[Ladislaus]

If his statement was merely controversial, I would agree with your point.  But it wasn't merely controversial, it was in fact a heresy!  He obviously knew it was a heresy and...he doesn't care!  Ratzinger has made similar statements.  He publicly stated that V2 was the French Revolution in the Church!  He publicly agreed with von Balthazar about razing the bastions of the Church.  JP2 was a little more cagey in his speech but he kissed the Koran and he publicly worshipped with pagans.  P6 was proclaiming that the smoke of Satan had entered the Church.  Gee, how'd that happen, Johnny?  How does the "pope" lament the "silent apostasy" without lifting a finger to combat it?  These men have blood on their hands and we're going to entertain negative doubts about their guilt?  If I saw one man walk up to another and without saying a thing fire a bullet into the other man's head, I don't entertain negative doubts about the possibility that maybe the shooter was legally authorized to shoot the man.  And neither do the courts.  If we have eyewitness accounts and video evidence, the jury isn't going to give a not guilty verdict based on a negative doubt unsupported by any evidence.

Heresy is a lot more slippery than ascertaining fact regarding something like a shooting.  There's the element of pertinacity that must be established.  So, for instance, members here on CI routinely accuse one another of heresy.  And this is nothing new.  That has gone on since practically the beginnings of the Church ... especially, say, with the Dominicans vs. Jesuits.

Here's the problem.  Closest thing that comes to actual heresy, in the strict sense, from the V2 papal claimants is the religious indifferentism, EENS-denial, and ecclesiology.  Problem is that most Traditional Catholics actually hold the same ecclesiology and soteriology.  Most Traditional Catholics say that non-Catholics can be saved.  Consequently, if they can be saved, since there's no salvation outside the Church, we must say that these non-Catholics are within the Church ... somehow.  Voila.  Here you have the V2 ecclesiology ... and everything else just flows from that.  So are all these heretics who are outside the Church also?

[Clemens Maria]

Heresy is a lot more slippery than ascertaining fact regarding something like a shooting.  There's the element of pertinacity that must be established.  So, for instance, members here on CI routinely accuse one another of heresy.  And this is nothing new.  That has gone on since practically the beginnings of the Church ... especially, say, with the Dominicans vs. Jesuits.

Here's the problem.  Closest thing that comes to actual heresy, in the strict sense, from the V2 papal claimants is the religious indifferentism, EENS-denial, and ecclesiology.  Problem is that most Traditional Catholics actually hold the same ecclesiology and soteriology.  Most Traditional Catholics say that non-Catholics can be saved.  Consequently, if they can be saved, since there's no salvation outside the Church, we must say that these non-Catholics are within the Church ... somehow.  Voila.  Here you have the V2 ecclesiology ... and everything else just flows from that.  So are all these heretics who are outside the Church also?

Well, can we agree that manifest heresy is a thing?  If it were impossible to establish pertinacity without a trial then how did manifest heresy ever get defined by Catholic theologians (including at least one Doctor of the Church, no less)?  You gave some examples of the kind of statements that would establish pertinacity in the external forum.  I gave you some actual statements of the Conciliar popes that appear to me to be exactly the types of statements that you would agree establish pertinacity.  Am I wrong about that?  As for traditionalists, I'm betting that we both agree that the average traditionalist is not intending to contradict Church doctrine regardless of how wrong their opinions are.  I would even give Stubborn the benefit of the doubt.  But is it possible that some traditionalists have fallen into heresy?  Yes, but short of a statement which clearly shows they have no intention of adhering to Catholic doctrine or that they desire to change Catholic doctrine, I would not conclude that they are manifest heretics.  I would be especially careful about accusing people who have no training whatsoever and who obviously are being driven more by emotions than by knowledge and understanding.  If they are obedient to the priest at their traditional Catholic chapel, that makes me think they are Catholic.  I can't say the same for anyone attached to the Novus Ordo.  New pseudo-sacraments, new laws, new doctrine, new sect.  Not everyone there is culpable but nevertheless they are not worshipping in the Catholic Church.  In my mind, the situation is similar to the Anglican schism.

[Meg]

Only the sede needs a sede-interpretation of defined dogma, and then only to nullify it, but Catholics are bound to accept it as it is written. Per the dogma, Catholics are not permitted to say the pope is not the pope, but since by your own admission that doesn't mean you - carry on.

So true.

[Ladislaus]

So true.

Stubborn has issues with basic reading comprehension, not to mention being completely ignorant of Catholic theology, and much less can he understand the official Latin text of the dogmas he claims to understand.

[Pax Vobis]

Well, can we agree that manifest heresy is a thing?  If it were impossible to establish pertinacity without a trial then how did manifest heresy ever get defined by Catholic theologians (including at least one Doctor of the Church, no less)?

Whether or not the pope is a manifest heretic doesn't matter - because it's irrelevant to the salvation of your soul.  Whether or not the pope is the pope is irrelevant - because that's the not purpose of your life to figure out.  Our purpose is to know, love and serve God and to be happy with Him in heaven.  That's it.

None of us are cardinals or part of the Roman hierarchy so it is not our concern to interpret canon law and apply it (and none of us has the training to do so anyways).  

It is enough for us to recognize that the pope and most of the bishops have lost part of the Faith, and for us to "separate" ourselves from their errors.  This is our duty and most trads have done this duty well.  

But our most important duty is to put aside the "things of this world" (which includes the soap-opera which is new-rome) and to grow and develop our relationship with God Almighty.  For this is how we shall be judged and measured.  Not on theological matters (which are not our calling), not on doctrinal matters (which is not out vocation) but on keeping the commandments and keeping out Faith - which is based on our relationship with God.  

In the grand scheme of St Vincent Ferrer's life, the "pope issue" was but a footnote.  This is the case with any other saint who lived during a Papal scandal.  St Vincent was judged according to his works and daily responsibilities, because that is what he was in control of.  So it will be with us.  

[Pax Vobis]

 Who gets to call someone else a heretic? I thought that the Church itself was the only competent authority for convicting someone of heresy. And there is past evidence of them getting it wrong. Joan of Arc was burnt as a heretic, and very shortly thereafter a second trial found her innocent of all charges, and she was subsequently canonized.

Yes, only the Church can convict someone of heresy.  However, I don't think She got St Joan of Arc incorrect because St Joan was first convicted by a "council" that was localized - wasn't it just english churchmen who condemned her, who obviously were politically influenced?  I think that's why they got it wrong - bias.  Once the GENERAL church got involved, St Joan's case was looked at with the proper indifference and levelheadedness.

[Pax Vobis]

There is no "limited material jurisdiction". In the CT, they possess zero jurisdiction. That is, they have completely lost the right to guide and rule the Church. The "material" part is no related to jurisdiction, but it refers only to the physical occupancy of the office and the power of designation. 

Cantarella,
It depends how you define 'jurisdiction'.  The power to designate new bishops and change dioceses definitely relates to jurisdiction because a priest only has the jurisdiction to provide the sacraments in his proper geographical area.  So, yes, I would say there is a 'limited material jurisdiction' because jurisdiction refers to temporal, governmental matters, not just spiritual matters.

[Pax Vobis]

We decide that a heretic is not Pope on the Authority of the Church Teaching that heretics are not in the Church. It's the same Teaching that you reject and teach the opposite of. Good job on the tired old straw man you have been spouting for a while now. St. Vincent Ferrer decided the Pope was not the Pope so your straw man doesn't even hold up when it's put in its proper context. 

Did you give yourself a "clap"?  How weird.

[Pax Vobis]

Canon 2200.2, 1917 Code of Canon Law
Positing an external violation of the law, malice is presumed in the external forum until the contrary is proven

Saint Robert Bellarmine
...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. 

Bellator,
You are not trained, educated, or authorized to interpret, rule or apply the canon law penalties to ANYONE.  So stop quoting canon law.  Your opinion in meaningless.  You are not a church official, nor are you even a cleric.  I will stand corrected if you tell me where you obtained your canon law degree?  If you have none, then stop with the canon law argument.  It's off limits to laymen.

Regarding the quote from +Bellarmine, I would say that 1) this is his opinion.  2) it can apply in certain situations, NONE OF WHICH relate to any kind of OFFICIAL condemnation.  He is writing to church officials and other theologians; HE'S NOT WRITING TO LAYMEN.  3) if laymen want to follow +Bellarmine's advice, then they can "judge" someone a heretic and separate themselves from him/her.  But a layman's "judging" is still meaningless.  It is not absolute, nor binding, nor final, nor infallible, nor official - so we should all stop pretending that it matters.  Because it doesn't.  And if you think it does, you probably are "condemned" yourself, because canon law does not permit laymen to judge church matters and there are probably penalties for those who place upon themselves the authority of the church, which is what you do when you "judge" someone a heretic.

[Pax Vobis]

The Church does presume malice in the external forum when a violation has occurred.

AnEvenSeven, you are not the Church, so you have no authority to presume ANYTHING.

That is proven by the fact that heretics are not Catholic. That is Dogma.

Formal heretics, who have been DECIDED as such BY THE CHURCH are considered not catholic.  YOU are not the church and SHE has not decided yet, so again, you have no authority to make a decision ON ANYTHING.  Until She decides, we wait.

We are required by God to identify dangers to our faith. We are required to have no communion with non-Catholics in matters of faith because we do not hold the same faith.

This is the limit of what laymen can say.  We have no authority to say anything further on the matter, nor decide who is or who isn't a heretic, etc.  AND CERTAINLY we have NO AUTHORITY to decide if the pope is a heretic.

I can't believe that i have to remind LAYMEN of this but this is how crazy our world is.  What kind of hubris and pride does one have to have to think that he can decide that a pope is no longer the pope?  A question that theologians have been debating and studying FOR CENTURIES and you, Joeblow2017, come along, WITH NO TRAINING WHATSOEVER, and decide you have it all figured out?!  This is truly a trad bizzaro world.

[Pax Vobis]

The Church indeed taught that all of her members should presume guilt in a notorious heretic. 

LastDays, can you please provide a link/research for the term 'notorious' heretic?  We're all using the terms 'material' and 'formal'.  You come along with the term 'notorious' and it's confusing and I don't think you're using it correctly.  'Notorious' I think means 'formal'.  So your logic is wrong.

[Pax Vobis]

LastDays,

Church officials have no more infallibility than laymen. 

Infallibility is not the issue; authority is, of which laymen HAVE NONE.

Secondly, your explanations are VERY confusing and contradictory, as usual.  First you said:

As I have said, no one to my knowledge officially charges anyone of anything. 

Then, in the next post, you "charge" Francis with being a heretic and ALSO you charge him with not being the pope.  You cannot say this.

Bergie is not a Roman Pontiff. He is a notorious heretic. 

If you want to be consistent, logical AND HUMBLE, then all you can say is that:
1.  Francis APPEARS to be a heretic.
2.  It's doubtful if he is the pope.

If you say anything else, then by definition, you are "charging" him, which you said is not allowed.

[Cantarella]

John Lane would argue that the Conciliar clowns could conceivably exercise supplied jurisdiction due to common error concerning the legitimacy of the claim but actually possessing and exercising even a limited material jurisdiction would be absolutely unheard of for a non-member of the Church.  It is a novel idea that to my knowledge was never proposed by any Catholic theologian prior to the 1970s.

Perhaps is a novel idea in response to the current crisis; but so it is the idea of an interregnum lasting more than 50 years now.... They are novel ideas simply because they are responses to the present situation which has never happened before; not because they are not founded of well established principles. For example, the distinction between form and matter, are philosophical notions which have been around probably before Aristoteles. St. Thomas Aquinas dug deep into the subject. That the rational soul is the unique form of the material body is of Faith. That there are two components in a Sacrament, form and matter is veritable. That there is an ecclesiastical difference between formal heresy and material heresy is also a fact just as it is that there is something known as formal apostolic succession and material apostolic succession. These principles are real and older than even Catholicism itself.

I do not find it unreasonable to apply these principles to the current crisis and make the distinction in the person of the conciliar Popes & Novus Ordo hierarchy as well; especially because of the unprecedented catastrophe we are experiencing. Just as a Sacrament must have both form and matter in order to be valid and objectively real; the person of the pope must have the same. He is not pope if he does not possess both components. However, even in the absence of the form, the matter itself still exists.  

[Centroamerica]

Professing the Catholic faith is indeed not just SAYING it.  So, for instance, actions like false worship can render one suspect of not actually professing it.  Nevertheless, there's a big difference between an Osteen who publicly rejects it and a Francis who publicly states that he holds it.  Whether we believe him or not is a completely separate question...

And, apart from that, yes, absolutely, a crucial part of being a Catholic is saying, "I am a Catholic."  That's how we publicly identify with the visible society known as the Church.

Does Bergoglio ever actually say that he believes in the totality of the Catholic Faith? I've never heard that. I'm sure he publicly prays the Apostle's Creed but so do Lutherans.
Maybe a few forgot that he says things like "today I feel like saying something that is perhaps a heresy"... It would be hard to actually defend such a person as being Catholic and a member of the Catholic Church.
Even Louie Verrecchio's blog picked up on it...
https://akacatholic.com/breaking-pope-takes-major-step-toward-formal-heresy/
BREAKING: Pope takes major step toward formal heresy

Francis in Message to Ecuмenical Event: “I want to say something that may perhaps be a Heresy, I don’t know” —UPDATED

Spanish Original shows Francis admitted his Teaching is “perhaps a Heresy, I don’t know”

https://novusordowatch.org/2015/05/francis-want-to-say-something-heretical/
Anyway, a whole bunch of Catholics, including Bishop Fellay and people from the Remnant, just signed a letter not too long ago accusing Bergoglio of heresy.

[Stubborn]

Stubborn has issues with basic reading comprehension, not to mention being completely ignorant of Catholic theology, and much less can he understand the official Latin text of the dogmas he claims to understand.

Good heavens man, stop with the ridiculous ad hominems to every person you disagree with already and back up your hot air with actual Church teachings for a change.

From V1:

Chapter 2. On the permanence of the primacy of blessed Peter in the Roman pontiffs....

Therefore whoever succeeds to the chair of Peter obtains by the institution of Christ himself, the primacy of Peter over the whole church.

Therefore, if anyone says that it is not by the institution of Christ the lord himself (that is to say, by divine law) that blessed Peter should have perpetual successors in the primacy over the whole church; or that the Roman pontiff is not the successor of blessed Peter in this primacy: let him be anathema.

By saying "*whoever* succeeds to the Chair" does not mean we are permitted to reject or doubt who the popes are, rather, we are to understand it, to literally mean what it literally says, we therefore believe that it means exactly what it says. This reality means that "whoever", is inclusive of the conciliar popes - and is so by divine law.

The law of both Pope Pius X and XII which states: "the man elected is instantly the true Pope, and he acquires and can exercise full and absolute jurisdiction over the whole world" is in complete agreement with the infallible teaching of V1.

I am in complete agreement with both teachings and am so without the slightest reservation or scruple. How is it that you accuse me of false reading and being ignorant of Catholic theology when I agree with the literal authoritative teachings of popes?


I gave you two of the same teachings from different popes, one of them is taught ex cathedra, both of these are clearly, literally declaring *whoever* succeeds to the Chair is indeed the pope.

You can say they are wrong, you can say they do not apply, or you can say you do not agree, *but you must back up the reason you disagree, with other Church teachings*, - but to say I do not fully comprehend what is clearly taught, or that I have a false reading of them, or misunderstand them because I do not understand the official Latin text, is nothing other than a deceitful admission of your own rejection of authoritative Church teachings.

You can see my reason for remaining stubborn in this matter because I gave it to you, i.e. I posted it - my reason is because *that* is what the Church teaches, the Church *clearly* teaches that *whoever* succeeds to the Chair is the pope *with* the same primacy as was given by Our Lord to St. Peter - *that* is the Solemn teaching of the Church, that is my only reason for saying it, what is your reason for rejecting it?  

You must actually accuse these teachings as being at least inapplicable, then refute these teachings *with other teachings of equal or greater authority*, but do not stoop to rejecting reality by saying that I and other non-sedes don't understand them.