Poll

Is Bergoglio a formal heretic?

Yes, it is clear that he is.
17 (65.4%)
No, I don't believe he has gotten that far yet.
3 (11.5%)
I really don't know.
6 (23.1%)

Total Members Voted: 26

Author Topic: Is Bergoglio a formal heretic?  (Read 1407 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Binechi

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 1947
  • Reputation: +455/-30
  • Gender: Male
    • View Profile
Re: Is Bergoglio a formal heretic?
« Reply #15 on: April 15, 2017, 05:19:44 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • 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

    Offline saintbosco13

    • Full Member
    • ***
    • Posts: 542
    • Reputation: +167/-161
    • Gender: Male
      • View Profile
    Re: Is Bergoglio a formal heretic?
    « Reply #16 on: April 15, 2017, 06:04:41 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • 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.
     
     


    Offline Binechi

    • Full Member
    • ***
    • Posts: 1947
    • Reputation: +455/-30
    • Gender: Male
      • View Profile
    Re: Is Bergoglio a formal heretic?
    « Reply #17 on: April 15, 2017, 07:00:27 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • 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 Jews 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…”

    Offline DecemRationis

    • Jr. Member
    • **
    • Posts: 163
    • Reputation: +38/-2
    • Gender: Male
      • View Profile
    Re: Is Bergoglio a formal heretic?
    « Reply #18 on: April 15, 2017, 07:25:52 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • 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. 
    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

    Online BumphreyHogart

    • Jr. Member
    • **
    • Posts: 468
    • Reputation: +119/-229
    • Gender: Male
      • View Profile
    Re: Is Bergoglio a formal heretic?
    « Reply #19 on: April 15, 2017, 07:36:33 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!1
  • 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.


    Offline songbird

    • Sr. Member
    • ****
    • Posts: 2790
    • Reputation: +1101/-31
    • Gender: Female
      • View Profile
    Re: Is Bergoglio a formal heretic?
    « Reply #20 on: April 17, 2017, 07:01:26 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • 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.

    Offline saintbosco13

    • Full Member
    • ***
    • Posts: 542
    • Reputation: +167/-161
    • Gender: Male
      • View Profile
    Re: Is Bergoglio a formal heretic?
    « Reply #21 on: April 19, 2017, 11:42:39 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!2
  •  
    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.

     

    Offline DecemRationis

    • Jr. Member
    • **
    • Posts: 163
    • Reputation: +38/-2
    • Gender: Male
      • View Profile
    Re: Is Bergoglio a formal heretic?
    « Reply #22 on: April 19, 2017, 01:46:51 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0

  • 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":

    Quote
    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.


    Quote
    (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 document, 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.

    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


    Offline Mithrandylan

    • Sr. Member
    • ****
    • Posts: 2840
    • Reputation: +3605/-89
    • Gender: Male
      • View Profile
    Re: Is Bergoglio a formal heretic?
    « Reply #23 on: April 19, 2017, 03:22:06 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • 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. 


    Online BumphreyHogart

    • Jr. Member
    • **
    • Posts: 468
    • Reputation: +119/-229
    • Gender: Male
      • View Profile
    Re: Is Bergoglio a formal heretic?
    « Reply #24 on: April 19, 2017, 05:33:14 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • 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.


    Offline Clemens Maria

    • Full Member
    • ***
    • Posts: 708
    • Reputation: +542/-22
    • Gender: Male
      • View Profile
    Re: Is Bergoglio a formal heretic?
    « Reply #25 on: April 20, 2017, 03:10:44 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • 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 and http://www.drbo.org/chapter/12001.htm


    Offline Binechi

    • Full Member
    • ***
    • Posts: 1947
    • Reputation: +455/-30
    • Gender: Male
      • View Profile
    Re: Is Bergoglio a formal heretic?
    « Reply #26 on: April 20, 2017, 04:16:12 PM »
  • Thanks!1
  • No Thanks!0
  • 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




    Online BumphreyHogart

    • Jr. Member
    • **
    • Posts: 468
    • Reputation: +119/-229
    • Gender: Male
      • View Profile
    Re: Is Bergoglio a formal heretic?
    « Reply #27 on: April 20, 2017, 05:39:34 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • 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.


    Offline songbird

    • Sr. Member
    • ****
    • Posts: 2790
    • Reputation: +1101/-31
    • Gender: Female
      • View Profile
    Re: Is Bergoglio a formal heretic?
    « Reply #28 on: April 20, 2017, 09:51:21 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!1
  • 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 ....

    Offline countrychurch

    • Full Member
    • ***
    • Posts: 580
    • Reputation: +33/-37
    • Gender: Female
      • View Profile
    Re: Is Bergoglio a formal heretic?
    « Reply #29 on: April 22, 2017, 03:23:31 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • 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..)

     

    Sitemap 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 
    Powered by SMFPacks WYSIWYG Editor