Author Topic: My AI discussion with "Francis de Sales" (Read 2568 times)

Freind · « **Reply #46 on:** **Yesterday** at 05:18:01 PM »

Now you are in denial. Your are starting to remind me of Stubborn in regard to BOD.

SkidRowCatholic · « **Reply #47 on:** **Yesterday** at 05:20:12 PM »

Quote from: Freind on Yesterday at 05:18:01 PM

Now you are in denial. Your are starting to remind me of Stubborn in regard to BOD.

I think your version of St. Francis is bad - mine is better.

Freind · « **Reply #48 on:** **Yesterday** at 05:31:45 PM »

Quote from: SkidRowCatholic on Yesterday at 05:20:12 PM

I think your version of St. Francis is bad - mine is better.

Oh, so you did read it, and then tried to cheat!

SkidRowCatholic · « **Reply #49 on:** **Yesterday** at 05:34:01 PM »

Quote from: Freind on Yesterday at 05:31:45 PM

tried to cheat!

How?

More from the better one:

Freind · « **Reply #50 on:** **Yesterday** at 05:38:58 PM »

Quote from: SkidRowCatholic on Yesterday at 05:34:01 PM

How?

You know how.
You didn't read it, and then you dishonestly asked "Francis de Sales AI" a question while you OMITTED the question/statement I posited that changed the whole course of my discussion with AI.

SkidRowCatholic · « **Reply #51 on:** **Yesterday** at 05:44:31 PM »

Quote from: Freind on Yesterday at 05:38:58 PM

You know how.
You didn't read it, and then you dishonestly asked "Francis de Sales AI" a question while you OMITTING the question I asked that changed the whole course of my discussion with AI.

Well, you would have to share your original chat - for us to test that out. But since you neither provide link or text to copy we will never know. It is just a bunch of accusations l.e., dishonest, cheater, denial, etc.

More:

Freind · « **Reply #52 on:** **Yesterday** at 05:46:35 PM »

Quote from: SkidRowCatholic on Yesterday at 05:44:31 PM

Well, you would have to share your original chat - for us to test that out. But since you neither provide link or text to copy we will never know. It is just a bunch of accusations l.e., dishonest, cheater, denial, etc.

More:

I gave the WHOLE thing in the OP (it's still there), and you dishonestly ignored what I wrote, and dishonestly posted as if I didn't ask AI.

SkidRowCatholic · « **Reply #53 on:** **Yesterday** at 05:52:49 PM »

Quote from: Freind on Yesterday at 05:46:35 PM

I gave the WHOLE thing in the OP (it's still there), and you dishonestly ignored what I wrote, and dishonestly posted as if I didn't ask AI.

Did you feed your St. Francis AI my whole question?

You know this one:
PART I — FOUNDATIONS

Chapter 1 — The Nature of the Eucharistic Canon

1. The Canon as the Supreme Act of Ecclesial Worship
In the Roman Rite, the Canon of the Mass occupies a unique and exalted place. It is not merely the central prayer of the Eucharistic Sacrifice; it is the Church’s most solemn expression of her unity in faith, worship, and hierarchical order. As St. Thomas teaches, the Eucharist is the sacrament of ecclesial unity, for it signifies and affects the mystical body’s cohesion in charity and truth sacrament of unity. The Canon, as the fixed and venerable prayer surrounding the consecration, is the liturgical articulation of that unity. The priest, offering in the person of Christ and in the name of the Church, invokes the divine majesty on behalf of the whole ecclesial body. The intercessions of the Canon are therefore not ornamental; they are constitutive signs of the Church’s communion. They presuppose the reality they signify.
2. The Te igitur and the Commemoration of the Pope and Bishop
Within the Canon, the Te igitur holds a privileged position. It is here that the priest prays “together with Thy servant N., our Pope, and N., our Bishop,” expressing the unity of the sacrifice with the visible head of the Church and with the local ordinary. This commemoration is not a mere rubric; it is a liturgical sign of hierarchical communion. Dom Guéranger, interpreting the ancient practice of the diptychs, explains that the Church names in the Canon only those who are “orthodox” and “cultivators of the Catholic and apostolic faith.” The Canon presupposes communion; it does not create it. To name someone in the Canon is to profess unity with him in faith and worship.
3. The Diptychs and the Historical Significance of Commemoration
The ancient practice of inscribing names in the diptychs — lists of those with whom the Church professed communion — illuminates the meaning of the Canon’s intercessions. The diptychs were not civil registers; they were sacramental signs of ecclesial unity. To include a name was to profess communion; to remove a name was to signify rupture. This practice is attested by Ivo of Flaviniaca, who states that whoever omits the name of the Apostolic Pontiff in the sacred mysteries thereby shows himself separated from the communion of the whole world. Alcuin, citing Pope Pelagius, affirms the same. Christianus Lupus calls the commemoration of the pope in the Canon “the chief and most glorious form of communion.” These testimonies reveal a consistent tradition: the commemoration of the pope in the Canon is the Church’s most solemn liturgical expression of unity with the Roman Pontiff chief form of communion.
4. The Papal Teaching on Commemoration (Paraphrased)
A Roman Pontiff teaches that the liturgical commemoration of the pope during the Mass is a public acknowledgment of him as the head of the Church, the Vicar of Christ, and the successor of Peter. This act expresses the intention of adhering firmly to Catholic unity. He notes that throughout history, no reconciliation with the Apostolic See was considered complete until the commemoration of the pope had been restored in the liturgy. Conversely, the omission of this commemoration signifies the intention of espousing schism. This papal teaching confirms the ancient understanding: the Canon’s commemoration is a sacramental sign of real communion, not a mere formula.
5. Sacramental Signification and the Requirement of Truth
St. Thomas teaches that sacramental signs must correspond to reality, for a sacrament cannot signify what is false truth in sacramental signs. The Canon, as part of the sacramental action, must therefore signify true ecclesial unity. To name someone in the Canon is to profess communion with him in faith and worship. Thus, the commemoration of the pope and bishop is not a juridical presumption but a liturgical declaration of fact. It presupposes that the one named is truly a member of the Church and holds legitimate authority.
6. The Canon as a Liturgical Act of Communion
The Canon expresses the unity of the Church in three dimensions: Doctrinal unity — communion in the same faith Hierarchical unity — communion with the lawful pastors Sacramental unity — communion in the same sacrifice To falsify any of these is to falsify the sign. Therefore, the commemoration of the pope and bishop must correspond to the truth of their ecclesial status.
7. The Principle Established
From the foregoing, the following principles emerge:

The Canon is the Church’s supreme act of worship.
Its intercessions are sacramental signs of real communion.
The commemoration of the pope and bishop presupposes their true ecclesial status.
The omission of a true pope signifies schism.
The naming of one who is not truly pope falsifies the sacramental sign.

Therefore, the Canon cannot be used to signify communion where none. These principles form the foundation for the later chapters on heresy, canonical status, and the moral impossibility of naming a manifest heretic in the Canon.

Chapter 2 - The Nature and Effects of Heresy

1. The Nature of Heresy According to St. Thomas
St. Thomas defines heresy as a species of unbelief, belonging to those who profess the Christian faith yet corrupt its dogmas by choosing among them according to their own judgment. Heresy is thus not mere ignorance or error, but a voluntary departure from the rule of faith proposed by the Church. It is an act of the intellect moved by the will, rejecting a truth revealed by God and proposed as such by the Church. For St. Thomas, heresy has two essential elements: The material element — the denial or doubt of a revealed truth. The formal element — obstinacy, that is, the refusal to submit to the Church’s judgment obstinacy in error. This distinction is foundational for the canonical treatment of heresy.
2. The 1917 Code of Canon Law on Heresy
The 1917 Code adopts the Thomistic definition. A heretic is one who, after baptism, obstinately denies or doubts a truth that must be believed with divine and Catholic faith canonical definition. The Code distinguishes: Occult heresy — known only to the individual or a few. Public heresy — known to many. Notorious heresy — so publicly known that it cannot be concealed or excused notoriety in canon law. This last category is crucial, for notorious heresy produces juridical effects ipso iure, without need of further declaration.
3. Manifest Heresy as a Canonical Category
The term “manifest heresy” corresponds to what canonists call notorious by fact. A delict is notorious by fact when: it is publicly committed, publicly known, and publicly provable, such that no reasonable doubt remains notorious by fact. Manifest heresy, therefore, is not a private judgment but a publicly verifiable reality. It is the kind of heresy that the Church presumes to be certain in the external forum.
4. The Effects of Heresy in Canon Law
The 1917 Code attaches grave consequences to heresy: Excommunication latae sententiae (can. 2314 §1) Exclusion from ecclesiastical acts Inability to hold ecclesiastical office Exclusion from public prayers (can. 2262) exclusion from prayers This last point is especially relevant to the Canon of the Mass. The Church forbids the public liturgical commemoration of those who are separated from her communion by heresy.
5. The Distinction Between Moral and Juridical Judgment
A key principle in both theology and canon law is the distinction between: Juridical judgment — which belongs to ecclesiastical authority alone. Moral recognition — which belongs to anyone with sufficient evidence. A priest who recognizes that a cleric is a manifest heretic does not issue a canonical sentence; he merely acknowledges a fact that is publicly evident. This is analogous to recognizing that a man is not baptized, or that cornbread is not valid matter for the Eucharist.
6. Heresy as Separation from the Church
St. Thomas teaches that heresy separates one from the unity of the Church by its very nature separation by heresy. The 1917 Code reflects this: a manifest heretic is considered outside the Church’s communion even before any judicial process. This is why the Church excludes manifest heretics from public prayer. The Canon, as the supreme act of ecclesial unity, cannot include those who are not in communion with the Church.
7. Historical Confirmation: The Case of Nestorius
The Council of Ephesus provides a decisive precedent. The clergy of Constantinople removed Nestorius’s name from the diptychs before any formal condemnation. The Holy Synod wrote that it “rejoiced” at this action, and Pope Celestine praised them for ceasing communion with him. This demonstrates that: manifest heresy severs communion by its own nature, the Church approves cessation of commemoration prior to judgment, and liturgical commemoration presupposes real unity.
8. The Principle Established
From the foregoing, the following principles emerge: Heresy is a voluntary departure from revealed truth. Manifest heresy is publicly verifiable and juridically effective. Manifest heretics are excluded from public prayer. The Canon cannot include those who are not in communion with the Church. Recognizing manifest heresy is a moral act, not a juridical sentence. The Church’s own practice confirms this principle. These principles prepare the way for the next chapter, which will examine the authority to judge heresy and the distinction between moral certainty and juridical process.

Chapter 3 — The Authority to Judge Heresy

1. The Distinction Between Judgment and Recognition
In treating the question of heresy, theologians and canonists consistently distinguish between two fundamentally different acts: Juridical judgment, which belongs to the Church alone Moral recognition, which belongs to any member of the faithful with sufficient evidence. This distinction is essential. A juridical judgment is an act of authority; a moral recognition is an act of conscience. The former binds others; the latter binds only the one who judges. St. Thomas affirms that the determination of heresy, as a canonical crime, pertains to the Church’s judgment. Yet he also teaches that the faithful may recognize heresy in the moral order when the truth of the matter is evident.
2. Juridical Judgment Belongs to Ecclesiastical Authority
The Church alone possesses the authority to: conduct canonical processes, issue juridical sentences, declare someone a heretic in law, impose penalties, and depose clerics from office where deposition is possible ecclesiastical authority. The 1917 Code reserves the judgment of delicts to competent authority (can. 1935 §1). No private person may issue a canonical sentence or impose ecclesiastical penalties. This is the sense in which “the judgment of heresy belongs to the Church.”
3. Moral Recognition Belongs to Anyone
Yet the same canonists teach that manifest heresy is a fact, not a sentence. A fact can be known by anyone. A juridical sentence can be issued only by authority. Thus: A private person cannot judge heresy juridically. A private person can recognize manifest heresy morally. This is why St. Thomas says that heresy separates one from the Church “by its very nature,” not by a judicial act. The Church’s judgment does not create the separation; it merely declares it.
4. Manifest Heresy as Notorious by Fact
Canonists such as Wernz–Vidal and Coronata explain that a delict is notorious by fact when: it is publicly committed, publicly known, and publicly provable, such that no reasonable doubt remains notorious by fact. Manifest heresy is precisely this kind of delict. It is not a private suspicion but a public reality. The Church presumes its certainty in the external forum. Thus, the faithful may recognize manifest heresy without usurping jurisdiction.
5. Why Moral Recognition Does Not Usurp Jurisdiction
A priest who refrains from naming a manifest heretic in the Canon does not: issue a canonical sentence, impose a penalty, depose anyone from office, or bind others to his judgment. He merely avoids performing an act that his conscience judges to be materially false. This is analogous to: refusing to use invalid matter for the Eucharist, refusing to baptize with doubtful water, refusing to absolve someone who manifestly lacks contrition. In each case, the priest acts on moral certainty, not juridical authority.
6. The Case of the Heretical Pope
Here the distinction becomes decisive. Juridically No one can judge the pope. No one can depose the pope. No one can issue a canonical sentence against the pope. Morally Anyone can recognize a manifest, notorious fact. Bellarmine teaches that a manifest heretic is not a member of the Church and therefore cannot be its head. St. Alphonsus, Suarez, and Cano affirm the same. The loss of office occurs ipso facto Thus: Recognizing that a manifest heretic is not pope is not “judging the pope.” It is recognizing that he has already judged himself. This is the classical position of the pre‑Vatican II theologians.
7. Historical Confirmation: The Nestorian Precedent
The clergy of Constantinople removed Nestorius’s name from the diptychs before any formal condemnation. The Council of Ephesus praised them. Pope Celestine praised them. Their action was not considered usurpation of jurisdiction but fidelity to the truth. This demonstrates: moral recognition is legitimate, juridical judgment is not required for liturgical action, and the Church approves cessation of commemoration prior to sentence.
8. The Principle Established
From the foregoing, the following principles emerge:

Juridical judgment belongs to ecclesiastical authority alone.
Moral recognition belongs to anyone with sufficient evidence.
Manifest heresy is a publicly verifiable fact.
Recognizing manifest heresy does not usurp jurisdiction. The Church’s own practice confirms this distinction.
The Canon requires moral certainty, not juridical process.

These principles prepare the way for the next chapter, which will examine the theological positions on papal heresy and the loss of office ipso facto.

PART II — THE HERETICAL POPE QUESTION

Chapter 4 — Theological Positions on Papal Heresy

1. The Classical Debate
The question whether a Roman Pontiff can fall into heresy has been discussed by theologians for centuries. The debate is not merely speculative; it concerns the very nature of the Church’s unity and the conditions under which the faithful may or must recognize a rupture in that unity classical debate. Pre‑Vatican II theologians identify five principal opinions:

The pope cannot be a heretic even as a private doctor (Albert Pighius).
The pope can err materially but not formally (Cajetan).
The pope can be a heretic but does not lose office (some canonists).
The pope loses office only after a declaratory sentence (John of St. Thomas).
The pope who becomes a manifest heretic ceases to be pope ipso facto (Bellarmine, St. Alphonsus, Suarez, Cano).

The fifth opinion is the one most commonly taught in the manuals and is theologically normative in the pre‑Vatican II tradition.
2. Bellarmine’s Doctrine: A Manifest Heretic Cannot Be Pope
St. Robert Bellarmine argues that a manifest heretic is not a member of the Church. Since the pope is the head of the Church, and the head must be a member of the body, a manifest heretic cannot be pope. Bellarmine’s argument proceeds in three steps:

A manifest heretic is outside the Church.
One who is outside the Church cannot hold jurisdiction in the Church.
Therefore, a manifest heretic cannot be pope. This loss of office occurs by divine law, not by ecclesiastical judgment.

3. Suarez, Cano, and the Nature of Church Membership
Suarez and Cano affirm that public heresy severs one from the body of the Church by its very nature. Membership in the Church requires:

profession of the true faith,
participation in the sacraments,
submission to legitimate pastors.

A manifest heretic lacks the first condition and therefore cannot possess the third. Thus, the loss of office is not a penalty but a consequence of the nature of heresy.
4. St. Alphonsus Liguori: Confirmation of Bellarmine
St. Alphonsus teaches that a pope who becomes a manifest heretic “ceases to be pope and head, just as he ceases to be a Christian and a member of the Church.” This is not a juridical deposition but a fact resulting from the nature of heresy.
5. The Declaratory Sentence: What It Is and What It Is Not
Some theologians (e.g., John of St. Thomas) argue that the Church must issue a declaratory sentence. But even they admit: the sentence does not depose the pope, the sentence does not cause the loss of office, the sentence merely recognizes a fact already true. Thus, even on this more cautious opinion, the loss of office is ipso facto.
6. Why No One “Judges the Pope”
The Church teaches that the pope is judged by no one. But this applies only to juridical judgment. It does not apply to: recognizing a fact, acknowledging that a man has separated himself from the Church, or refusing to perform an act that presupposes communion. Bellarmine explicitly states that no one judges the pope; rather, the pope ceases to be pope by his own act of manifest heresy.
7. The Papal Office Requires Membership in the Church
All theologians agree that the papacy is an office within the Church. Therefore: one must be a member of the Church to hold it, one must profess the true faith to be a member, manifest heresy destroys membership, therefore manifest heresy destroys the papal office membership requirement. This is not a punishment but a metaphysical impossibility: a non‑Catholic cannot be the head of the Catholic Church.
8. Historical Confirmation: The Case of Honorius
The condemnation of Honorius by the Third Council of Constantinople and later popes shows that the Church recognizes the possibility of papal heresy in the private capacity. The Church did not deny the possibility; she merely judged the historical facts. This confirms that the question is not speculative but real.
9. The Principle Established
From the foregoing, the following principles emerge:

A manifest heretic is not a member of the Church.
The pope must be a member of the Church.

Therefore, a manifest heretic cannot be pope. The loss of office occurs ipso facto by divine law. No one judges the pope; he judges himself by heresy. A declaratory sentence is not constitutive but recognitive. The Church’s unity requires a true pope, not a false sign of communion. These principles prepare the way for the next chapter, which will examine the canonical consequences of ipso facto loss of office and the implications for liturgical commemoration.

Chapter 5 — Loss of Office Ipso Facto by Divine Law

1. The Principle of Ipso Facto Loss of Office
The pre‑Vatican II theological tradition teaches that certain acts, by their very nature, sever a man from the body of the Church. Among these, manifest heresy holds a unique place. St. Thomas teaches that heresy separates one from the unity of the Church “by its very nature,” for it destroys the virtue of faith which is the foundation of ecclesial unity separation by nature. Canon law reflects this doctrine. The 1917 Code attaches latae sententiae excommunication to heresy (can. 2314 §1), and excludes such persons from public prayers (can. 2262). These penalties are not merely medicinal; they express the ontological rupture caused by heresy. Thus, when a cleric becomes a manifest heretic, he is separated from the Church by divine law. This separation has consequences for ecclesiastical office.
2. Bellarmine: The Heretical Pope Ceases to Be Pope
St. Robert Bellarmine argues that a manifest heretic cannot be pope because he is not a member of the Church. His reasoning is simple and compelling: The pope is the head of the Church. A manifest heretic is not a member of the Church. Therefore, a manifest heretic cannot be the head of the Church. This loss of office occurs by divine law, not by ecclesiastical judgment. The Church does not depose him; he deposes himself by departing from the faith loss of office occurs by divine law, not by ecclesiastical judgment. The Church does not depose him; he deposes himself by departing from the faith.
3. Suarez and Cano: Membership as a Condition of Jurisdiction
Suarez and Cano affirm that jurisdiction in the Church presupposes membership in the Church. A manifest heretic lacks the virtue of faith and therefore lacks the foundation of ecclesial communion. Since jurisdiction is exercised within the Church, one who is outside the Church cannot possess it. Thus, the loss of office is not a penalty but a metaphysical impossibility: a non‑Catholic cannot hold authority in the Catholic Church.
4. St. Alphonsus: The Heretical Pope Loses Office Automatically
St. Alphonsus Liguori teaches that a pope who becomes a manifest heretic “ceases to be pope and head, just as he ceases to be a Christian and a member of the Church.” This loss of office is automatic, for it follows from the nature of heresy itself. The Church may later issue a declaratory sentence, but this does not cause the loss of office; it merely recognizes it.
5. The Declaratory Sentence: Recognition, Not Deposition
Some theologians, such as John of St. Thomas, argue that the Church must issue a declaratory sentence. But even they admit: the sentence does not depose the pope, the sentence does not cause the loss of office, the sentence merely recognizes a fact already true. Thus, even in this more cautious opinion, the loss of office is ipso facto.
6. Why No One “Judges the Pope”
The Church teaches that the pope is judged by no one. But this applies only to juridical judgment. It does not apply to: recognizing a fact, acknowledging that a man has separated himself from the Church, or refusing to perform an act that presupposes communion. Bellarmine explicitly states that no one judges the pope; rather, the pope ceases to be pope by his own act of manifest heresy.
7. Canonical Consequences of Ipso Facto Loss
When a pope becomes a manifest heretic: he loses membership in the Church, he loses jurisdiction, he loses the papal office, he cannot be named in the Canon, he cannot be the principle of unity, he cannot be the subject of ecclesiastical obedience and canonical consequences. The Church’s unity requires a true pope, not a false sign of communion.
8. Historical Confirmation: The Nestorian Precedent
The clergy of Constantinople removed Nestorius’s name from the diptychs before any formal condemnation. The Council of Ephesus praised them. Pope Celestine praised them. Their action was not considered usurpation of jurisdiction but fidelity to the truth. This demonstrates: moral recognition is legitimate, juridical judgment is not required for liturgical action, and the Church approves cessation of commemoration prior to sentence.
9. The Principle Established
From the foregoing, the following principles emerge:

Manifest heresy severs one from the Church by divine law.
The papal office requires membership in the Church.

Therefore, a manifest heretic cannot be pope. The loss of office occurs ipso facto, not by ecclesiastical judgment. A declaratory sentence is recognitive, not constitutive. No one judges the pope; he judges himself by heresy. The Church’s unity requires a true pope, not a false sign of communion principle of ipso facto loss. These principles prepare the way for the next chapter, which will examine the historical precedents confirming this doctrine.

Chapter 6 — Historical Precedents

1. The Importance of Historical Witness
The Church’s historical practice provides indispensable clarity for doctrinal questions. While theology establishes principles, history shows how the Church has actually applied those principles in concrete crises. The question of heresy and ecclesial communion is no exception. The Church’s treatment of heretics, schismatics, and doubtful prelates reveals how she understands the nature of communion, the meaning of liturgical commemoration, and the limits of ecclesiastical authority. Among the most illuminating precedents are: the Nestorian crisis and the Council of Ephesus, the discipline surrounding the diptychs, the testimony of medieval liturgical writers, and the condemnation of the juring priests by Pius VI. These cases demonstrate a consistent principle: liturgical commemoration presupposes real communion, and the Church has always approved the removal of names when communion is ruptured.
2. The Nestorian Crisis: Removal Before Judgment
The case of Nestorius is the clearest and most authoritative precedent. Nestorius, Patriarch of Constantinople, publicly taught doctrines contrary to the faith. Before any formal condemnation by Rome, the clergy of Constantinople removed his name from the diptychs, thereby ceasing liturgical communion with Nestorian. The Council of Ephesus wrote to Pope Celestine: that they “rejoiced” because the clergy had removed his name, that they praised them for ceasing communion with him, and that this action was taken before any judicial sentence. Pope Celestine replied with equal clarity, giving thanks that they had removed his name and exhorting them to persevere. This precedent establishes: that manifest heresy severs communion by its own nature, that cessation of commemoration is not usurpation of jurisdiction, and that the Church approves such cessation even before judgment approval before judgment.
3. The Diptychs: The Ancient Sign of Communion
The diptychs were lists of names read or commemorated during the liturgy. They included: the living with whom the Church professed communion, the dead who died in the peace of the Church, and the bishops of the local and universal Church. To include a name was to profess communion. To remove a name was to signify rupture. This practice is attested by: Ivo of Flaviniaca, who states that omission of the pope’s name signifies separation from the communion of the whole world Ivo’s testimony. Alcuin, who cites Pope Pelagius to the same effect. Christianus Lupus, who calls the commemoration of the pope “the chief and most glorious form of communion.” These witnesses show that the Church has always understood liturgical commemoration as a public profession of unity.
4. Medieval and Patristic Witnesses
The medieval liturgical tradition reinforces this understanding. Alcuin, in De Divinis Officiis, teaches that the omission of the pope’s name is universally recognized as a sign of separation. Ivo of Flaviniaca, in his Chronicon, affirms the same. Christianus Lupus, in his commentary on the councils, explains that the commemoration of the pope is the most solemn expression of communion medieval witnesses. These testimonies are not isolated opinions; they reflect the universal practice of the Church.
5. The Papal Teaching on Commemoration (Paraphrased)
A Roman Pontiff teaches that the commemoration of the pope in the Canon is a public acknowledgment of him as head of the Church and a profession of Catholic unity. He notes that throughout history, no reconciliation with the Apostolic See was considered complete until the commemoration of the pope had been restored in the liturgy. Conversely, the omission of this commemoration signifies the intention of espousing schism. This teaching confirms the ancient understanding: the Canon’s commemoration is a sacramental sign of real communion.
6. The Juring Priests: False Communion Condemned
During the French Revolution, certain priests (“juring priests”) accepted the Civil Constitution of the Clergy, thereby aligning themselves with a schismatic structure. Pius VI, in Charitas, condemned their actions as a false communion contrary to the unity of the Church. This case demonstrates: that external forms of unity do not suffice, that false communion must be avoided, and that liturgical acts must correspond to true ecclesial reality false communion condemned.
7. The Western Schism: Why the Analogy Fails
Some appeal to the Western Schism as a precedent for naming doubtful or heretical popes. But the analogy fails for two reasons:

The issue then was doubt about the fact of election, not heresy.
All claimants professed the Catholic faith.

Thus, naming one claimant did not falsify the sign of unity. The situation is materially different from the case of manifest heresy.
8. The Principle Established
From the foregoing, the following principles emerge:

Liturgical commemoration is a public profession of communion.
Manifest heresy severs communion by its own nature.
The Church has always approved cessation of commemoration before judgment. The diptychs express real unity, not presumed unity.
False communion is condemned by the Church.
The Western Schism is not analogous to manifest heresy.
The Canon cannot signify communion where none exists.

These principles prepare the way for PART III, where we will examine the moral impossibility of naming a manifest heretic in the Canon.

PART III — THE MORAL IMPOSSIBILITY OF COMMEMORATION

Chapter 7 — The Canon as a Sacramental Sign of Communion

1. The Canon as the Church’s Supreme Act of Unity

The Canon of the Mass is the Church’s most solemn act of worship. It is not merely a prayer but the liturgical articulation of the Church’s unity in faith, charity, and hierarchical order sacramental unity. St. Thomas teaches that the Eucharist is the sacrament of ecclesial unity because it signifies and affects the mystical body’s cohesion (ST III q.73 a.3). The Canon, as the fixed and venerable prayer surrounding the consecration, expresses this unity in its most perfect form. Thus, the Canon is not a neutral or merely functional text. It is a sacramental sign, and sacramental signs must correspond to reality truth in signs.

2. The Commemoration of the Pope and Bishop

Within the Canon, the Te igitur contains the commemoration of the Roman Pontiff and the local bishop. This commemoration is not a courtesy or a rubric devoid of theological meaning. It is a liturgical declaration of communion with the visible head of the Church and with the local ordinary hierarchical communion. Dom Guéranger explains that the Church names in the Canon only those who are “orthodox” and “cultivators of the Catholic and apostolic faith.” The Canon presupposes communion; it does not create it.

3. The Canon Presupposes Real Communion

St. Thomas teaches that a sacrament cannot signify what is false (ST III q.60 a.6). Therefore, the Canon cannot signify communion where communion is absent. The commemoration of the pope and bishop presupposes: doctrinal unity, hierarchical unity, sacramental unity dimensions of unity. If any of these is lacking, the sign becomes false.

4. The Exclusion of Heretics from Public Prayer

The 1917 Code excludes manifest heretics from public prayers (can. 2262). This is not merely a disciplinary measure; it reflects the ontological rupture caused by heresy. A manifest heretic is outside the Church’s communion and therefore cannot be included in the Church’s supreme act of worship exclusion from prayer. Thus, naming a manifest heretic in the Canon would be contrary to the Church’s own law and theology.

5. The Papal Teaching on Commemoration (Paraphrased)

A Roman Pontiff teaches that the commemoration of the pope in the Canon is a public acknowledgment of him as head of the Church and a profession of Catholic unity. He notes that throughout history, no reconciliation with the Apostolic See was considered complete until the commemoration of the pope had been restored in the liturgy. Conversely, the omission of this commemoration signifies the intention of espousing schism. This teaching confirms that the Canon’s commemoration is a sacramental sign of real communion, not a mere formula.

6. The Canon Cannot Falsify the Sign

To name someone in the Canon is to profess communion with him in faith and worship. If such communion is absent, the act becomes a lie in sacred things, which St. Thomas identifies as a species of sacrilege (ST II–II q.110 a.3; q.99 a.2). Thus, naming a manifest heretic in the Canon is morally impossible because: it falsifies the sacramental sign, it signifies unity where unity is absent, it contradicts the Church’s own law, it constitutes a lie in sacred things.

7. The Priest’s Duty to Avoid False Signification

A priest must not act against a certain conscience (ST I–II q.19 a.5–6). If he possesses solid and prudent moral certainty that a prelate is a manifest heretic, he cannot licitly perform an act that his conscience judges to be materially false. This is not an act of jurisdiction but of fidelity to the truth of the sacramental sign.

8. Historical Confirmation: The Diptychs

The ancient practice of the diptychs confirms this principle. The Church removed the names of heretics from the diptychs to signify the cessation of communion. The clergy of Constantinople removed Nestorius’s name before any formal condemnation, and both the Council of Ephesus and Pope Celestine praised them. This demonstrates that: liturgical commemoration presupposes real unity, cessation of commemoration is legitimate before judgment, and the Church approves such action

9. The Principle Established

From the foregoing, the following principles emerge:

The Canon is a sacramental sign of ecclesial unity.
Sacramental signs must correspond to reality.
The commemoration of the pope presupposes real communion.
Manifest heretics are excluded from public prayer.
Naming a manifest heretic falsifies the sacramental sign.
The priest must avoid false signification.
The Church’s historical practice confirms this principle of non‑falsification.

These principles prepare the way for Chapter 8, which will examine the moral theology of conscience and the priest’s obligation to avoid false liturgical acts.

Chapter 8 — Conscience and Moral Certainty

1. The Primacy of Conscience in Moral Acts

St. Thomas teaches that every human act must be measured by the rule of reason, and that reason’s proximate rule is conscience. A man must never act against a certain conscience, even if that conscience is in error, provided the error is not vincible (ST I–II q.19 a.5–6). To act against conscience is to sin, because one chooses what one judges to be evil. Thus, when a priest approaches the altar, he must act according to the judgment of his conscience regarding the truth of the sacramental sign. If he judges that naming a particular prelate in the Canon would signify a false communion, he cannot licitly perform that act.

2. The Nature of Moral Certainty

Moral certainty is the degree of certainty required for prudent action. It is not metaphysical or mathematical certainty, but a firm judgment excluding reasonable doubt. The manuals (Tanquerey, Prümmer, Noldin, Merkelbach) teach that moral certainty suffices for all practical decisions, including sacramental acts. Thus, a priest does not require a juridical sentence to act; he requires moral certainty. This is the same certainty he uses when: determining whether matter for the Eucharist is valid, judging whether a penitent is contrite, discerning whether a marriage consent is present,, or deciding whether a baptism is valid. The Church does not require juridical certainty for sacramental action.

3. The Priest’s Duty to Avoid False Signification

St. Thomas teaches that lying in sacred things is a species of sacrilege (ST II–II q.110 a.3; q.99 a.2). The Canon is a sacramental sign; therefore, to falsify it is to commit sacrilege. If a priest possesses moral certainty that a prelate is a manifest heretic, then naming him in the Canon would: signify communion where none exists, contradicting the Church’s own law excluding heretics from public prayer, and constituting a lie in sacred things. Thus, the priest is morally bound to omit the name.

4. The Limits of Obedience

Obedience is a virtue, but it is not absolute. St. Thomas teaches that obedience does not oblige one to sin (ST II–II q.104 a.5). Human law does not bind when it contradicts divine law (ST I–II q.96 a.4). Therefore: if the rubric presupposes communion, and communion is certainly absent, then the rubric does not bind. The priest is not disobeying the Church; he is obeying the higher law of truth.

5. The Exclusion of Heretics from Public Prayer

The 1917 Code excludes manifest heretics from public prayers (can. 2262). This is not a mere disciplinary measure; it reflects the ontological rupture caused by heresy. Thus: the Church forbids naming manifest heretics in public prayer, the Canon is the highest form of public prayer, therefore manifest heretics cannot be named in the Canon. This is not a matter of private judgment but of ecclesiastical law.

6. The Role of Prudence

Prudence is the virtue that applies universal principles to particular cases. It requires: knowledge of the facts, knowledge of the law, and the ability to judge prudential judgment. A priest must prudently determine whether: the heresy is manifest, the rupture of communion is certain, and the act of commemoration would falsify the sign. If these conditions are met, prudence requires omission.

7. The Example of the Clergy of Constantinople

The clergy of Constantinople, faced with Nestorius’s manifest heresy, ceased to commemorate him before any formal judgment. The Council of Ephesus praised them. Pope Celestine praised them. Their action was: prudent, faithful, and in accordance with the truth of the sacramental sign. This historical precedent confirms the moral principle.

8. The Principle Established
From the foregoing, the following principles emerge:

Conscience is the proximate rule of moral action.
Moral certainty suffices for sacramental decisions.
The Canon must not signify what is false.
Naming a manifest heretic falsifies the sacramental sign.
Obedience does not oblige one to sin.
Manifest heretics are excluded from public prayer.
The Church’s historical practice confirms this principle principle of conscience.

These principles prepare the way for Chapter 9, which will examine the Sunday obligation and the faithful’s duty to avoid objectively disordered worship.

Chapter 9 — The Sunday Obligation and Disordered Worship

1. The Nature and Limits of the Sunday Obligation
The Church obliges the faithful to assist at Mass on Sundays and holy days of obligation. This precept is rooted in divine law, for the Third Commandment requires the sanctification of the Lord’s Day. Yet the Church also teaches that no positive law binds when its observance becomes morally impossible. St. Thomas explains that human laws, including ecclesiastical precepts, do not oblige when their observance would involve sin (ST I–II q.96 a.4). The manuals (Tanquerey, Prümmer, Merkelbach) affirm that the Sunday obligation ceases when attendance at Mass would involve: proximate danger of sin, participation in illicit worship, cooperation in sacrilege, or scandal. Thus, the obligation to attend Mass is not absolute; it is conditioned by the moral liceity of the act.
2. The Canon as a Sacramental Sign Requiring Truth
As established earlier, the Canon is a sacramental sign of ecclesial unity. St. Thomas teaches that a sacrament cannot signify what is false (ST III q.60 a.6). Therefore, the Canon must correspond to the truth of ecclesial communion truth in sacramental signs. If the Canon includes the name of a manifest heretic, the sign becomes false. The act of worship becomes objectively disordered, for it signifies unity where unity is absent.
3. Participation in Objectively Disordered Worship
The manuals teach that one may not participate in objectively disordered worship, even if one does not personally intend the disorder to be disordered worship. Participation in such worship constitutes: material cooperation in sacrilege, implicit profession of false unity, scandal to the faithful, and violation of the virtue of religion. St. Thomas identifies sacrilege as a sin against the holiness of sacred things (ST II–II q.99 a.1). To participate in a liturgical act that falsifies the sacramental sign is to participate in sacrilege.
4. The Exclusion of Heretics from Public Prayer
The 1917 Code excludes manifest heretics from public prayers (can. 2262). This exclusion is not optional; it is a juridical expression of the ontological rupture caused by heresy canonical exclusion. Thus: if a liturgy includes the name of a manifest heretic, it violates the Church’s own law, and participation becomes morally problematic.
5. The Faithful’s Right to True Worship
The faithful have a right to true Catholic worship. Pius XII teaches that the faithful have a right to the liturgy as the Church intends it, not as individuals distort it. This right includes: the right to a true sacramental sign, the right to worship without false profession, the right to avoid cooperation in sacrilege. Thus, the faithful cannot be obliged to participate in a Mass that falsifies the Canon.
6. The Principle of Moral Impossibility
Moral impossibility arises when an act cannot be performed without sin. The manuals teach that when a precept becomes morally impossible, it ceases to bind moral impossibility. Thus: if attending Mass requires participating in a false sign of communion, and this constitutes material cooperation in sacrilege, then the Sunday obligation ceases. This is not a dispensation but a principle of moral theology.
8. The Principle Established
From the foregoing, the following principles emerge:

The Sunday obligation ceases when its fulfillment requires sin.
Participation in a Mass that falsifies the Canon is objectively disordered.
Naming a manifest heretic in the Canon falsifies the sacramental sign.
Participation in such a Mass constitutes material cooperation in sacrilege.
The faithful have a right to true worship.
The Church’s historical practice confirms this principle principle of disordered worship.

PART IV — THE SCHOLASTIC SYNTHESIS

Chapter 10 — Whether a Manifest Heretic Can Be Named in the Canon of the Mass

Article: Whether a priest may licitly name in the Canon of the Mass one whom he prudently judges to be a manifest heretic

Objection 1. It seems that a priest must name such a person in the Canon, because the rubrics command the commemoration of the Roman Pontiff and the local bishop. Since obedience is a virtue, and since rubrics bind under sin, it appears that omission is unlawful.
Objection 2. Further, no one may judge the pope. But to omit his name on the grounds of heresy appears to be a judgment of the pope. Therefore, omission is unlawful.
Objection 3. Further, the unity of the Church requires visible communion with the Roman Pontiff. To omit his name is to signify schism. Therefore, omission is contrary to the unity of the Church.
Objection 4. Further, the faithful are obliged to attend Mass on Sundays and holy days. If omission of the name renders the Mass illicit, then the faithful would be deprived of the sacraments. Therefore, omission is contrary to the good of souls.
Objection 5. Further, the Church has endured wicked or imprudent popes in the past without omitting their names. Therefore, the priest must not omit the name even if he believes the pope to be a heretic.

On the contrary, St. Thomas teaches that a sacrament cannot signify what is false, for this would be a lie in sacred things, which is sacrilege (ST III q.60 a.6; II–II q.110 a.3). And the 1917 Code excludes manifest heretics from public prayers (can. 2262). But the Canon is the Church’s supreme public prayer. Therefore, a manifest heretic cannot be named in the Canon exclusion from prayer.
I answer that, To name someone in the Canon of the Mass is to signify real communion with him in faith, worship, and hierarchical unity. This is not a mere rubric but a sacramental sign, as shown by: the ancient practice of the diptychs, the teaching of the Fathers, the medieval liturgical writers, the 1917 Code, and the papal teaching that commemoration is the “chief and most glorious form of communion” (paraphrased) chief form of communion. A sacramental sign must correspond to reality.
Therefore: If communion is absent, the sign cannot be made. But manifest heresy severs communion by its very nature, as St. Thomas teaches, and as the 1917 Code presumes in its exclusion of heretics from public prayer. A manifest heretic is not a member of the Church. Therefore, he cannot be the head of the Church, as Bellarmine, Suarez, Cano, and St. Alphonsus unanimously teach that a manifest heretic is not pope.
Thus: If a man is a manifest heretic, he is not a member of the Church, and therefore cannot be pope, and therefore cannot be named in the Canon. This is not a juridical judgment but a moral recognition of a publicly verifiable fact. The priest does not judge the pope; he judges whether the sacramental sign would be true or false. He must not falsify the sign. Therefore: It is morally impossible to name in the Canon one who is a manifest heretic. To do so would be: a lie in sacred things, material cooperation in sacrilege, a violation of the virtue of religion, and contrary to ecclesiastical law. Thus, the priest must omit the name.

Reply to Objection 1. Rubrics bind only when their observance is morally possible. They presuppose the truth of the sign. If the one named is not in communion with the Church, the rubric does not bind, for obedience does not oblige one to sin (ST II–II q.104 a.5).
Reply to Objection 2. To omit the name is not to judge the pope juridically, which no one may do. It is to recognize a notorious fact, which anyone may do. Bellarmine explicitly teaches that the heretical pope “judges himself” and ceases to be pope by divine law self‑judgment.
Reply to Objection 3. Omission of the name of a true pope signifies schism. But omission of the name of a non‑pope signifies fidelity. The papal teaching (paraphrased) that omission signifies schism presupposes that the one omitted is truly pope presupposition of papal status.
Reply to Objection 4. The Sunday obligation ceases when its fulfillment requires sin. Participation in a Mass that falsifies the Canon is objectively disordered. Thus, the faithful are not deprived of the sacraments; they are preserved from sacrilege.
Reply to Objection 5. The Church has endured wicked popes, but not manifest heretics. The Western Schism involved doubt about election, not heresy. The analogy fails. Manifest heresy severs communion by its nature why analogy fails.

Conclusion of the Article
Therefore: A priest may not licitly name in the Canon of the Mass one whom he prudently and morally certainly judges to be a manifest heretic. To do so would falsify the sacramental sign, violate ecclesiastical law, and constitute material cooperation in sacrilege.

Chapter 11 — Replies to Modern Objections

Modern objections to the doctrine established in the preceding chapters often arise from confusion of categories, post‑conciliar assumptions, or ignorance of pre‑Vatican II theology. Here we address them one by one, using only the classical framework.

1. “You are judging the pope.”
This objection confuses juridical judgment with moral recognition. Juridical judgment belongs to the Church alone. Moral recognition belongs to anyone with sufficient evidence. Bellarmine explicitly teaches that no one judges the pope; rather, the pope who becomes a manifest heretic judges himself by departing from the faith. The priest who omits the name does not issue a sentence; he avoids falsifying a sacramental sign. Thus, the objection fails.
2. “Only the Church can declare heresy.”
True — but irrelevant. A declaratory sentence: does not cause the loss of office, does not create heresy, does not establish the rupture of communion, but merely recognizes a fact already true. Manifest heresy is notorious by fact, not by judgment. The Church presumes its certainty in the external forum. Thus, the objection confuses fact with sentence.
3. “This is private judgment.”
Private judgment concerns internal, subjective opinions. Recognition of manifest, public, notorious facts is not private judgment. Examples: recognizing that a man is not baptized, recognizing that bread is invalid matter, recognizing that a penitent lacks contrition, recognizing that a cleric publicly denies a dogma public facts. The Church requires priests to act on moral certainty, not juridical process. Thus, the objection fails.
4. “This is Protestant.”
Protestantism asserts: private interpretation of Scripture, rejection of ecclesiastical authority, denial of the papacy. The doctrine here asserts: the necessity of ecclesiastical authority, the necessity of the papacy, the impossibility of a non‑Catholic being pope, the obligation to avoid false sacramental signs. This is the opposite of Protestantism. Thus, the objection is historically and theologically baseless.
5. “This is Donatism.”
Donatism concerned: the validity of sacraments, the moral character of ministers. The present doctrine concerns: the truth of the sacramental sign, the nature of ecclesial communion, the exclusion of heretics from public prayer, the impossibility of naming a non‑Catholic in the Canon. The Church has always rejected Donatism, but she has also always excluded heretics from liturgical commemoration. Thus, the objection confuses validity with communion.
6. “This is schism.”
Schism is: the refusal of submission to the true Roman Pontiff, or the refusal of communion with those subject to him. But: a manifest heretic is not the Roman Pontiff, and is not a member of the Church, and therefore cannot be the principle of unity. Omitting the name of a true pope is schism. Omitting the name of a non‑pope is fidelity. Thus, the objection presupposes what it must prove.
7. “The Church has endured bad popes before.”
True — but irrelevant. The Church has endured: immoral popes, imprudent popes, negligent popes, bad popes. But the Church has never endured a manifest heretic as pope. The Western Schism involved doubt about election, not heresy. Thus, the objection is historically false.
8. “This causes confusion and division.”
Truth sometimes causes division. St. Thomas teaches that peace is the tranquility of order, not the absence of conflict (ST II–II q.29 a.1) true peace. False unity is not peace. False communion is not charity. False liturgical signs are not worship. Thus, the objection elevates human comfort over divine truth.
9. “The faithful will be scandalized.”
Scandal is: leading another into sin, not the mere appearance of conflict definition of scandal. To participate in a Mass that falsifies the Canon is to cooperate in sacrilege. To avoid sacrilege is not scandal; it is virtue. Thus, the objection reverses the meaning of scandal.
10. “This is too complicated for ordinary Catholics.”
The Church has always expected the faithful to: avoid heresy, avoid false worship, avoid false communion, and adhere to the truth duties of the faithful. The clergy of Constantinople, many of them simple men, recognized Nestorius’s heresy and removed his name before any judgment. Thus, the objection underestimates the faithful and contradicts historical precedent.
11. “This is disobedience.”
Obedience does not oblige one to sin (ST II–II q.104 a.5). To falsify the Canon is to sin. Therefore, obedience cannot require it. Thus, the objection fails.
12. “This is rash.”
Rashness is acting without sufficient evidence. But manifest heresy is: public, notorious, certain, and morally undeniable manifest certainty. The Church presumes its certainty in the external forum. Thus, the objection confuses rashness with courage.
Conclusion of the Chapter:
All modern objections fail because they: confuse juridical judgment with moral recognition, confuse validity with communion, confuse obedience with servility, confuse unity with uniformity, confuse peace with quietism, and ignore the Church’s own law and history. The doctrine stands: A manifest heretic cannot be named in the Canon of the Mass. To do so is morally impossible, canonically forbidden, and theologically absurd.

Chapter 12 — Theological Conclusions

1. The Canon as a Sacramental Sign
From the doctrine of St. Thomas and the universal liturgical tradition, it is established that the Canon of the Mass is a sacramental sign of ecclesial unity. It expresses: unity of faith, unity of worship, unity of hierarchy. A sacramental sign must correspond to reality. Therefore, the Canon cannot signify communion where communion is absent. This principle governs all that follows.
2. The Commemoration of the Pope Presupposes True Communion
The commemoration of the Roman Pontiff in the Te igitur is not a mere rubric but a public profession of communion. This is confirmed by: the ancient diptychs, the Fathers, the medieval liturgical writers, the medieval liturgical writers, the 1917 Code, and the papal teaching that commemoration is the “chief and most glorious form of communion” (paraphrased) chief form of communion. Thus: The Canon presupposes that the one named is truly the Roman Pontiff. If he is not, the sign becomes false.
3. Manifest Heresy Severs Communion by Its Nature
St. Thomas teaches that heresy separates one from the Church by its very nature, for it destroys the virtue of faith which is the foundation of ecclesial unity. The 1917 Code presumes this in its exclusion of heretics from public prayer (can. 2262) exclusion from prayer. Thus: a manifest heretic is not a member of the Church, and therefore cannot be the head of the Church. This is the unanimous teaching of Bellarmine, Suarez, Cano, and St. Alphonsus.
4. The Papal Office Requires Membership in the Church
Jurisdiction is exercised within the Church. Membership in the Church requires: profession of the true faith, participation in the sacraments, submission to legitimate pastors conditions of membership. A manifest heretic lacks the first condition and therefore cannot possess the third. Thus: A manifest heretic cannot be pope. This is not a penalty but a metaphysical impossibility.
5. Loss of Office Occurs Ipso Facto by Divine Law
The loss of office does not require: a judicial sentence, a canonical trial, or a declaration by the Church. Even theologians who require a declaratory sentence admit that it is recognitive, not constitutive. Thus: The manifest heretic ceases to be pope by divine law, not by ecclesiastical judgment. No one judges the pope; he judges himself by departing from the faith.
6. The Canon Cannot Falsify the Sign
To name someone in the Canon is to profess communion with him. If such communion is absent, the act becomes: a lie in sacred things, a species of sacrilege (ST II–II q.110 a.3), a violation of the virtue of religion, and contrary to ecclesiastical law sacrilege by false sign. Thus: It is morally impossible to name a manifest heretic in the Canon.
7. The Priest Must Follow Moral Certainty
The priest must act according to certain conscience (ST I–II q.19 a.5–6). He does not require juridical certainty; he requires moral certainty, which suffices for all sacramental acts. If he judges that naming a particular prelate would falsify the sacramental sign, he must omit the name. This is not disobedience but fidelity to truth.
8. Participation in Disordered Worship Is Forbidden
The faithful may not participate in objectively disordered worship. The manuals teach that participation in such worship constitutes: material cooperation in sacrilege, implicit profession of false unity, scandal, and violation of the virtue of religion disordered worship. Thus: The Sunday obligation ceases when its fulfillment requires participation in a Mass that falsifies the Canon. This is not a dispensation but a principle of moral theology.
9. Historical Precedents Confirm the Doctrine
The Church’s history confirms the principles above: The clergy of Constantinople removed Nestorius’s name before judgment. The Council of Ephesus praised them. Pope Celestine praised them. The diptychs were always signs of real communion. Pius VI condemned false communion in Charitas historical confirmation. Thus: The Church has always approved cessation of commemoration when communion is ruptured.
10. Final Synthesis
From all the foregoing, the doctrine stands: The Canon is a sacramental sign of ecclesial unity. Sacramental signs must correspond to reality. The commemoration of the pope presupposes true communion. Manifest heresy severs communion by its nature. A manifest heretic cannot be pope. Loss of office occurs ipso facto by divine law. Naming a manifest heretic falsifies the sacramental sign. The priest must omit the name. The faithful must avoid participation in false worship. The Church’s history confirms this doctrine.

Thus: It is morally, theologically, canonically, and liturgically impossible to name a manifest heretic in the Canon of the Mass. To do so is to falsify the Church’s supreme act of worship.

PART V — APPENDICES
These appendices provide the canonical, patristic, manualist, and terminological foundations that support the doctrinal conclusions of the monograph. They are arranged for ease of reference and for scholarly precision.
Appendix A — Canonical Texts (1917 Code of Canon Law) Below are the principal canons relevant to the question of heresy, ecclesial communion, and liturgical commemoration. Each canon is paraphrased for clarity while preserving its juridical meaning.
1. Can. 1325 §2 — Definition of Heresy
Heresy is the obstinate denial or doubt, after baptism, of a truth that must be believed with divine and Catholic faith canonical definition of heresy.
2. Can. 2314 §1 — Penalties for Heresy
Those who publicly adhere to heresy incur latae sententiae excommunication, lose ecclesiastical offices, and are to be avoided until they repent penalties for heresy.
3. Can. 2262 — Exclusion from Public Prayers
Excommunicated persons, especially heretics, are excluded from public prayers of the Church, including the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass exclusion from prayer.
4. Can. 188 §4 — Loss of Office by Public Defection
A cleric who publicly defects from the Catholic faith loses ecclesiastical office ipso facto, without need of declaration loss of office.
5. Can. 1258 — Prohibition of Communicatio in Sacris
The faithful are forbidden to participate in non‑Catholic worship, even if the rites are valid, because such participation signifies false unity communicatio in sacris.
6. Can. 209 — Obligation to Profess the Faith
The faithful must avoid any act that would imply denial of the faith or communion with heresy.
Appendix B — Patristic and Liturgical Texts
1. on the Diptychs
These texts illustrate the ancient understanding of liturgical commemoration as a sign of real ecclesial communion. Council of Ephesus (431) The clergy of Constantinople removed Nestorius’s name from the diptychs before any formal condemnation. The Council praised them for ceasing communion with him.
2. Pope Celestine I
Celestine approved the removal of Nestorius’s name and taught that communion ceases when the faith is endangered Celestine’s approval.
3. Christianus Lupus
Lupus calls the commemoration of the pope in the Canon “the chief and most glorious form of communion” (paraphrased) chief form of communion.
4. Ivo of Flaviniaca
Ivo teaches that whoever omits the pope’s name in the Canon “for any reason” shows himself separated from the communion of the whole world (paraphrased) Ivo’s testimony.
5. Alcuin
Alcuin, citing Pope Pelagius, affirms that omission of the pope’s name in the sacred mysteries is universally recognized as a sign of separation (paraphrased) Alcuin’s testimony.
6. Dom Guéranger
Guéranger explains that the Canon names only those who are orthodox and in communion with the Church; the Canon presupposes unity, it does not create it Guéranger on unity. Appendix C — Manualist Citations These are the principal manualist authorities used throughout the monograph.
1. Tanquerey
Tanquerey teaches that moral certainty suffices for sacramental action and that heresy severs communion with the Church moral certainty.
2. Prümmer
Prümmer affirms that obedience does not oblige one to sin and that participation in disordered worship is forbidden limits of obedience.
3. Noldin
Noldin explains that cooperation in sacrilege is gravely sinful and that the faithful must avoid liturgical acts that signify false unity avoidance of sacrilege.
4. Merkelbach
Merkelbach teaches that heresy destroys the virtue of faith and that manifest heretics are outside the Church heresy and faith.
5. Wernz–Vidal
Wernz–Vidal define notoriety by fact and explain that manifest heresy produces juridical effects without need of declaration notorious by fact.
6. Coronata
Coronata affirms that a cleric who publicly defects from the faith loses office ipso facto by divine law ipso facto loss.
7. St. Alphonsus Liguori
St. Alphonsus teaches that a pope who becomes a manifest heretic ceases to be pope and head of the Church Alphonsus on papal heresy.
8. Suarez and Cano
Both affirm that jurisdiction requires membership in the Church and that manifest heresy destroys that membership jurisdiction and membership.
9. Bellarmine
Bellarmine teaches that a manifest heretic cannot be pope because he is not a member of the Church Bellarmine’s doctrine.
Appendix D — Glossary of Technical Terms
1. Manifest Heresy
Public, notorious denial of a dogma, known to many and provable in the external forum manifest heresy.
2. Notorious by Fact
A delict publicly committed, publicly known, and publicly provable, requiring no judicial process notorious by fact.
3. Ipso Facto Loss of Office
Loss of ecclesiastical office by the nature of the act itself, without need of declaration ipso facto loss.
4. Sacramental Signification
The principle that liturgical acts must signify what is true; false signification is sacrilege sacramental signification.
5. Moral Certainty
Firm judgment excluding reasonable doubt, sufficient for all practical and sacramental decisions moral certainty.
6. External Forum
The public, juridical sphere in which the Church judges facts and delicts external forum.
7. Internal Forum
The private sphere of conscience and sacramental confession internal forum.
8. Communicatio in Sacris
Participation in non‑Catholic worship, forbidden because it signifies false unity.
9. Schism
Refusal of submission to the true Roman Pontiff or refusal of communion with those subject to him.
10. Diptychs
Ancient liturgical lists of those with whom the Church professed communion diptychs.

Freind · « **Reply #54 on:** **Yesterday** at 05:55:44 PM »

Quote from: SkidRowCatholic on Yesterday at 05:52:49 PM

Did you feed your St. Francis AI my whole question?

Read my OP, it is ALL there.

SkidRowCatholic · « **Reply #55 on:** **Yesterday** at 05:57:39 PM »

Quote from: Freind on Yesterday at 05:55:44 PM

Read my OP, it is ALL there.

Nope, not seeing my whole question there, just objection 7 I gave you the whole thing twice now, why won't you either;

1) feed the whole thing to your AI.

OR

2) give us the link and/or text to your chat.

I suppose it is easier to just accuse me of lying, deceiving, cheating, denying, etc..

Freind · « **Reply #56 on:** **Yesterday** at 06:02:16 PM »

Perhaps, lay off the sauce right now?

I'll get back to you tomorrow with what I wrote in the OP.

SkidRowCatholic · « **Reply #57 on:** **Yesterday** at 06:08:07 PM »

Quote from: Freind on Yesterday at 06:02:16 PM

Perhaps, lay off the sauce right now?

I'll get back to you tomorrow with what I wrote in the OP.

Don't bother on my account, if you really believe I am a lying, cheating, boozing, deceiving, denier, then I really wouldn't expect much to come from it.

But I will simply restate, that my Francis model is just plain superior to yours - why?

Because I feed it the WHOLE question with sources (thx

) and he positively pistol-whips your lame version into silent submission.

Freind · « **Reply #58 on:** **Yesterday** at 06:15:45 PM »

Quote from: SkidRowCatholic on Yesterday at 06:08:07 PM

Don't bother on my account, if you really believe I am a lying, cheating, boozing, deceiving, denier, then I really wouldn't expect much to come from it.

But I will simply restate, that my Francis model is just plain superior to yours - why?

Because I feed it the WHOLE question with sources (thx ) and he positively pistol-whips your lame version into silent submission.

Did you read it or not? You refuse to answer directly.

I quote St. Francis himself on the principle of Protestant baptism that he wrote. You didn't include that.

SkidRowCatholic · « **Reply #59 on:** **Yesterday** at 06:56:15 PM »

Quote from: Freind on Yesterday at 06:15:45 PM

Did you read it or not?

Yes, I read it.

I already caught it glitching with the whole, "Nestorius was just a wee little ol' patriarch" stint.

But past that, unless I missed something - I do not see any major problems.

Maybe you created this OP because you thought it simplified the answer to the "Una cuм" question?

You yourself, even told the AI about how you can present the "2nd group" with direct quotes, teachings, etc. but to no avail...

That is what my question is - straight theological argumentation with many primary source examples delivered in a clean, scholastic, method.

But you see how they still ignore, deflect and run from it?

To be fair, they keep croaking about how the A.I. is "satanic", "broken", etc., which I agree with the "buggy" bit to some degree, but the core logic is generally stable (that is more than can be said about some). If you can feed it the sources and keep it constrained to a type of "pre-vatican II mode" it has its uses.

So, I am unclear how your chat with "Francis" would aid them, or what exactly you think your question answers that mine doesn't?

We both think it is morally impossible to attend those Masses when you have moral certitude about the heretics being named. That is all my question addresses. For many R&R, you can see from my poll, that they DO NOT believe the post-concilar claimants are manifest heretics, so for those people who truly do not understand, nor see the heresy, then there would be no guilt in this for them. But if they did know, or they could know but refuse to learn, yes there would be guilt. If you as a "sede" layman (that sounds retarded) know this and you go anyway, then according to the principles laid out, there would be sin there as well. One cannot ignore a certain conscience - it is a sin.

Now ask me if I think those Masses that name the manifest heretics in the Canon are pleasing to God or a profanation (regardless of the intention of the minister or laity present) I do believe yes, those are profanations (though I realize they are not intended to be so).

This is why the clergy of Constantinople struck Nestorius' name as soon as his heresy was made manifest to them and before the official judgment was ratified. It is the same reason why Pope St. Horsmisdus had the Acacians profess to never place the names of those not in communion with the Roman See into the sacred mysteries. The sacred diptychs are meant to mirror the Book of Life, heretics are not written in the Book. Same with the Mass, known heretics cannot be named, it is why Pope St. Pius V had the mention of kings/princes remove after the Protestant revolt, because they were not of the same House, written in the same Book, holding the same faith, etc. One can be a great sinner and be named in the Canon, but if they have severed themselves from the Church due to apostasy, heresy, schism, then they are not of the Church anymore because those sins strike at the very nature of Church membership for the individual. Manifesting public heresy with pertinacity - is a clear sign of judgment from God.

I digress. Again, I think my "Francis" is better because I fed it the WHOLE question. Yours is ok, but needs work - feed it the whole question.

Author Topic: My AI discussion with "Francis de Sales" (Read 2568 times)

SkidRowCatholic

Re: My AI discussion with "Francis de Sales"

Freind

Re: My AI discussion with "Francis de Sales"

SkidRowCatholic

Re: My AI discussion with "Francis de Sales"

Freind

Re: My AI discussion with "Francis de Sales"

SkidRowCatholic

Re: My AI discussion with "Francis de Sales"

Freind

Re: My AI discussion with "Francis de Sales"

SkidRowCatholic

Re: My AI discussion with "Francis de Sales"

Freind

Re: My AI discussion with "Francis de Sales"

SkidRowCatholic

Re: My AI discussion with "Francis de Sales"

Freind

Re: My AI discussion with "Francis de Sales"

SkidRowCatholic

Re: My AI discussion with "Francis de Sales"

Freind

Re: My AI discussion with "Francis de Sales"

SkidRowCatholic

Re: My AI discussion with "Francis de Sales"

Freind

Re: My AI discussion with "Francis de Sales"

SkidRowCatholic

Re: My AI discussion with "Francis de Sales"