Of all the charges of heresy made against Jorge Bergoglio, none have been 100% slam-dunk convincing; his imprecise language leave room for interpretation of what he meant.

Here now we have a verbatim direct contradiction of defined Catholic dogma; there's no explaining this one away.

http://w2.vatican.va/content/francesco/en/messages/pont-messages/2015/docuмents/papa-francesco_20150420_messaggio-abuna-matthias.html

I reach out to you in heartfelt spiritual solidarity to assure you of my closeness in prayer at the continuing martyrdom being so cruelly inflicted on Christians in Africa, the Middle East and some parts of Asia.

It makes no difference whether the victims are Catholic, Copt, Orthodox or Protestant. Their blood is one and the same in their confession of Christ!

It firmly believes, professes, and proclaims that those not living within the Catholic Church, not only pagans, but also Jєωs and heretics and schismatics cannot become participants in eternal life, but will depart “into everlasting fire which was prepared for the devil and his angels” [Matt. 25:41], unless before the end of life the same have been added to the flock; and that the unity of the ecclesiastical body is so strong that only to those remaining in it are the sacraments of the Church of benefit for salvation, and do fastings, almsgiving, and other functions of piety and exercises of Christian service produce eternal reward, and that no one, whatever almsgiving he has practiced, even if he has shed blood for the name of Christ, can be saved, unless he has remained in the bosom and unity of the Catholic Church.

Those who were not willing to be at agreement in the Church of God, cannot remain with God; although given over to flames and the fire, they burn, or thrown to wild beasts, they lay down their lives, there will not be for them that crown of faith, but the punishment of faithlessness, not a glorious result (of religious virtue), but the ruin of despair.   Such a one can be slain; he cannot be crowned.

Of course, the shame is that many Traditional Catholics hold this same heresy (cf. Emerentiana who claimed that non-Catholic "martyrs" can be saved).

Tragically, we all knew it was a matter of time.
Now what?

Nothing.  We need to wait for God to resolve this.  Unless you're a "conclavist" of course.

Quote from: Cantate Domino

It firmly believes, professes, and proclaims that those not living within the Catholic Church, not only pagans, but also Jєωs and heretics and schismatics cannot become participants in eternal life, but will depart “into everlasting fire which was prepared for the devil and his angels” [Matt. 25:41], unless before the end of life the same have been added to the flock; and that the unity of the ecclesiastical body is so strong that only to those remaining in it are the sacraments of the Church of benefit for salvation, and do fastings, almsgiving, and other functions of piety and exercises of Christian service produce eternal reward, and that no one, whatever almsgiving he has practiced, even if he has shed blood for the name of Christ, can be saved, unless he has remained in the bosom and unity of the Catholic Church.

The infallible pronouncements of Cantate Domino have been mocked for some time.

It says that pagans and Jєωs are not living within the Catholic Church, and that they are consigned to hell unless before their death they are joined to the Catholic Church.

If a Jєω (by way of example) could be actually joined to the Catholic Church while remaining a Jєω ,Cantate Domino is a lie, and the “infallible” Catholic Church lied. If a Jєω could be “within the Catholic Church,” CD couldn’t have said Jєωs are “not living within the Catholic Church” - yet it did.

Their is so much sophistry committed in trying to reconcile CD with a view that Jєωs (again, by way of example) can be saved while remaining Jєωs that one can only shake one’s head with disgust.

Forked tongues abound.

But this is nothing new:

"The Jєωs, as a nation, are objectively aiming at giving society a direction which is in complete opposition to the order God wants.  It is possible that a member of the Jєωιѕн Nation, who rejects Our Lord, may have the supernatural life which God wishes to see in every soul, and so be good with the goodness God wants, but objectively, the direction he is seeking to give to the world is opposed to God and to that life, and therefore is not good. If a Jєω who rejects our Lord is good in the way God demands, it is in spite of the movement in which he and his nation are engaged.”

Fr. Denis Fahey, The Kingship of Christ and the Conversion of the Jєωιѕн Nation (1953), p. 52

The Catholic Church is being chastised by God, just as the Jєωs were under the Old Covenant.

This is accomplished through bifurcating the Jєω; materially he's a Jєω but formally a Catholic.  But that's exactly where all of V2's errors come from.

This comment made me think of an article I read yesterday which affirms that behind the modern denial of Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus, there is a well-established Jєωιѕн agenda, since the Catholic dogma of exclusive salvation is perceived to be the root cause of Christian anti-semitism and as such, must be explicitly silenced and renounced. It makes perfect sense, and the timing is right, when Jєωs have practically taken over the world in XX century.

Quote from: Cantarella

Very romantic but it does not attest with reality. Have you ever read Holy Scripture?. For you to say the Catholic Church has NEVER been chastised is a blunt denial of the history of the Chosen of People of God and their chastisements in the Old and the New Testament or how God operates in general. As a matter of fact, we are being constantly chastised.

The Church has not, and will not be chastised.  The MEMBERS of the Catholic Church may be chastised, but God would never chastise his most perfect and spotless Bride.  

The Catholic Church is free from all error, spot or wrinkle - She is perfect.

Romantic? Maybe...but there can be no doubt that it is a reality.  

Quote from: Second Council of Nicea

…Christ our God, when He took for His Bride His Holy Catholic Church, having no blemish or wrinkle, promised he would guard her and assured His holy disciples saying, I am with you every day until the consummation of the world.

Quote from: Pope Pius XI, Mortalium Animos

During the lapse of centuries, the mystical Spouse of Christ has never been contaminated, nor can she ever in the future be contaminated, as Cyprian bears witness: ‘The Bride of Christ cannot be made false to her Spouse: she is incorrupt and modest.  She knows but one dwelling, she guards the sanctity of the nuptial chamber chastely and modestly."

Quote from: Pope St. Siricius, Epistle (1) Directa ad decessorem to Himerius

And so He has wished the beauty of the Church, whose spouse He is, to radiate with the splendor of chastity, so that on the day of judgment, when He will have come again, He may be able to find her without spot or wrinkle [Eph. 5:27] as He instituted her through His apostle.

OK, I think I understand what you meant now. You are referring to the Church Triumphant. I was thinking of the Church Militant, and yes the members.

Bellator Dei,

Truly, the Mystical Body of Jesus Christ - the Catholic Church, will not be chastised.  The faithful members on earth may be chastised, but that is it.

The faithful members are part of the Mystical Body. If they can be chastised, so can the Mystical Body.

I see the point of Sedevacantism and lean toward and sympathize with the view (I don’t declare myself one as I think it is unnecessary and besides the point) but  I think Father Hesse is on to something here which indicates a problem with that view.

Vatican II happened “in” the Church and the Conciliar Church “is” the Catholic Church post-VII. To say “no" on the basis of an application of the principles of indefectibility and infallibility is fine and dandy, but the reality, as twisted as it is, is that bishops of the undisputed Catholic Church selected Roncalli as pope, signed off on Vatican II, etc.

I say the “Catholic Church,” the body, her people, her churches, her prelates, are being chastised. Just as Our Lord’s body was punished and chastised, while He remained pure, Holy and Indefectible.

I see your point in theory, but the reality is what it is.  

I think Father Hesse has a profound insight above: perhaps Sedevacantists are making an error somewhat akin to those who denied that Christ, as God, could suffer as He did, and therefore perhaps are in error on that basis.

I only know that the Catholic Church has been usurped and is going through hell. And while I appreciate, again, your point, I think to claim it is not the "Catholic Church" that this is happening to is a bit too removed from reality.

Of all the arguments made against sedevacantism, I think that this one is the most foul.

The Church being chastised would be something like what the early Church experienced with the persecution of the Roman state and all the martyrdom that followed from that. The Church teaching error, spreading blasphemy, and encouraging profanation of the sacraments isn't the Church being chastised, it's the Whore of Babylon being a whore.
The Church being driven into the catacombs while the Whore of Babylon parades herself before the world as the ancient Roman Catholic Church may be the chastisement of the Church . . .
This argument that you are making is made by those who take part in the Indult. They say that the SSPX and the Sedevacantists are both abandoning Christ at the Cross, both abandoning the Church at her hour of misery, by not sitting in the pews and silently witnessing blasphemy and sacrilege take place. Should St. Athanasius have taken part in the ceremonies of the Arians and accused those who dared separate themselves from the Arians as "abandoning Christ at the cross"?
Do you think that the Conciliar Church is suffering? On the contrary, it's having "a hell of a time", so how can it stand for Christ's crucifixion? Do you mean that the few who attend the Conciliar Church and who silently suffer all the heresies to be heard stand for Christ's crucifixion? But then has silence in the face of heresy ever been seen as anything other than cowardice? How can it be virtue now that it is so widespread?

I hate this argument because it appeals to the emotions, is based on some supposed mystical insight that only a few are privileged to have (as opposed to doctrine), and is principally designed to make Sedevacantists feel guilty for abandoning Christ and His Church. Well, if Sedevacantists are guilty of that, then make a serious case for it, not a quasi-mystical one (note: I am not against mysticism at all; I'm against its use here).

In case anyone's interested, here's the Novus Ordo response to Cantate Domino - specifically, EWTN's response.

The "Catholic" driven to ask the question because he's so scandalized by having the words of a papal bull thrown in his face by a Protestant is bad enough, but the duplicitous, Janus-faced deception of the EWTN mouthpiece (one Dr. William Carroll) is particularly odious. But, after decades of drilling into the faithful that what is merely pastoral (i.e. Vatican II) must be submitted to as though it were dogmatic, it's not surprising to hear them dismissing what is dogmatic as being merely "pastoral."

Pope Eugene IV, Cantate Domino, 1441
Question from James O'Reilly on 4/5/2002:
   
Dear Dr. Carroll, I have a question regarding a papal encyclical. I sometimes go to a Christian website (Carm.org), where they have discussion forums. There is a Catholic discussion forum there, where Catholics and non-Catholics discuss the Faith. Anyway, getting to the point, a Protestant Christian posted some papal encyclicals and asked the Catholics to explain. I'm not sure if the encyclicals given were legitimate, but they do look damaging (After having been to several Catholic websites that give links to encyclicals, I haven't found one that gives any from the 15th century - 1400s). Here is what was posted by the Protestant:

" The Church Teaches Ex Cathedra: "The Most Holy Roman Church firmly believes, professes and preaches that none of those existing outside the Catholic Church, not only pagans, but also Jєωs, and heretics, and schismatics, can ever be partakers of eternal life, but that they are to go into the eternal fire "which was prepared for the devil, and his angels," (Mt. 25:41) unless before death they are joined with Her; and that so important is the unity of this Ecclesiastical Body, that only those remaining within this unity can profit from the sacraments of the Church unto salvation, and that they alone can receive an eternal recompense for their fasts, almsdeeds, and other works of Christian piety and duties of a Christian soldier. No one, let his almsgiving be as great as it may, no one, even if he pour out his blood for the Name of Christ, can be saved unless they abide within the bosom and unity of the Catholic Church." (Pope Eugene IV, the Bull Cantate Domino, 1441) "

The Protestant (and others who responded to the post of this docuмent) zeroed in on the end, where it says "No one... even if he pour out his blood for the Name of Christ, can be saved..."

If this docuмent is authentic, how can I correctly understand it, in light of what is written in the new Catechism? Also, how am I to understand it in the correct context of the time and place it was written in?

Thanks and God bless, James

Answer by Dr. William Carroll on 4/6/2002:

This docuмent is authentic. from the Council of Florence. Father Christopher Buckner of our diocese, commenting on it in an article, describes its historical context as follows: "The key to this passage is the four categories mentioned, pagans being listed first. They have received none of the message of salvation. The Jєωs have received only part of the message, that of the Old Testament. Third are the heretics who, although having received the complete message of salvation, seem to have lost some of it by way of a conscious separation from the Church. The fourth group is the one to whom the docuмent is primarily directed, the schismatics. They have deliberately cut themselves off from the Church by a complete break from its head, the Pope. The reason for the strength of this statement was that it was hoped that it would bring the separated Eastern Churches back into unity with Rome. Such a strong statenebt was issued againnst the schismatics because of the relation between unity and charity. St. Thomas holds that unity is made by charity and therefore the schismatics are separating themselves from the unity and therefore the charity of the Church. The concern of the Council of Florence was pastoral; it was trying to bring back lost sheep." The Church has always taught that no soul is lost except by its own fault, its rejection of truth and charity. Simply adhering to another religion does not necessarily mean such rejection. - Dr. Carroll

http://www.ewtn.com/vexperts/showmessage.asp?number=316548

By that rationale, can't any dogma be dismissed as "pastoral?" The decrees of Nicaea? Merely "pastoral" exhortations to scare the Arians back into the Catholic Church! The dogma of the Immaculate Conception of the Blessed Virgin? Yet another "pastoral" outreach to the "lost sheep" of the Protestant sects who reject the Blessed Mother outright!

What bold-faced, diabolical dishonesty.