The Church has never taught that a "true" pope cannot attempt to bind the whole Church to error. He most certainly can, has and still does make that attempt. The teaching of the Church is that he cannot bind the whole Church to error when he speaks ex cathedra, not, as the sedes preach, that he cannot make the attempt on his own.
Your first error consists in what you believe to be ex Cathedra, and what the Church believes to be ex Cathedra. Here is what Cardinal Manning believes about the definition at Vatican I (who would know much more in regards to the definition the Fr. Feeney or yourself)....The Definition, then, limits the infallibility of the Pontiff to his supreme acts ex cathedra in faith and morals, but extends his infallibility to all acts in the fullest exercise of his supreme magisterium or doctrinal authority. . . The definition limits the infallibility of the Pontiff to the acts which emanate from him ex cathedra. This phrase, which has been long and commonly used by theologians, has now, for the first time, been adopted into the terminology of the Church; and in adopting it the Vatican Council fixes its meaning. The Pontiff speaks ex cathedra when, and only when, he speaks as the Pastor and Doctor of all Christians. By this, all acts of the Pontiff as a private person, or a private doctor, or as a local Bishop, or as sovereign of a state, are excluded. In all these acts the Pontiff may be subject to error. In one, and one only, capacity he is exempt from error; that is, when as teacher of the whole Church in things of faith and morals. (Cardinal Manning - The Vatican Council and its definitions - Pg. 64)
Notice that it is only when the Pope acts in a private or local capacity that he is fallible. Whenever teaches the whole Church concerning faith in morals he is infallible (provided he teaches definitively). If he is merely giving his personal opinion to the Church, he would be fallible. This only makes sense. The way you interpret the definition and "true obedience" the Church becomes protestant. Unless a definition such as the Immaculate Conception or Assumption were given, anyone would be free to resist the Pope. There would be chaos in the Church.
Your second error is that you believe that Vatican I taught that Catholics are bound ONLY
to things taught by the Pope ex Cathedra. That was not at all the case. Vatican I was merely defining the conditions on which a Pope is infallible AS AN INDIVIDUAL
. This does not mean we are not also bound to Major Creeds, doctrines delivered, decreed and defined at Catholic General Councils, and of course the UOM (Tradition). My specific point is in regards to Vatican II. Let's see what the Tridentine Creed (a major Catholic Creed) says about what Catholics "must undoubtedly receive and profess" in regards to Catholic General Councils...1. I most steadfastly admit and embrace Apostolical and ecclesiastical traditions,
and all other observances and constitutions of the Church.
2. I also admit the Holy Scripture according to that sense which our
holy mother the Church has held, and does hold, to which it belongs to judge of
the true sense and interpretations of the Scriptures. Neither will I ever take and
interpret them otherwise than according to the unanimous consent of the Fathers.
3. I also profess that there are truly and properly seven Sacraments of the
New Law, instituted by Jesus Christ our Lord, and necessary for the salvation
of mankind, though not all for every one; to wit, Baptism, Confirmation,
Eucharist, Penance, Extreme Unction, Order, and Matrimony; and that they
confer grace; and that of these, Baptism, Confirmation, and Order cannot be
reiterated without sacrilege. I also receive and admit the received and approved
ceremonies of the Catholic Church in the solemn administration of the
4. I embrace and receive all and every one of the things which have been
defined and declared in the holy Council of Trent concerning Original Sin
5. I profess, likewise, that in the Mass there is offered to God a true, proper,
and propitiatory sacrifice for the living and the dead; and that in the most
holy sacrament of the Eucharist there is truly, really, and substantially,
the Body and Blood, together with the Soul and Divinity, of our Lord
Jesus Christ; and that there is made a conversion of the whole substance of
the bread into the body, and of the whole substance of the
wine into the blood, which conversion the Catholic Church calls
Transubstantiation. I also confess that under either kind alone Christ is
received whole and entire, and a true Sacrament.
6. I constantly hold that there is a Purgatory, and that the souls therein
detained are helped by the suffrages of the faithful.
7. Likewise, that the saints, reigning together with Christ, are to be honored
and invocated, and that they offer prayers to God for us, and that their relics
are to be respected.
8. I most firmly assert that the images of Christ, of the mother of God, ever
Virgin, and also of the Saints, ought to be had and retained, and that due
honor and veneration is to be given them.
9. I also affirm that the power of indulgences was left by Christ in the Church,
and that the use of them is most wholesome to Christian people.
10. I acknowledge the Holy Catholic Apostolic Roman Church for the mother
and mistress of all churches; and I promise true obedience to the Bishop of Rome,
successor to St. Peter, Prince of the Apostles, and Vicar of Jesus Christ.
11. I likewise undoubtedly receive and profess all other things delivered, defined,
and declared by the sacred Canons, and general Councils, and particularly
by the holy Council of Trent.
12. And I condemn, reject, and anathematize all things contrary thereto,
and all heresies whatsoever, condemned, rejected, and anathematized by
the Church. This true Catholic faith, without which no one can be saved,
I. N.N. do at this present freely confess and sincerely hold; and I promise most
constantly to retain, and confess the same entire and unviolated, with God's
assistance, to the end of my life.
As Catholics we must
receive all things delivered, defined AND declared at a General Council. Resistance does not apply in this case.
Do you accept the heretical declaration on religious liberty
Stubborn? How about some of the other heresies delivered and declared. There doesn't have to be an "anathema" attached to a declaration in order to bind Catholics. If you accept the Conciliar Popes you are BOUND
to the heresies in Vatican II, since THEY REQUIRE YOU TO ACCEPT A HERETICAL COUNCIL AS VALID AND CATHOLIC FOR COMMUNION WITH THEIR SECT
. This is IMPOSSIBLE
as per Christ's promise to Peter and his successors when He said, "and I will give to thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven. And whatsoever thou shalt bind upon earth, it shall be bound also in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose upon earth, it shall be loosed also in heaven. (Matt 16:19)
Peter and his successors could never bind a person to the heresies such as are in Vatican II. If you believe that the conciliar clowns are true Popes then you are either bound to those heresies for the reasons stated above, or you claim you are not bound to those heresies and reject the declarations of what you believe to be
a Catholic General Council (as well as the Council itself) and a major Catholic Creed. Either way you are not Catholic.
We have no way of proving that the "Conciliar clowns/popes" are not popes, anymore than we can prove that all NO transubstantiation's are certainly invalid.
You fall into multiple errors here. First of all it is much easier to prove manifest heresy in many cases. You mean to tell me that if a declaration in a so called Catholic General Council denies the divinity of Christ and a "popeclown" says that it is a valid Catholic Council and that all Catholics must accept it as valid and Catholic, that this man is not clearly a heretic who hold no keys and no office in the Catholic Church? I guess (sadly) that your answer would be yes. It is actually what your are now saying regarding the multiple heresies delivered and declared at Vatican II. Your next error would be that Catholics need an official declaration or some other proof
to consider one a "non office holder
". Once heresy is manifest that is all that is necessary. Catholics are not obliged to read hearts and must presume DOLUS IN THE EXTERNAL FORUM UNTIL THE CONTRARY IS PROVED
. You have it backwards (as you are searching for proof first).Canon 2200.2, 1917 Code of Canon Law: “ When an external violation of the law has been committed, malice is presumed in the external forum until the contrary is proven.
It is simply impossible to do in this world no matter how strong our opinion of the matter is. As such, the dogma most certainly applies. "It is a defined dogma of the Catholic Church that no one can be saved who is not subject to that flesh and blood Vicar of Jesus, the Roman Pontiff. It is one of the requirements for salvation." - Fr. Feeney
I agree with that dogma. As I said, however, it does not apply during the interregnum we are in.
Yes, I am under that impression because that is what "true" popes have taught - "the man elected is instantly the true Pope, and he acquires and can exercise full and absolute jurisdiction over the whole world." - Pope St. Pius X Vacantis Apostolicae Sedis Those who are not under the same impression reject what "true" popes have taught, which perfectly demonstrates the futility of the whole sede syndrome.
The Pope, here refers to an ecclesiastical
impediment and not
a divine one. By divine law, one must be a CATHOLIC to be validly elected. See the following quotes...Pope Pius XII, Vacantis Apostolicae Sedis, Dec. 8, 1945: "34. None of the cardinals may in any way, or by pretext of any excommunication, suspension, or interdict whatsoever, or of any other ecclesiastical impediment, be excluded in the active and passive election of the Supreme Pontiff. We hereby suspend such censures solely for the purposes of the said election; at other times they are to remain in vigor (AAS 38 , p. 76)."
“Heretics and schismatics are barred from the Supreme Pontificate by the divine law itself… [T]hey must certainly be regarded as excluded from occupying the throne of the Apostolic See, which is the infallible teacher of the truth of the faith and the center of ecclesiastical unity.” (Maroto, Institutiones I.C. 2:784)
“Appointment to the Office of the Primacy. 1. What is required by divine law for this appointment… Also required for validity is that the one elected be a member of the Church; hence, heretics and apostates (at least public ones) are excluded.” (Coronata, Institutiones I.C. 1:312)
“All those who are not impeded by divine law or by an invalidating ecclesiastical law are validly eligible [to be elected pope]. Wherefore, a male who enjoys use of reason sufficient to accept election and exercise jurisdiction, and who is a true member of the Church can be validly elected, even though he be only a layman. Excluded as incapable of valid election, however, are all women, children who have not yet arrived at the age of discretion, those afflicted with habitual insanity, heretics and schismatics.” (Wernz-Vidal, Jus Can. 2:415)
Thus heresy is not a mere “ecclesiastical
impediment” or censure of the type that Pius XII enumerated and suspended in paragraph 34 of Vacantis Apostolicae Sedis. It is instead an impediment of divine law
which Pius XII did not suspend — and indeed could not have suspended, precisely because it is one of divine law.
There is, per the universal teaching of the Church, item 3 above, a pope. Therefore there is no interregnum, therefore the dogma applies and has applied these last 60 or so years.
The universal teaching of the Church is that a woman, one below the age of reason (or lacking reason), as well as heretics and schismatics cannot be in possession of a valid election by divine law
. That is the universal teaching of the Church also expressed in Cum Ex Apostolatus Officio (Pope Paul IV). Therefore the interregnum applies.
I respond for those on the fence about sedevacantism who may happen across this thread. Sedeism is a doctrine of man, it is a false doctrine, one that most assuredly has never been taught by the Church and whenever it reared it's ugly head has always been condemned by the Church as schismatic. It is inherently anti-dogmatic, it is therefore anti-Catholic. You are in a fog Stubborn. I will also respond for those who are on the fence as well as for those who are of good will regardless of whether or not they are on the fence. The Church has always taught that heretics are aliens to the Church. They sever themselves without declaration. Heretics cannot be Pope since they are not members of the Church. This what taught by Popes as well as all the Church Fathers unanimously, not to mention the doctors who taught it. Unfortunately because you misapply Church dogma (or just don't read it closely enough) you fail to see the truth in this matter. You then have the audacity to say that the Catholic teaching that heretics sever themselves automatically without declaration and are not members of the Church and hence cannot hold offices is "a doctrine of man". Please read the following carefully as it will thoroughly refute your many errors and hopefully lead you out of the Novus Ordo sect (of which you are currently a member).Catholic Encyclopedia – Heresy, 1913: The pope himself, if notoriously guilty of heresy, would cease to be pope because he would cease to be a member of the Church.Someone must have forgot to tell the authors of the Catholic Encyclopedia that the idea of Sedevacantism has been condemned and is antidogmatic etc. Not saying that everything is infallible in the CE, but it certainly carries more weight than Stubborn and Fr. Feeney. Now let's look at some Scripture quotes, shall we...Let a man so account of us as of the ministers of Christ, and the dispensers of the mysteries of God. Here now it is required among the dispensers, that a man be found faithful. (1 Cor. 4:1-2)
Here we see that it is required that a man "be found faithful" to be a dispenser of the mysteries of God". Those who are not faithful (such as conciliar clownpopes) can not "dispense mysteries of God" since they hold no office.A man that is a heretic, after the first and second admonition, avoid:" (Titus 3:10)
Notice that St. Paul refers to the man as a HERETIC without a formal declaration from St. Peter. He also acknowledges that Titus can recognize this heretic without a declaration. 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. As we said before, so now I say again: If any one preach to you a gospel, besides that which you have received, let him be anathema. (Gal 1:8-9)Notice how St. Paul tells the clergy and faithful of Galatia not to wait for a declaration of heresy or "proof", but rather upon hearing a false gospel to consider the preacher "anathema" straightaway.
Now how did the ancient Church Fathers interpret these passages and does it matter? We will soon see that ALL the Church Fathers unanimously interpreted the above as being that a heretic loses their office "ipso facto" without a declaration...
St. Robert Bellarmine (1610), Doctor of the Church: " A pope who is a manifest heretic automatically ( per se ) ceases to be pope and head , just as he ceases automatically to be a Christian and a member of the Church. Wherefore, he can be judged and punished by the Church. This is the teaching of all the ancient Fathers who teach that manifest heretics immediately lose all jurisdiction Pope Leo XIII, Satis Cognitum (# 9), June 29, 1896: “The practice of the Church has always b een the same, as is shown by the unanimous teaching of the Fathers, who were wont to hold as outside Catholic communion, AND ALIEN TO THE CHURCH, WHOEVER WOULD RECEDE IN THE LEAST DEGREE FROM ANY POINT OF DOCTRINE PROPOSED BY HER AUTHORITATIVE MAGISTERIUM.” Now what does Vatican I say to do when we see a situation like this (when all the Church Fathers interpret the Scriptures to mean a certain thing)? Vatican I will now tell us...First Vatican Council, Session 2: Profession of Faith3. Likewise I accept sacred scripture
- according to that sense which Holy Mother Church held and holds,
- since it is her right to judge of the true sense and interpretation of the holy scriptures;
- nor will I ever receive and interpret them except according to the unanimous consent of the fathers.
What have Doctors of the Church said?...St. Francis De Sales (17 th century), Doctor of the Church, The Catholic Controversy , pp. 305-306: " Now when he [the Pope] is explicitly a heretic, he falls ipso facto from his dignity and out of the Church ..." St. Robert Bellarmine, De Romano Pontifice, II, 30 : “... for men are not bound, or able to read hearts; but when they see that someone is a heretic by his external works, they judge him to be a heretic pure and simple, and condemn him as a heretic.
St. Robert Bellarmine, De Romano Pontifice , II, 30: “For, in the first place, it is proven with arguments from authority and from reason that the manifest heretic is ‘ipso facto’ deposed . The argument from authority is based on St. Paul (Titus 3:10), who orders that the heretic be avoided after two warnings, that is, after showing himself to be manifestly obstinate – which means before any excommunication or judicial sentence . And this is what St. Jerome writes, adding that the other sinners are excluded from the Church by sentence of excommunication, but the heretics exile themselves and separate themselves by their own act from the body of Christ.” What have the Popes said?...Pope Pius VI, Auctorem fidei , Aug. 28, 1794: “47. Likewise, the proposition which teaches that it is necessary, according to the natural and divine laws, for either excommunication or for suspension, that a personal examination should precede , and that, therefore , sentences called ‘ipso facto’ have no other force than that of a serious threat without any actual effect” – false, rash, pernicious, injurious to the power of the Church, erroneous. Pope Pius XII, Mystici Corporis Christi (# 22): “As therefore in the true Christian community there is only one Body, one Spirit, one Lord, and one Baptism, so there can be only one faith . And therefore if a man refuse to hear the Church let him be considered – so the Lord commands – as a heathen and a publican. It follows that those who are divided in faith or government cannot be living in the unity of such a Body , nor can they be living the life of its one Divine Spirit Pope Innocent III, Eius exemplo , Dec. 18, 1208: “By the heart we believe and by the mouth we confess the one Church, not of heretics , but the Holy Roman, Catholic, and Apostolic Church outside of which we believe that no one is saved.” Pope Eugene IV, Council of Florence , “Cantate Domino,” 1441: “The Holy Roman Church firmly believes, professes and preaches that all those who are outside the Catholic Church , not only pagans but also Jews or heretics and schismatics... Pope Leo XIII, Satis Cognitum (# 13), June 29, 1896: “You are not to be looked upon as holding the true Catholic faith if you do not teach that the faith of Rome is to be held. Pope Innocent IV, First Council of Lyons , 1245: “The civil law declares that those are to be regarded as heretics, and ought to be subject to the sentences issued against them, who even on slight evidence are found to have strayed from the judgment and path of the Catholic religion. Pope St. Celestine: “ The authority of Our Apostolic See has determined that the bishop, cleric, or simple Christian 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 preachings, cannot depose or remove anyone whatsoever . Pope Pius IX, Quartus Supra (# 12), Jan. 6, 1873: “Since the faction of Armenia is like this, they are schismatics even if they had not yet been condemned as such by Apostolic authority.” Pope Paul IV, Bull Cum ex Apostolatus Officio , Feb. 15, 1559: “6. In addition, [by this Our Constitution, which is to remain valid in perpetuity We enact, determine, decree and define:] that if ever at any time it shall appear that... the Roman Pontiff, prior to his promotion or his elevation as Cardinal or Roman Pontiff, has deviated from the Catholic Faith or fallen into some heresy... (ii) it shall not be possible for it to acquire validity (nor for it to be said that it has thus acquired validity) through the acceptance of the office, of consecration, of subsequent authority, nor through possession of administration, nor through the putative enthronement of a Roman Pontiff, or Veneration, or obedience accorded to such by all, nor through the lapse of any period of time in the foregoing situation;...” What does Canon Law say and how is it interpreted? We shall now see...Canon 188 No. 4: “All offices shall be vacant ipso facto (without a declaration required) by tacit resignation... #4 by public defection from the Catholic Faith.” Canon 2200.2, 1917 Code of Canon Law: “ When an external violation of the law has been committed, malice is presumed in the external forum until the contrary is proven. A commentary on this canon by Rev. Eric F. Mackenzie, A.M., S.T.L., J.C.L, states: “The very commission of any act which signifies heresy, e.g., the statement of some doctrine contrary or contradictory to a revealed and defined dogma, gives sufficient ground for juridical presumption of heretical depravity... Excusing circumstances have to be proved in the external forum, and the burden of proof is on the person whose action has given rise to the imputation of heresy. In the absence of such proof, all such excuses are presumed not to exist.”