Catholic Info
Traditional Catholic Faith => Crisis in the Church => Topic started by: Centroamerica on April 01, 2017, 04:25:24 PM
-
For many years, the greatest argument against sedevacantism was that the post-conciliar popes were only material heretics but not formal heretics. So the argument goes, if they had been formal heretics they would cease to be popes. Father Hesse was one of the biggest proponents of this position and many in the SSPX [priests] (if not the official SSPX) repeated the same. That argument seems to have been scrapped these days in favor of a position that manifest formal heretics can be legitimate popes. When did the position and argument change and why?
-
For many years, the greatest argument against sedevacantism was that the post-conciliar popes were only material heretics but not formal heretics. So the argument goes, if they had been formal heretics they would cease to be popes. Father Hesse was one of the biggest proponents of this position and many in the SSPX [priests] (if not the official SSPX) repeated the same. That argument seems to have been scrapped these days in favor of a position that manifest formal heretics can be legitimate popes. When did the position and argument change and why?
"seems to have been scrapped"? Who says?
"position and argument change"? Who says? Where did you take this survey from?
Now, if Bergolio was really a woman, or a robot, or an alien, or an atheist imposter, how would we know he couldn't be a true pope since these situations cannot involve the concept of "formal heresy"? Seriously.
-
Not sure. Seems likely that he is.
But the strong positive doubt is enough for me to withdraw from any submission to his teaching.
-
For many years, the greatest argument against sedevacantism was that the post-conciliar popes were only material heretics but not formal heretics. So the argument goes, if they had been formal heretics they would cease to be popes. Father Hesse was one of the biggest proponents of this position and many in the SSPX [priests] (if not the official SSPX) repeated the same. That argument seems to have been scrapped these days in favor of a position that manifest formal heretics can be legitimate popes. When did the position and argument change and why?
Well, this is by no means at all a "great" or even a valid argument, since theologians more or less unilaterally deny that Catholics can be material heretics; material heretics refer only to non-Catholics who innocently (i.e., without moral guilt) hold to a particular heresy (e.g., that faith alone suffices to salvation). Sedevacantists have been pointing this out for about twenty years, so perhaps people are finally starting to "get it?"
The material/formal distinction is not one that sedevacantism has ever depended on; theologians say that manifest (public) heretics are not members of the Church, regardless of whether or not they are formal or material. Bergoglio et al. are manifest heretics, and that's all that really matters.
As to a change in the general sedeplenist argumentation, I'm not as sure as you are that it's actually occurred. A few indult doofuses, Salza and Siscoe, are making that argument. That's never really been the SSPX's position, I don't think, and I don't think it is now. They've "commissioned" Fr. Gleize to publish contra-sedevacantist work to be disseminated to the faithful; why would they do that if they think that those Indult clowns properly represent their position?
-
For many years, the greatest argument against sedevacantism was that the post-conciliar popes were only material heretics but not formal heretics. So the argument goes, if they had been formal heretics they would cease to be popes. Father Hesse was one of the biggest proponents of this position and many in the SSPX [priests] (if not the official SSPX) repeated the same. That argument seems to have been scrapped these days in favor of a position that manifest formal heretics can be legitimate popes. When did the position and argument change and why?
I'd like to bring Archbishop Lefebvre into debate. I don't know if Archbishop Lefebvre, for example, ever referred to the material/formal distinction, in that he wasn't sedevacantist because he believed that JPll was only a material heretic. I don't recall seeing that he made the distinction, and can't remember what the SSPX has officially held as to why they (SSPX) aren't Sedes. Maybe you know something about that.
We can't really know how +ABL would deal with Francis, but since he was prudent in his analysis of the situation, we cannot say that +ABL, for example, would have now held to SVism because of Francis.
-
Not sure. Seems likely that he is.
But the strong positive doubt is enough for me to withdraw from any submission to his teaching.
if it walks like a duck, quacks like a duck..
why, dadgum... looks like a friggin duck
-
A formal heretic is defined as someone who deliberately doubts or denies a revealed truth of the Catholic faith. Look at the quotes from Francis on Francisquotes.com and you will see Francis is certainly a formal heretic 20 times over.
Material heresy is due to the outcome of ignorance, and looking at the quotes on that website, it's obvious that Francis cannot claim ignorance on subjects like promoting atheism, doubting the Blessed Trinity, approving of cohabitation, approving of contraception, approving of ecuмenism, etc. etc. Anyone who claims he is only a material heretic is only kidding themselves.
-
I am at a loss understanding where do laymen get the authority to declare a bishop a heretic.
My understanding of theology is that only a bishop can declare someone a heretic, and that this does not apply to the See of Peter.
Which is why I cannot subscribe to Sedevacantism, no offense intended by this.
Other than Bellarmine's speculations, any official traditions to hold on to?
-
Recognizing Bergoglio is a heretic is not making an official declaration, it simply pointing out an observable fact. If you see a man rob a bank in broad daylight, you can certainly refer to him as a thief and you are not making any kind of declaration by doing so. The law will catch up with him later and make the official declaration, but in the meantime you can certainly refer to him as a thief and you wouldn't leave your valuables unattended with him just because the law hasn't sentenced him.
( PS - that was a quote from SaintBosco13 )
Today, I have to say that I do not believe the Vatican II popes are even Catholic, let alone heretics.(
-
A formal heretic is defined as someone who deliberately doubts or denies a revealed truth of the Catholic faith. Look at the quotes from Francis on Francisquotes.com and you will see Francis is certainly a formal heretic 20 times over.
Material heresy is due to the outcome of ignorance, and looking at the quotes on that website, it's obvious that Francis cannot claim ignorance on subjects like promoting atheism, doubting the Blessed Trinity, approving of cohabitation, approving of contraception, approving of ecuмenism, etc. etc. Anyone who claims he is only a material heretic is only kidding themselves.
my guess is that Francis would deny "condoning" co-habitation and etc.. and say he is only accepting the person, not the sin? But it wouldn't surprise me if he did NOT say that
in any case, he is promoting fornication by NOT standing up to that sin. No sane Catholic ever said we should reject those who sin, but if the person does not give up the sin..
F acts like that doesn't matter. He is causing scandal, and true Christians will avoid the Catholic Church, lose out sacramentally and most will end up in Hell. And that will be on him
-
I am at a loss understanding where do laymen get the authority to declare a bishop a heretic.
My understanding of theology is that only a bishop can declare someone a heretic, and that this does not apply to the See of Peter.
Which is why I cannot subscribe to Sedevacantism, no offense intended by this.
Other than Bellarmine's speculations, any official traditions to hold on to?
If God wanted us to blindly follow someone just b/c he has the name "bishop" in front of his name
he wouldn't have given us a brain
hat rack?
-
(https://www.cathinfo.com/Themes/DeepBlue/images/post/xx.gif)
Can a Heretic be "Pope" (https://www.cathinfo.com/crisis-in-the-church/can-a-heretic-be-'pope'/msg539665/#msg539665)
« on: February 06, 2017, 09:33:04 PM »
- Quote (https://www.cathinfo.com/crisis-in-the-church/can-a-heretic-be-'pope'/?action=post;quote=539665;last_msg=539997)
- (https://www.cathinfo.com/Themes/default/images/up.gif)4
- (https://www.cathinfo.com/Themes/default/images/down.gif)0
The Catholic Church teaches that a heretic would cease to be pope, and that a heretic couldn’t be validly elected pope
The Catholic Encyclopedia, “Heresy,” 1914, Vol. 7, p. 261: “The pope himself, if notoriously guilty of heresy, would cease to be pope because he would cease to be a member of the Church.”1
Heresy is the obstinate denial or doubt by a baptized person of an article of divine and Catholic Faith. In other words, a baptized person who deliberately denies an authoritative teaching of the Catholic Church is a heretic.
Martin Luther, perhaps the most notorious heretic in Church history, taught the heresy of Justification by faith alone, among many others
Besides antipopes reigning from Rome due to uncanonical elections, the Catholic Church teaches that if a pope were to become a heretic he would automatically lose his office and cease to be the pope. This is the teaching of all the doctors and fathers of the Church who addressed the issue:
St. Robert Bellarmine, Cardinal and Doctor of the Church, De Romano Pontifice, II, 30: "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."
St. Robert Bellarmine, De Romano Pontifice, II, 30: "This principle is most certain. The non-Christian cannot in any way be Pope, as Cajetan himself admits (ib. c. 26). The reason for this is that he cannot be head of what he is not a member; now he who is not a Christian is not a member of the Church, and a manifest heretic is not a Christian, as is clearly taught by St. Cyprian (lib. 4, epist. 2), St. Athanasius (Scr. 2 cont. Arian.), St. Augustine (lib. De great. Christ. Cap. 20), St. Jerome (contra Lucifer.) and others; therefore the manifest heretic cannot be Pope."
St. Francis De Sales (17th 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. Antoninus (1459): "In the case in which the pope would become a heretic, he would find himself, by that fact alone and without any other sentence, separated from the Church. A head separated from a body cannot, as long as it remains separated, be head of the same body from which it was cut off. A pope who would be separated from the Church by heresy, therefore, would by that very fact itself cease to be head of the Church. He could not be a heretic and remain pope, because, since he is outside of the Church, he cannot possess the keys of the Church." (Summa Theologica, cited in Actes de Vatican I. V. Frond pub.)
That a heretic cannot be a pope is rooted in the dogma that heretics are
not members of the Catholic Church
It should be noted that the teaching from the saints and doctors of the Church, which is quoted above – that a pope who became a heretic would automatically cease to be pope – is rooted in the infallible dogma that a heretic is not a member of the Catholic Church.
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 Jєωs or heretics and schismatics, cannot share in eternal life and will go into the everlasting fire which was prepared for the devil and his angels, unless they are joined to the Church before the end of their lives…”
Pope Pius XII, Mystici Corporis Christi (# 23), June 29, 1943: “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.”
We can see that it’s the teaching of the Catholic Church that a man is severed from the Church by heresy, schism or apostasy.
Pope Leo XIII, Satis Cognitum (# 9), June 29, 1896: “ The practice of the Church has always been 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.”
Pope Leo XIII, Satis Cognitum (# 9): “ No one who merely disbelieves in all (these heresies) can for that reason regard himself as a Catholic or call himself one. For there may be or arise some other heresies, which are not set out in this work of ours, and, if any one holds to a single one of these he is not a Catholic.”
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.”
Thus, it’s not merely the opinion of certain saints and doctors of the Church that a heretic would cease to be pope; it’s a fact inextricably bound up with a dogmatic teaching. A truth inextricably bound up with a dogma is called a dogmatic fact. It is, therefore, a dogmatic fact that a heretic cannot be the pope. A heretic cannot be the pope, since one who is outside cannot head that of which he is not even a member.
Pope Leo XIII, Satis Cognitum (#15), June 29, 1896: “ No one, therefore, unless in communion with Peter can share in his authority, since it is absurd to imagine that he who is outside can command in the Church.”
Pope Paul IV issued a Papal Bull solemnly declaring that the election of a heretic as pope is null and void
In 1559 Pope Paul IV issued an entire Papal Bull dealing with the subject and the possibility of a heretic being elected pope.
(Pope Paul IV)
At the time that Paul IV issued the Bull (quoted below) there were rumors that one of the cardinals was a secret Protestant. In order to prevent the election of such a heretic to the Papacy, Pope Paul IV solemnly declared that a heretic cannot be validly elected pope.
Below are the pertinent portions of the Bull. For the entire Bull, see our website.
Pope Paul IV, Bull cuм ex Apostolatus Officio, Feb. 15, 1559: “1… Remembering also that, where danger is greater, it must more fully and more diligently be counteracted, We have been concerned lest false prophets or others, even if they have only secular jurisdiction, should wretchedly ensnare the souls of the simple, and drag with them into perdition, destruction and damnation countless peoples committed to their care and rule, either in spiritual or in temporal matters; and We have been concerned also lest it may befall Us to see the abomination of desolation, which was spoken of by the prophet Daniel, in the holy place. In view of this, Our desire has been to fulfill our Pastoral duty, insofar as, with the help of God,We are able, so as to arrest the foxes who are occupying themselves in the destruction of the vineyard of the Lord and to keep the wolves from the sheepfolds, lest We seem to be dumb watchdogs that cannot bark and lest We perish with the wicked husbandman and be compared with the hireling…
“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 any Bishop, even if he be acting as an Archbishop, Patriarch or Primate; or any Cardinal of the aforesaid Roman Church, or, as has already been mentioned, any legate, or even 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:
“(i) the promotion or elevation, even if it shall have been uncontested and by the unanimous assent of all the Cardinals, shall be null, void and worthless;
“(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;
“(iii) it shall not be held as partially legitimate in any way…
“(vi) those thus promoted or elevated shall be deprived automatically, and without need for any further declaration, of all dignity, position, honour, title, authority, office and power…
“10. No one at all, therefore, may infringe this docuмent of our approbation, re- introduction, sanction, statute and derogation of wills and decrees, or by rash presumption contradict it. If anyone, however, should presume to attempt this, let him know that he is destined to incur the wrath of Almighty God and of the blessed Apostles, Peter and Paul.
“Given in Rome at Saint Peter's in the year of the Incarnation of the Lord 1559, 15th February, in the fourth year of our Pontificate.“+ I, Paul, Bishop of the Catholic Church…”
With the fullness of his papal authority, Pope Paul IV declared that the election of a heretic is invalid, even if it takes place with the unanimous consent of the cardinals and is accepted by all.
Pope Paul IV also declared that he was making this declaration in order to combat the arrival of the abomination of desolation, spoken of by Daniel, in the holy place. This is astounding, and it seems to indicate that the Magisterium itself is connecting the eventual arrival of the abomination of desolation in the holy place (Matthew 24:15) with a heretic posing as the pope – perhaps because the heretic posing as the pope will give us the abomination of desolation in the holy place (the New Mass), as we believe is the case, or because the heretical antipope will himself constitute the abomination of desolation in the holy place.
The Catholic Encyclopedia repeats this truth declared by Pope Paul IV by asserting that the election of a heretic as pope would, of course, be completely null and void.
The Catholic Encyclopedia, “Papal Elections,” 1914, Vol. 11, p. 456: "Of course, the election of a heretic, schismatic, or female [as Pope] would be null and void."
In line with the truth that a heretic cannot be the pope, the Church teaches that heretics cannot be prayed for in the canon of the Mass
A pope is prayed for in the Te Igitur prayer of the canon of the Mass. But the Church also teaches that heretics cannot be prayed for in the canon of the Mass. If a heretic could be a true pope, there would be an insoluble dilemma. But it’s actually not a dilemma because a heretic cannot be a valid pope:
Libellus professionis fidei, April 2, 517, profession of faith prescribed under Pope St. Hormisdas: “And, therefore, I hope that I may merit to be in the one communion with you, which the Apostolic See proclaims, in which there is the whole and the true solidity of the Christian religion, promising that in the future the names of those separated from the communion of the Catholic Church, that is, those not agreeing with the Apostolic See, shall not be read during the sacred mysteries. But if I shall attempt in any way to deviate from my profession, I confess that I am a confederate in my opinion with those whom I have condemned. However, I have with my own hand signed this profession of mine, and to you, HORMISDAS, the holy and venerable Pope of the City of Rome, I have directed it.”
Pope Benedict XIV, Ex Quo Primum (# 23), March 1, 1756: “Moreover heretics and schismatics are subject to the censure of major excommunication by the law of Can. de Ligu. 23, quest. 5, and Can. Nulli, 5, dist. 19. But the sacred canons of the Church forbid public prayer for the excommunicated as can be seen in chap. A nobis, 2, and chap. Sacris on the sentence of excommunication. Though this does not forbid prayer for their conversion, still such prayer must not take the form of proclaiming their names in the solemn prayer during the sacrifice of the Mass.”
Pope Pius IX, Quartus Supra (# 9), January 6, 1873: “ For this reason John, Bishop of Constantinople, solemnly declared – and the entire Eighth Ecuмenical Council did so later – ‘that the names of those who were separated from communion with the Catholic Church, that is of those who did not agree in all matters with the Apostolic See, are not to be read out during the sacred mysteries.’”
Contents of this Material is from the Most Holy Family Monestary, Fillmore, N.Y.
Endnotes for Section 6:
1 The Catholic Encyclopedia, “Heresy,” New York: Robert Appleton Co., 1914, Vol. 7, p. 261.
2 Decrees of the Ecuмenical Councils, Sheed & Ward and Georgetown University Press, 1990, Vol. 1, p. 578; Denzinger, The Sources of Catholic Dogma, B. Herder Book. Co., Thirtieth Edition, 1957, no. 714.
3 The Papal Encyclicals, by Claudia Carlen, Raleigh: The Pierian Press, 1990, Vol. 4 (1939-1958), p. 41.
4 The Papal Encyclicals, Vol. 2 (1878-1903), p. 393.
5 The Papal Encyclicals, Vol. 2 (1878-1903), p. 393.
6 Denzinger 423.
7 The Papal Encyclicals, Vol. 2 (1878-1903), p. 401.
8 The Catholic Encyclopedia, “Papal Elections,” 1914, Vol. 11, p. 456.
9 Denzinger 172.
10 The Papal Encyclicals, Vol. 1 (1740-1878), p. 84.
11 The Papal Encyclicals, Vol. 1 (1740-1878), p. 415
Report to moderator (https://www.cathinfo.com/crisis-in-the-church/can-a-heretic-be-'pope'/?action=reporttm;msg=539665) (https://www.cathinfo.com/Themes/DeepBlue/images/ip.gif) 69.126.145.173 (https://www.cathinfo.com/helpadmin/?help=see_member_ip)
-
St. Francis De Sales (17th 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..."
ipso facto - Wiktionary
https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/ipso_facto
From Latin ipso + facto. ... ipso facto (not comparable). By that very fact itself. ... The
-
I am at a loss understanding where do laymen get the authority to declare a bishop a heretic.
My understanding of theology is that only a bishop can declare someone a heretic, and that this does not apply to the See of Peter.
Which is why I cannot subscribe to Sedevacantism, no offense intended by this.
Other than Bellarmine's speculations, any official traditions to hold on to?
I don't understand where people get this from! Of course we are to obey our superiors, but not when it comes to sin.
Bishop Sanborn recently gave an analogy on this subject. It went something like this. As passengers on a jetliner we trust the pilots and do as they say because they are trained to fly the airplane. But if one of the co-pilots suddenly tries to steer the plane into the ground, everyone knows he was NOT trained to do this, and that he is putting everyone's lives in jeopardy. Should the passengers sit back and say, "We can't judge the pilot because he is trained and knows what he is doing"? Of course not. Do we have to get the pilot's boss on our cell phone to ask for approval to remove the nutty pilot from the cockpit? Of course not. Everyone reading this knows that the passengers would do their absolute best to remove the crazy co-pilot immediately, and bind him and put him in the back of the plane.
It's similar with Francis; he is wearing a pilot's uniform but he is clearly not doing what a pilot should, and he is clearly trying to steer the Church into the ground, taking all the passengers with it. The Church teaches a man doing this is not a pope, nor is he a Catholic. We don't need to wait for someone to tell us this -the Church has already taught us this over and over, and why people ignore it is just insane.
-
That a heretic cannot be a pope is rooted in the dogma that heretics are
not members of the Catholic Church
It should be noted that the teaching from the saints and doctors of the Church, which is quoted above – that a pope who became a heretic would automatically cease to be pope – is rooted in the infallible dogma that a heretic is not a member of the Catholic Church.
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 Jєωs or heretics and schismatics, cannot share in eternal life and will go into the everlasting fire which was prepared for the devil and his angels, unless they are joined to the Church before the end of their lives…”
-
The material/formal distinction is not one that sedevacantism has ever depended on; theologians say that manifest (public) heretics are not members of the Church, regardless of whether or not they are formal or material. Bergoglio et al. are manifest heretics, and that's all that really matters.
Exactly.
-
Exactly.
This seems to be equating "public" with "manifest" heretic. I don't agree that they are the same thing. Something public is not necessarily manifest.
-
Manifest: reveal, plain. It is plain and revealed when the New Order "mess" is written, said, experienced, active participants, of No Precious Blood. This is all revealed in Prophecies as well. What more needs to be said?! We should pay close attention to Prophecy as the people did when Christ was Born. Our Prophecies, in Scripture tell us that liturgy will be changed. The Continual Sacrifice will end. It is there. Read and know.
-
For those who voted maybe or no on the attached poll, read the quotes at FrancisQuotes.com and then let us know why your answer is not yes.
-
This seems to be equating "public" with "manifest" heretic. I don't agree that they are the same thing. Something public is not necessarily manifest.
The significant distinction is between "occult" and "not occult," which has been described by various terms, including both "public" and "manifest." A non-occult heretic is outside the Church according to the majority view.
Van Nort has something on this which I can get for you. And Father Cekada speaks of the distinction being between "occult" and "not occult":
II. MISTAKEN ASSUMPTIONS ABOUT
“MANIFEST,” “PUBLIC,” “NOTORIOUS”
——————————————————————––
Most anti-sedevacantist controversialists over the years have, like Fr. Boulet, made exactly the same error. Why? The answer lies in their false assumptions about the meaning of technical terms.
The long line of theologians and canonists over the centuries who examined the question of a heretical pope distinguished between two general types of papal heresy according to the “notice” or “publicity” it received.
(1) “Occult” (i.e., secret or hidden) heresy. (E.g., written in a diary, uttered in private to a few discreet people, etc.)
(2) A second type of heresy that is not occult. (E.g., published in an official docuмent, proclaimed in a public discourse, etc.)
For the latter, the various theological and canonical treatises did not always use an identical term, but instead employed a variety of expressions to describe the papal heretic or his heresy: “public,” “notorious,” “manifest,” “openly divulged,” etc.
These were generic terms that did not have a uniform meaning in sources and authors before the 1917 Code, and were simply used in contradistinction to “occult.” (See F. Roberti, “De Delictis et Poenis,” schemata praelectionum [Rome: Lateran 1955] 80–1) Authors writing after the 1917 Code about the question of a heretical pope continued to use the same generic language to distinguish between occult and non-occult heresy.
Because of this, Fr. Boulet and many others like him have fallen into anachronism about the terminology. They mistake this generic language used by authors writing about papal heresy before the Code, and subsequently taken up even by authors after the Code, as an indication that all the minute criteria of the Code’s criminal legislation must be satisfied before a loss of papal office can kick in.
This, alas, is a fatal error, so none of their arguments on this point can be used against the sedevacantist case.
http://www.fathercekada.com/2007/10/10/a-pope-as-a-manifest-or-public-heretic/
If you want to argue about a distinction of theological significance between "public" and "manifest" to ahead; I"ll obviously read it.
-
This seems to be equating "public" with "manifest" heretic. I don't agree that they are the same thing. Something public is not necessarily manifest.
They are equitable.
-
The significant distinction is between "occult" and "not occult," which has been described by various terms, including both "public" and "manifest." A non-occult heretic is outside the Church according to the majority view.
Van Nort has something on this which I can get for you. And Father Cekada speaks of the distinction being between "occult" and "not occult":
For the latter, the various theological and canonical treatises did not always use an identical term, but instead employed a variety of expressions to describe the papal heretic or his heresy: “public,” “notorious,” “manifest,” “openly divulged,” etc.
These were generic terms that did not have a uniform meaning in sources and authors before the 1917 Code, and were simply used in contradistinction to “occult.” (See F. Roberti, “De Delictis et Poenis,” schemata praelectionum [Rome: Lateran 1955] 80–1) Authors writing after the 1917 Code about the question of a heretical pope continued to use the same generic language to distinguish between occult and non-occult heresy.
Because of this, Fr. Boulet and many others like him have fallen into anachronism about the terminology. They mistake this generic language used by authors writing about papal heresy before the Code, and subsequently taken up even by authors after the Code, as an indication that all the minute criteria of the Code’s criminal legislation must be satisfied before a loss of papal office can kick in.
This, alas, is a fatal error, so none of their arguments on this point can be used against the sedevacantist case.
http://www.fathercekada.com/2007/10/10/a-pope-as-a-manifest-or-public-heretic/
If you want to argue about a distinction of theological significance between "public" and "manifest" to ahead; I"ll obviously read it.
There is a principle that the Roman Pontiff is above canon law. This means that whatever terms are used, they are not canonical terms. When St. Robert Bellarmine said, "manifest" heresy, and St. Francis de Sales said, "explicit" heresy (in regard to a pope), they were not using canonical terms. St. Francis was even writing to Protestants, so he expected them to understand, which means he was using an ordinary human term, and one not difficult to understand. Today, post-Vatican II, people spend a lot of unnecessary time twisting and pulling at the ordinary term that was not meant to be difficult. This reminds me also of when St. Thomas Aquinas said as an ordinarily accepted principle, "it would be blasphemy to say that the Church does anything in vain", and, today, people claim it difficult to discern when we can say that "the Church" has actually "done" something! It's rather scary.
It appears both the aforementioned Saints and Doctors avoided saying "public" because that was an ordinary word they did not deem appropriate. You see, Pope John XXII held an error, and it was known by the public, yet he was not a manifest or explicit heretic. That is why I say the terms are not equivalent. Obviously, manifest and explicit heresy is something more than merely being known by the community.
-
When the words "manifest", "public", "explicit" are used to describe a heretic, it is implicitly assumed that there is evidence of an intention to contradict the Church's doctrine (or at least a lack of evidence that it was inadvertent). If that is the case, then all the above words mean the same thing. The only way a public act would not also be manifest is if there was some question about whether or not there was an intentional act or not. But for popes and bishops, the bar is set very low. If there is no evidence that the prelate in question misspoke then we should assume it was said intentionally. We might give them a pass if it was some highly technical statement which could easily be misstated but in the case of V2 prelates, they make the most crass and blatantly erroneous statements on topics which are taught in basic catechisms. There is no doubt that they have intentionally abandoned the Church's doctrine in favor of a modernist (heretical) freemasonic religion which they have dishonestly tried to pass off as the Catholic faith. They are clearly formal heretics and their crimes are public/manifest/explicit. All Catholics should understand this. But many would rather have the appearance of Catholic hierarchy than admit that the vast majority of men have rejected the true God.
There is a parallel to the current situation in the OT. During the time after kings David and Solomon had passed away, there was a great split in Israel. There were the Kings of Israel who were mostly blatantly worshipping false Gods and there were the Kings of Juda who worshipped the true God but who also failed to get rid of the "high places" where there were sacrifices offered to the true God but they were illicit because the only place where they were allowed to offer sacrifice was in the Temple. The traditional Catholics are the Kings of Juda and the Conciliar church are the Kings of Israel. The analogy is not perfect but I think it applies well. cf. 3 Kings and 4 Kings. http://www.drbo.org/chapter/11001.htm (http://www.drbo.org/chapter/11001.htm) and http://www.drbo.org/chapter/12001.htm (http://www.drbo.org/chapter/12001.htm)
-
Well Put...
It is time for all to make their Choice....
Do I go with the Kings of Israel (Conciliar Church) or
Do I go with the kings of Juda (The True Faith)
One can t go with the kings and tribe of Juda , and honor the King of Israel
Read the piece in the SSpx sermons section by Fr. Berry to Bishop Tissier (over 5000 reads)
To be in "probably Doubt", he says , is a "serious Sin"
One can t operate in " Probable Doubt"
If you go with the Conciliar King of Israel, then you must be Obedient to him in all things. New Mass , honoring false religions and Gods, etc. and on and on it goes. You all know the Drill.
This is where Sede position comes in,,
My thoughts
-
When the words "manifest", "public", "explicit" are used to describe a heretic, it is implicitly assumed that there is evidence of an intention to contradict the Church's doctrine (or at least a lack of evidence that it was inadvertent). If that is the case, then all the above words mean the same thing. The only way a public act would not also be manifest is if there was some question about whether or not there was an intentional act or not. But for popes and bishops, the bar is set very low. If there is no evidence that the prelate in question misspoke then we should assume it was said intentionally. We might give them a pass if it was some highly technical statement which could easily be misstated but in the case of V2 prelates, they make the most crass and blatantly erroneous statements on topics which are taught in basic catechisms. There is no doubt that they have intentionally abandoned the Church's doctrine in favor of a modernist (heretical) freemasonic religion which they have dishonestly tried to pass off as the Catholic faith. They are clearly formal heretics and their crimes are public/manifest/explicit. All Catholics should understand this. But many would rather have the appearance of Catholic hierarchy than admit that the vast majority of men have rejected the true God.
I should start by saying that the papal claimants who have promoted Vatican II are not true popes.
That being said, Clemens, I believe you have gathered your information from canon law. Canon law is primarily human law, and is known to set the bar low to make situations easier for the victims, and as a better deterrent for the perpetrators.
Canon law speaks of loss of office, not loss of the divine virtue of faith. They are not the same. Legal presumptions are not theological presumptions. Canon law can make prelates (except for the pope and cardinals) lose office without losing the virtue of faith. That is why in addition to canonical censures that may ipso facto have a prelate lose office, he is still afforded multiple admonitions to determine if he has the faith. It's the refusal to obey authority that gives the Church the theological right to proclaim pertinacity the loss of faith for a subject.
Only a pope has no superior, and therefore there is no way pertinacity can be determined by the ONLY way it is determined for everyone else in the Church. So.....a pope being unique, we need to also base our determination of pertinacity on what he himself has unique that nobody in the Church has, which is his inherent connection to the infallibility of the Church. This is then determined when the pope enters something harmful into the liturgy, magisterium, law or discipline of the Church...something that cannot happen IF the pope were a true pope, because the infallibility of the Church, by divine Providence, would have prevented it.
-
To refuse to obey God, which would be the New Order mess, No Precious Blood(end on continual sacrifice, like Lutherism) is manifest loss of Faith. Let us not forget, the True Mass has the Deposit of Faith. Those who do the New Order Mess, have Disposed of Christ!! Disposed of their salvation for their souls. It is all prophesied. The Pope is human and he can be as the Lutherans damed! The floors of Hell ....
-
In the last days perilous times will come (may not be verbatim but you get it)
people will be lovers of themselves rather than lovers of God
because of lawlessness, the love of many will grow cold
(not sure where that's at in the Bible..)
-
I don't understand where people get this from! Of course we are to obey our superiors, but not when it comes to sin.
Bishop Sanborn recently gave an analogy on this subject. It went something like this. As passengers on a jetliner we trust the pilots and do as they say because they are trained to fly the airplane. But if one of the co-pilots suddenly tries to steer the plane into the ground, everyone knows he was NOT trained to do this, and that he is putting everyone's lives in jeopardy. Should the passengers sit back and say, "We can't judge the pilot because he is trained and knows what he is doing"? Of course not. Do we have to get the pilot's boss on our cell phone to ask for approval to remove the nutty pilot from the cockpit? Of course not. Everyone reading this knows that the passengers would do their absolute best to remove the crazy co-pilot immediately, and bind him and put him in the back of the plane.
It's similar with Francis; he is wearing a pilot's uniform but he is clearly not doing what a pilot should, and he is clearly trying to steer the Church into the ground, taking all the passengers with it. The Church teaches a man doing this is not a pope, nor is he a Catholic. We don't need to wait for someone to tell us this -the Church has already taught us this over and over, and why people ignore it is just insane.
well said.
it seems people generally speaking do not think for themselves