Author Topic: "It is possible that we will be obliged to believe that this pope is not pope" (Read 11905 times)

Johannes · « **on:** January 15, 2025, 10:08:21 AM »

Taken from:
Spiritual Conference
Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre
15 April 1986

Communicatio in sacris

And I think that is what is now crucial before our eyes, that we are faced with bishops, and even the Pope, who no longer obey the faith… because going to the Jews… These are essentially the same Jews, the same ones who rejected Our Lord. It is exactly the same thing, the same spirit. They are against Our Lord Jesus Christ.
They chanted, at the Pope’s departure from the ѕуηαgσgυє:

‘We are waiting for the Messiah, we are waiting for the Messiah, we are waiting for the Messiah…’

If they are waiting, it is because they do not believe in the One who came. It’s clear. So? Therefore, it is not possible to pray with people like that, it is not possible. There is a disobedience to the faith in Our Lord Jesus Christ. Our Lord Jesus Christ is no longer preached as he should be, as the Apostles did.

So we face this fact which theologians call communicatio in sacris. It is a fact: communicatio in sacris. Take your moral theology books. Go look under the virtue of faith, and you will see that with the virtue of faith, there is always a small chapter on the protection of the faith and the defense of certain things concerning the faith. Communicatio in sacris is generally forbidden. But it is distinguished between active and passive.

Passive participation is when someone, out of curiosity, attends a non-Catholic ceremony—always non-Catholic; they categorise all non-Catholics together: Protestants, Muslims, all possible and imaginable cults that are not Catholic. Passive participation means attending out of curiosity or for ceremonies involving friends, relatives, or others who are not Catholic, but always remaining passive: no prayers, no communication, no singing. They are absolutely passive. This is allowed in certain cases.
But active communicatio in sacris is absolutely forbidden, absolutely forbidden.

Is the Roman Pontiff above the law?
Then you will say: ‘But the Pope is above the law.’
The Pope is not above divine laws! He is above ecclesiastical laws, okay. One cannot say that because he did that, he will be excommunicated: this is an ecclesiastical law, as a consequence of this suspicion of heresy and this heresy... but still, this is a law made by the Church, it's another matter.

But, concerning the suspicion of heresy and heresy, it is a direct consequence of communicatio in sacris, thus a communion with people who do not share our faith. That falls exactly under the prescription, the prohibition that Saint Paul makes to the Corinthians, saying:

‘Bear not the yoke with unbelievers […] What concord hath Christ with Belial? Or what fellowship hath light with darkness?’

It cannot be clearer. But Saint John also says the same thing. They forbid going to the unbelievers, communing with the unbelievers, being together... and even more so in prayer!

When it comes to prayers, songs, even touching the organ, it's forbidden, absolutely forbidden! Even if the words of the prayers are orthodox and not contrary to the Catholic faith.

Even so, it is not allowed because praying with those who do not share our faith, who do not have the Catholic faith, is, in a way, communing with them in their faith, a faith that is not Catholic. Thus, implicitly, it is an act contrary to the Catholic faith, and therefore an act that puts you in the situation of being suspect of heresy. And if you are warned and continue after six months, you are then considered a heretic.

What do you want? It’s a fact. The Pope prayed with them. And he has been announcing it these past few days—it was in the Osservatore Romano that I read today: all the announcements for Assisi—and the Pope announces that he will pray with all religions to God... What God? He will pray to God... thus with all religions for peace, supposedly...
That’s a problem, a theological problem, a problem you can consult... Canon Law, communicatio in sacris in the Canon Law dictionary by Naz, you will see what it says! Go consult all the moral books, on the virtue of faith you will find communicatio in sacris. It's not very long, a bit less explicit than in Naz, in the Canon Law dictionary, but you will see what it is.
You will see if we are not facing just such a case.

The legitimacy of discussing a vacancy of the Holy See

Then this problem arises.

First problem: communicatio in sacris.

Second problem: the question of heresy.

Third problem: is the pope still the pope when he is heretical?

I do not know, I am not making a decision! But you can ask yourselves the question. I think that any sensible man must ask himself the question. I do not know.
So now, is it urgent to talk about it?…
We may not talk about it, of course… We can talk about it among ourselves, privately, in our offices, in our private conversations, among seminarians, among priests, and all that…
Should we talk about it to the faithful? Many say: ‘No, do not talk to the faithful. They will be scandalised. It will be terrible, it will go far…’
Well. I told the priests, in Paris, when I gathered them, and then to you, I had already told you, I said: ‘I think that, little by little, we must still enlighten the faithful a little…’
I do not say that it should be done brutally, and throw this to the faithful to frighten them… No. But I still think that it is precisely a matter of faith.
The faithful must not lose the faith. We are responsible for keeping the faith of the faithful, protecting it. They will lose the faith… even our traditionalists.
Even our traditionalists will no longer have faith in Our Lord Jesus Christ. For this faith is lost! It is lost in the priests, it is lost in the bishops.

Source: +Lefebvre: 'Any sensible man must ask' if a heretic is still pope, can discuss with others

Catholic Knight · « **Reply #1 on:** January 15, 2025, 10:52:51 AM »

We are obliged to hold that Jorge Bergoglio is not the pope. The following is the argumentation:

The public sin of manifest formal heresy by its very nature separates the heretic from the Church. (Divine and Catholic Faith)
But Jorge Bergoglio has committed the public sin of manifest formal heresy. (Moral Certitude)
Therefore, Jorge Bergoglio is separated from the Church. (Moral Certitude)

One who is separated from the Church is not a member of the Church. (Divine and Catholic Faith)
But Jorge Bergoglio is separated from the Church. (Moral Certitude)
Therefore, Jorge Bergoglio is not a member of the Church. (Moral Certitude)

One who is not a member of the Church cannot be pope. (Divine and Catholic Faith)
But Jorge Bergoglio is not a member of the Church. (Moral Certitude)
Therefore, Jorge Bergoglio cannot be pope. (Moral Certitude)

Ladislaus · « **Reply #2 on:** January 15, 2025, 12:11:57 PM »

Quote from: Catholic Knight on January 15, 2025, 10:52:51 AM

We are obliged to hold that Jorge Bergoglio is not the pope. The following is the argumentation:

The public sin of manifest formal heresy by its very nature separates the heretic from the Church. (Divine and Catholic Faith)
But Jorge Bergoglio has committed the public sin of manifest formal heresy. (Moral Certitude)
Therefore, Jorge Bergoglio is separated from the Church. (Moral Certitude)

One who is separated from the Church is not a member of the Church. (Divine and Catholic Faith)
But Jorge Bergoglio is separated from the Church. (Moral Certitude)
Therefore, Jorge Bergoglio is not a member of the Church. (Moral Certitude)

One who is not a member of the Church cannot be pope. (Divine and Catholic Faith)
But Jorge Bergoglio is not a member of the Church. (Moral Certitude)
Therefore, Jorge Bergoglio cannot be pope. (Moral Certitude)

So it's just as easy to substitue Jorge Bergoglio with Father Ratzinger in the above and arrive at the same conclusion.

Oh, wait, though, yeah, you hold that Ratzinger has NOT "committed the public sin of manifest formal heresy". Well, I hold that it's moral certitude that he was, just like you hold it to be moral certitude that Bergoglio is ... whereas others claim that he's not and the Ratzinger was not.

See the problem yet?

Catholic Knight · « **Reply #3 on:** January 15, 2025, 12:38:57 PM »

Quote from: Ladislaus on January 15, 2025, 12:11:57 PM

So it's just as easy to substitue Jorge Bergoglio with Father Ratzinger in the above and arrive at the same conclusion.

Oh, wait, though, yeah, you hold that Ratzinger has NOT "committed the public sin of manifest formal heresy". Well, I hold that it's moral certitude that he was, just like you hold it to be moral certitude that Bergoglio is ... whereas others claim that he's not and the Ratzinger was not.

See the problem yet?

Jorge Bergoglio's pertinacity is manifestly evident.

Catholic Knight · « **Reply #4 on:** January 15, 2025, 01:55:40 PM »

Quote from: Johannes on January 15, 2025, 12:55:44 PM

Didn't Ratzinger also do all the same communicatio in sacris stuff that +ABL pointed out about JPII from the above?
Or, was it not evident enough for you?

No.

CathInfo.com

Author Topic: "It is possible that we will be obliged to believe that this pope is not pope" (Read 11905 times)

Johannes

"It is possible that we will be obliged to believe that this pope is not pope"

Catholic Knight

Re: "It is possible that we will be obliged to believe that this pope is not pope"

Ladislaus

Re: "It is possible that we will be obliged to believe that this pope is not pope"

Catholic Knight

Re: "It is possible that we will be obliged to believe that this pope is not pope"

Catholic Knight

Re: "It is possible that we will be obliged to believe that this pope is not pope"