of them on the same page, with "the Holy Fathers unanimously".
I'll start with St. Robert Bellarmine:
strobertbellarmine.net (http://strobertbellarmine.net/bellarm.htm)
Note that St. Robert gives his sources!
This is also enforced by the fact that the ipso facto excommunication is codified in Canon Law (it truely is divine law). Even the Antichrist himself has got it in his "Canon Law"!
After St. Robert Bellarmine there's Francisco Suárez S.J.:
aristotelophile.com (https://www.aristotelophile.com/current.htm)
I don't believe that Billot, Billuart, or Vitoria (who is JST?) say anything different. Why would they want to argue against St. Optatus, St. Ambrose, St. Augustine, and St. Jerome? I believe you fell for Freemason John Salza et. al.
Please, feel free to put meat to your statement, which looks worse than fishy to me!
Stop being a sede moron:
Everyone knows Bellarmine differed from Cajetan, John of St. Thomas, Torquemada, et al, and Suarez held yet a 3rd opinion.
-
Conte has been out of touch for a really long time -- like as long as I have ever read him.
-
Does Rome herself say +Schneider no longer has episcopal authority, or that Vigano "left the Church"?
-
The name Ron Conte brings back bad Catholic Answers Forum memories.