This guy is crazy.
REFUTED
+
JMJT
Feast of St. Robert Bellarmine, Bishop, Confessor, Doctor of the Church
Staunch defender of the Faith and the rights of the Apostolic See.
Principles:
Pretension does not ground one in truth.
Off to a bad beginning already, when one whose whole policy is not to judge, casts judgement...fortunately, it is not MY policy. :)
Now, of all those who claim to be adhering still to God through His Holy Catholic Religion, amidst the loss of faith throughout the Catholic world most especially in Rome (according to the last phrase of the Second Memoirs of Sr. Maria Lucia, C.D., of Fatima – introducing the “Third Secret of Fatima”; cf., also our post “The Great Tribulation”), only the Sedevacantist position then is the orthodox Catholic – and not the position of Abp. Lefebvre and his Priestly Fraternity of St. Pius X (SSPX). The Sedevacantist position therefore is of God.
This statement is a bit exaggerated, and a bit of a strawman thesis already. Plus, the juxtaposition of the Sedevacantist position being "of God" as opposed to the SSPX position automatically implies that it is the SSPX position that is of God, or at least should be. However, strictly speaking, neither position is "of God." Both are the results of a certain logical progression of ideas: From Divine Revelation, to the common tradition, to theological opinion, common according to Bellarmine and countless others (Heretical Pope is no Pope) and uncommon (A heretical Pope retains his jurisdiction), with Cajetan taking the uncommon position.
The progression of ideas goes like this: There is no salvation outside the Church. A heretic is cast out of the Church. He who is no member of the Church cannot exercise an office within the church. Therefore, any cleric who publicly defects from the faith tacitly resigns his office (Canon 188.4, 1917 Code of Canon Law). It is sound reasoning.
Upon examination, the Sedevacantist position reveals how its Catholic claim is rather a falsity. Now, a Catholic is one “bound by the duty of hierarchical subordination and true obedience [to the Roman Pontiff” (Vatican I, Dogmatic Constitution on the Church of Christ, July 18, 1870). But the Sedevacantist position claims that there is now, for many decades already, no “true” Roman Pontiff under whose jurisdiction its adherent must still be subject. Therefore, a Sedevacantist is not a Catholic.
COMPLETELY and utterly false. The Principle of Unity is Peter's CHAIR, the OFFICE of the Papacy, not the man sitting in it. For upon the death of a Pontiff, is the church abandoned? Does it dissolve only to be regathered together at the election of a new pontiff? NO!
Hear the words of Cardinal Franzelin, Papal Theologian at Vatican I:
Cardinal Franzelin-
VACANCY OF THE APOSTOLIC SEE
15. "Hence the distinction arises between the seat [sedes, See] and the one sitting in it [sedens], by reason of perpetuity. The seat, that is the perpetual right of the primacy, never ceases, on the part of God in His unchangeable law and supernatural providence, and on the part of the Church in her right and duty of forever keeping as a deposit the power divinely instituted on behalf of the individual successors of Peter, and of securing their succession by a fixed law; but the individual heirs or those sitting [sedentes] in the Apostolic seat are mortal men; and therefore the seat can never fail, but it can be *vacant* and often is vacant. Then indeed the divine law and institution of perpetuity remains, and by the same reason the right and duty in the Church of procuring the succession according to the established law; there remain also the participations in the powers [of the papacy] to the extent they are communicable to others [e.g. to the Cardinals or bishops], and have been communicated by the successor of Peter while still alive, or have been lawfully established and not abrogated [thus the jurisdiction of bishops, granted by the Pope, does not cease when he dies]; but the highest power itself, together with its rights and prerogatives, which can in no way exist except in the one individual heir of Peter, now actually belong to no one while the See is vacant.
...Certainly there remains in the Church not only indefectibility *in believing* (called passive infallibility) but also infallibility *in proclaiming* the truth already revealed and already sufficiently proposed for Catholic belief, even while she is for a time bereaved of her visible head, so that neither the whole body of the Church in its belief, nor the whole Episcopate in its teaching, can depart from the faith handed down and fall into heresy, because this permanence of the Spirit of truth in the Church, the kingdom and spouse and body of Christ, is included in the very promise and institution of the indefectibility of the Church *for all days* even to the consummation of the world. The same is to be said, by the same reasoning, for the unity of communion against a universal schism, as for the truth of the faith against heresy. For the divine law and promise of perpetual succession in the See of Peter, as the root and center of Catholic unity, remains; and to this law and promise correspond, on the part of the Church, not only the right and duty of, but also indefectibility in, legitimately procuring and receiving the succession and in keeping the unity of communion with the Petrine See EVEN WHEN VACANT, in view of the successor who is awaited and will indefectibly come ... " (Franzelin, op. cit., p. 221-223)
If the visible Church founded by Our Lord Jesus Christ is to last even to the consummation of the world, “so in His Church [the same Lord and Master] wished [the Roman Pontiff, successor to St. Peter, under whose jurisdiction are all the baptized subject] to be even to the consummation of the world (cf., Vatican I, ibid.).
And who denies that? We have not said the succession has failed. We say these men are not legitimate popes, but anti-popes. Christ we have, but no Pope. Perpetual Succession does not mean a Succession that is immediate and consecutive without gap or space in between. It is a fact that the Church has had long interregnums before, and the bishops have had to take matters into their own hands before. But when a legitimate Pope was finally elected, he ratified their decisions.
This indefectibility of the Church is a dogma which Catholics profess but the Sedevacantists, in claiming that there is now no “true” Roman Pontiff, negate.
Uh, Sedevacantists and other traditionalist Catholics are THE living PROOF of the indefectability of the Church. What nonsense. How can we deny the indefectability of the Church when we claim to be part of it? Are you saying that a Pope's physical presence is ABSOLUTELY and UNQUESTIONABLY necessary for the Church to continue? Then the Church has died and ressurected over 265 times; that is how many vacancies there have been after the death of a Pontiff. Now, I know you will deny this, and therefore you must admit that a physical presence of a Pope at ALL MOMENTS OF EVERY DAY is not an absolute necessity to the church. When deprived of her head, her monarchical form remains, the Chair and Office of Peter being the Point of Unity.
Your opinion is based on false principles.
Pope Pius XII teaches that Our Lord Jesus Christ in “continuing Himself to govern the Church... rules it visibly through His personal representative on earth [that is, the pope] (Mystici Corporis Christi, 38).” In another instance, the same Pope reiterates that the Church is “An immense kingdom... made up of men united among themselves by visible bonds, and like an immense flock guided by a single and sovereign Shepherd, it cannot dispense with an organ of government, a hierarchy of persons...” (Ministry of the Word, message to all newly-weds of Jan. 21, 1942). To say that the Church has lost her visible head, and with it the potestas docendi – as the Sedevacantist position claims – is to make Our Lord a liar Who promised that I am with you all days until the end of time (Mt. 28.20), and to nullify “the unanimous teaching of the Fathers that this visible head is necessary to establish and preserve unity in the Church” (Roman Catechism, TAN Books, p. 102). St. John Chrysostom says that “the Church would fail if it were not for its Head, who is the centre of its unity, as a ship would be wrecked if deprived of its pilot” (in Frs. Spirago-Clarke, The Catechism Explained).
This is simply ridiculous calumny. Really? Everything Pope Pius XII said, we agree to. All the Sedevacantist says is "Hmm, this is a really long time to wait for another Pope, but he's coming..." To believe the Sedevacantist DESIRES, much less SEEKS the dispensation of the office of papacy merely reveals your ignorance on this matter. As Cardinal Franzelin said:
"The seat, that is the perpetual right of the primacy, never ceases, on the part of God in His unchangeable law and supernatural providence, and on the part of the Church in her right and duty of forever keeping as a deposit the power divinely instituted on behalf of the individual successors of Peter, and of securing their succession by a fixed law; but the individual heirs or those sitting [sedentes] in the Apostolic seat are mortal men; and therefore the seat can never fail, but it can be *vacant* and often is vacant."
The Sedevacantist position then “is in vain [flattering itself to be the orthodox Catholic], if one is separated from the Chair of Peter on which the Church is founded” (Pope Pius IX, Singulari Quidem, Mar. 17, 1856).
Sedevacantists are united to the Chair of Peter, for we seek to be in communion with a true succesor, and are willing to accept one docilely when he arrives. We accept all of Vatican I and The Dogmatic decree of Pope Pius XII on the assumption. We deny no article of faith, and we make no claims beyond what others have envisioned and what the theologians of the Church have taught. The sheep know the Shepherd's voice Friar, make no mistake about that. And right now, the Vatican is full of wolves who want the Sheep's souls. We not only deny, we refuse to commemorate, or to acknowledge such heretics and apostates and open schismatics as anything other than hirelings, weaklings, and wolves.
"A stranger's voice they do not follow."
SSPX says "We recognize, yet we resist." Sedevacantists say "We resist because we cannot recognize."
“He who dares to withdraw from the unity of the Roman Church is excluded from the divine mysteries [and that] ‘he who eats of the Lamb outside this holy Church’ [which] must be united to and supported by the Roman Pontiff, the Vicar of Christ on earth, ‘is reprobate’”(Pope Pius IX and quoting St. Jerome,Commissum Divinitus, May 17, 1835).
Oh, you mean like the SSPX, who refuse to submit to the legitimate hierarchical decisions and who desire to "resist" their "Pope" to his face at every turn and fail to give the religious submission of mind to his encyclicals and magisterial acts? just like THEM? THEY are not supported by their "pope." Are they not outside the Church then?
Therefore, to those who adhere to the Sedevacantist position: “he who observes not this unity observes not the law of God, holds not the faith of the Father and the Son, clings not to life and salvation” (Pope Leo XIII, Satis Cognitum, June 29, 1896).
This is ridiculous; we do observe this unity, the unity of the CHAIR of Peter, and we eagerly await his successor. The Church is built on nothing less. This is common sense, and is dogmatically taught by Vatican I. There is nothing you can say to SHOCK us, we have heard it all. And through it all, we maintain consistency.
In this regard, the Sedevacantist approaches rather a Protestant position which reduced the Church into that erroneous notion of a mysteriously invisible communion after having confused the failings of the popes as the failure of the See of St. Peter – which Office, rather than the occupant, carries the guarantee the Divine Lord and Master spoke to Peter: I have prayed for thee that thy faith fail not.
HA! What self-contradiction. First, because we refuse the PERSON, you say we hold not to the unity of Peter, which we contend is in his office. NOW you say the unity of Peter is in his OFFICE, not his Person. Please, present your ideas in a consistent and at least HONEST fashion, instead of asserting something about Sedevacantists based on a faulty understanding, then admitting what WE BELIEVE and not even being able to recognize it. I mean YOU MAKE the very distinction we do, and you do not even see it! Ah, well, though they have ears...
That thy faith fail not...
Doubtless, numerous facts establish the material heresy committed, in particular, by Pope John Paul II through his words, decisions, and actions. But the Sedevacantist position will never be able to establish the case of formal heresy –which alone could strictly and technically qualify Pope John Paul II as “heretic,” so it says - in the absence of a higher juridical authority over the former Pope (or Popes) censuring and, if there was pertinacity in error (subject to the determination of the same higher juridical authority), pronouncing against him/them a condemnatory judgment. By this, the Sedevacantist position exhibits clearly a proud spirit in arrogating to itself a juridical position which it should rather patiently reserve to that Holy Pope for “neither by Augustus, nor by all the clergy, nor by religious, nor by the people will the judge be judged: ‘the first seat will not be [juridically] judged by anyone’” (Roman Council of 860-63 under Pope St. Nicholas I).
And the hole of ignorance is dug deeper with the spade of falsehood. FIRST off, whenever ANYONE, in the external forum, says someting heretical and against the faith in an official capacity, malice (dulus) is PRESUMED:
The 1917 Code of Canon Law, Canon 2200 §2: "Positing an external violation of the law, dolus [evil will] in the external forum is presumed until the contrary is proven."
And again, in Canon 188.4, 1917 Code of Canon Law: “There are certain causes which effect the tacit (silent) resignation of an office, which resignation is accepted in advance by operation of the law, and hence is effective without any declaration. These causes are… (4) if he has publicly fallen away from the faith.”
In addition to this, this particular canon, in a footnote, in referencing where this idea comes from, references Pope Paul IV's Papal Bull cuм EX Apostolatus Officio, which still has binding and legislative force IN THIS CANON.
I have a great Idea. Since this is written comemorating St. Robert Bellarmine, Let's see what he said regarding heresy and heretics, great canonist and theologian that he was:
St. Robert Bellarmine, De Romano Pontifice, II, 30, speaking of a claimant to the Papal Office: "For, in the first place, it is proven with arguments from authority and from reason that the manifest heretic is 'ipso facto' deposed… which means before any excommunication or judicial sentence."
Wow. So, if we show a person to have incurred this penalty, are we "judging them?" No, we are shown them to be judged already. We are "judging" in so far as we have to discern the facts, but we make no claim to know their heart. But, WE DON'T HAVE TO in order to arrive at a just and true understanding of their heresy:
Objections:
"A heretical proposition is one which is directly and clearly opposed to a doctrine which must be believed with divine and Catholic faith - the private individual can judge whether or not that is so in a particular case. But the actof heresy, which makes its perpetrator a heretic, requires not only assent to an objectively heretical proposition, but also moral culpability - the conscious rejection of Catholic doctrine on the part of one is not unaware of the duty to accept it. This element is called pertinacity. It exists invisibly in the soul and cannot therefore be the object of the judgment of a private individual who sees only externals."
Answer: As with every other sin, Christians must strive not to attribute the sin of heresy to their neighbour as long as another explanation remains possible. But charity does not require mental gymnastics in order to excuse what is manifest. However, the thesis here defended does not depend on identifying pertinacity as defined by the moralists, but as defined by canonists: conscious rejection of dogma on the part of a baptised person. This prescinds from the moral order, forming a judgment which need concern only the external forum, yet which has no connection with the error of those who "presume" pertinacity where some other reasonable explanation of the external data remains available, such as simple ignorance or inadvertence. "Obstinacy may be assumed when a revealed truth has been proposed with sufficient clearness and force to convince a reasonable man." (Dom Charles Augustine: A Commentary on Canon Law, Vol. 8, p. 335. See too the present writer's study of the distinction between canonical and theological pertinacity in Heresy, Schism and their Effects (revised).)
Granted there was the case of formal heresy, even then this in no way would call for the Sedevacantist position of casting off completely the Catholic yoke of “hierarchical subordination and true obedience” to the Roman Pontiff [which “’true’ obedience” rather necessitates the ‘resistance’ once exhibited by the Apostle St. Paul in rebuking St. Peter to his face and taken up again by Abp. Lefebvre (and his Society) vis-a-vis the impious and, often, sacrilegious novelties (most especially in the realm of divine worship) of the Roman Pontiffs for the more than four decades past.
This is astounding: It is not an issue of resisting a Pontiff; it is an issue of there NO LONGER BEING a man who OCCUPIES THE SEE. Those who resist a formally heretical Pope (A situation you just granted could exist) Do not sin by throwing off the yoke of obedience. Once again, you are not understanding the issue. In fact, you are FLATLY contradicted by the DOCTRINAL (Not LEGAL) proposition put forth by Pope Paul IV in cuм Ex, which, like it or not, still belongs to the Church's ordinary magisterium, regardless if most of its laws have been abrogated (except where noted, as in canon 188.4). Whether you like it or NOt, cuм Ex consists of DOCTRINAL TEACHING as well as Laws. And here is a DOCTRINAL PRINCIPLE:
"We] also [enact, determine, define and decree]: that any and all persons who would have been subject to those thus promoted or elevated if they had not previously deviated from the Faith, become heretics, incurred schism or provoked or committed any or all of these, be they members of anysoever of the following categories:...even if they shall be obliged and beholden to those thus promoted or elevated by homage, oath or security; shall be permitted at any time to withdraw with impunity from obedience and devotion to those thus promoted or elevated and to avoid them as warlocks, heathens, publicans, and heresiarchs (the same subject persons, nevertheless, remaining bound by the duty of fidelity and obedience to any future Bishops, Archbishops, Patriarchs, Primates, Cardinals and Roman Pontiff canonically entering).
To the greater confusion, moreover, of those thus promoted or elevated, if these shall have wished to prolong their government and authority, they[the subjects of various categories] shall be permitted to request the assistance of the secular arm against these same individuals thus promoted or elevated; nor shall those who withdraw on this account, in the aforementioned circuмstances, from fidelity and obedience to those thus promoted and elevated, be subject, as are those who tear the tunic of the Lord, to the retribution of any censures or penalties.
So guess what? If there is a formal heretic who is a POpe, you shall withdraw your obedience with impunity. Not only that, but you can request the secular government to kick him out using force! AND you cannot be considered a schismatic for doing so.
Look what reading does...
We read in the original version of Pope Leo XIII’s Little Exorcism: “Now most cunning enemies have filled with bitterness the Church... Where the seat of blessed Peter and the throne of Truth was established like a light for the nations, there they have set up the abominable throne of their wickedness, so that having once struck the pastor they might scatter the flock.”
Now, side by side with the secret instructions of the Carbonari (the Italian Freemasons) on the one hand, and the circulation of the “humanitarian principles” of the French Revolution by the Popes themselves (from John XXIII) on the other, we can see the fulfillment of Apoc. 2.12-13 where Our Lord addresses the Angel (that is, in Scriptural language, the bishop) of the Church in Pergamus thus: I know where thou dwellest, where the seat of Satan is... However, the Word of Truth tells us the state of the bishop of that Church which Satan desired to possess for his seat: Thou... hast not denied my faith. To the Protestants, then: the Pope is not the Antichrist. And to the Sedevacantists: the Church of Rome once headed by Popes John XXIII, Paul VI, John Paul I, John Paul II, and now by Pope Benedict XVI, has yet to overturn – nor will ever overturn – the infallible solemn pronouncements of the Chair of St. Peter with equally infallible solemn pronouncements to the contrary!
You are completely oblivious to the point! We Sedevacantists do not CARE if he tries to overturn the "Church" with infallible pronouncements. He cannot, because he is not the head of the Catholic Church, but of his own Vatican Organization which is no longer associated with the Church.
THE POINT is that in their OWN magisterial docuмents, both before, and after their election, regardless of whether they intended to teach infallibly or not, the "Popes" (Patriarchs) of the Vatican World Church (Bogus Ordo) have revealed their Public, manifest, and notorious heresy.
Let's put a bow on it:
You admit they teach material heresy. You even grant a situation where they can be formal heretics. Yet, you say, contrary to the doctors of the Church, the theologians, and the truer and more common opinion, that they have basically incurred no penalty at all! They are free to teach, preach, judge rule and sanctify.
I got new for you pal: FALSE.
First, Heresy (a violation of the divine law in the external forum) is presumed to be offered maliciously. (Canon 2200)
Second, an act of Public defection from the faith by any cleric, is tacit resignation of office, and with it Jurisdiction (Canon 188.4).
Third, an excommunicate cannot exercise jurisdiction in the church: Pope Leo XIII, Satis Cognitum (#15), June 29, 1896: “No one, therefore, unless in communion with Peter can share in his authority, since it is absurd to imagine that he who is outside can command in the Church.”
Our Lord, in further addressing the Roman Pontiff through the words of the Book of the Apocalypse thus: I have against thee a few things (2.14), does not in any way betray him to be a fraud usurper of the throne. Rather, He urges the Roman Pontiff to exercise the fullness of his sovereign apostolic authority in putting order in the Church by fighting against the agents whom the father of lies sowed within.
Wow, talk about reading into a text. A text without a context is a pretext, as they say. Especially since it is not clear as to WHOM the letters are addressed in Apocalypse...
The confusion then of the Sedevacantist position with material and formal heresy does not lend any credence whatsoever to its arrogated juridical assertion that Pope John Paul II was a “heretic” and therefore had ceased to be a lawful visible head of the Church. Even on this point, Sedevacantists have lost ground on which they could attempt to extricate themselves from being subjects of the reigning Roman Pontiff and still claim that they are Catholics. What more to negate – as by force of necessary logical conclusion of their publicly avowed position – the indefectibility of the Church through the Roman Pontiff which is a guarantee of the Divine Lord and Master!
Wow, as stated above, indefectability has NOTHING to do with a vacancy.
Let me ask you, Christ made a covenant with King David right? Do you KNOW what was the nature of that covenant? That David would have perpetual successors to the kingly throne of Israel. Now the Church is the New Israel, right? And the kingdom of Christ is a Davidic Kingdom, right? That is why he calls himself the Son of David, and why scripture says he sits on the Throne of his father David.
Tell me, when The King of Judah was taken into exile in Babylon and DIED about 500 YEARS before Christ, what became of God's promise to David?
Did he lie?
Did he FAIL?
No. He preserved a blood line, from which are descended St. Joseph and the Blessed Virgin. And CHRIST HIMSELF is the Successor of David...500 years AFTER the last legitimate successor! What an interregnum, huh?!
Now if the Church is the New Israel, and, as Christ said, if a servant is not above his master...
Do the math.
Oh, hear is the common teaching on the issue by the theologians of the church:
I just want to make it clear to what extent the Church and her theologians have taught that a heretical Pope loses his office:
Proof:
A. Bull: cuм Ex Apostolatus [16 Feb. 1559], Pope Paul IV
— “Further, if ever it should appear that any bishop (even one acting as an archbishop, patriarch or primate), or a cardinal of the Roman Church, or a legate (as mentioned above), or even the Roman Pontiff (whether prior to his promotion to cardinal, or prior to his election as Roman Pontiff), has beforehand deviated from the Catholic faith or fallen into any heresy, We enact, decree, determine and define:
— “Such promotion or election in and of itself, even with the agreement and unanimous consent of all the cardinals, shall be null, legally invalid and void... Those so promoted or elected, by that very fact and without the need to make any further declaration, shall be deprived of any dignity, position, honor, title, authority, office and power.”
B. Si Papa [1198], Pope Innocent III
— “The Pope should not flatter himself about his power nor should he rashly glory in his honor and high estate, because the less he is judged by man, the more he is judged by God. Still the less can the Roman Pontiff glory because he can be judged by men, or rather, can be shown to be already judged, if for example he should wither away into heresy; because he who does not believe is already judged. In such a case it should be said of him: 'If salt should lose its savor, it is good for nothing but to be cast out and trampled under foot by men.’”
C. Institutiones Juris Canonici [1950] - Coronata
— “If indeed such a situation would happen, he [the Roman Pontiff] would, by divine law, fall from office without any sentence, indeed, without even a declaratory one. He who openly professes heresy places himself outside the Church, and it is not likely that Christ would preserve the Primacy of His Church in one so unworthy. Wherefore, if the Roman Pontiff were to profess heresy, before any condemnatory sentence (which would be impossible anyway) he would lose his authority.”
D. St. Robert Bellarmine [1610]
— “A Pope who is a manifest heretic automatically ceases to be a Pope and head, just as he ceases automatically to be a Christian and a member of the Church.”
E. St. Antoninus [1459]
— “In the case in which the Pope would become a heretic, he would find himself, by that very fact alone and without any other sentence, separated from the Church. A head separated from a body cannot, as long as it remains separated, be head of the same body from which it was cut off.”
F. St. Francis de Sales [1622]
— “Now when the Pope is explicitly a heretic, he falls ipso facto from his dignity and out of the Church ...”
G. Canon Law - [1943] - Wernz-Vidal
— “Through notorious and openly divulged heresy, the Roman Pontiff, should he fall into heresy, by that very fact (ipso facto) is deemed to be deprived of the power of jurisdiction even before any declaratory judgment by the Church ... A Pope who falls into public heresy would cease ipso facto to be a member of the Church; therefore, he would also cease to be head of the Church.
H. Introductio in Codicem [1946] - Udalricus Beste
— “Not a few canonists teach that, outside of death and abdication, the pontifical dignity can also be lost by falling into certain insanity, which is legally equivalent to death, as well as through manifest and notorious heresy. In the latter case, a pope would automatically fall from his power, and this indeed without the issuance of any sentence, for the first See (i.e., the See of Peter) is judged by no one ... The reason is that, by falling into heresy, the pope ceases to be a member of the Church. He who is not a member of a society, obviously, cannot be its head.”
I. Epitome Juris Canonici [1949] - A. Vermeersch
— “At least according to the more common teaching the Roman Pontiff as a private teacher can fall into manifest heresy. Then, without any declaratory sentence (for the supreme See is judged by no one), he would automatically (ipso facto) fall from power which he who is no longer a member of the Church is unable to possess.”
Topic: Refuting Friar John (Read 1055 times)