There's nothing in there from CMRI; it's simply a translation of Bellarmine.  So I have no doubt that you didn't even bother to click the link before denouncing it, since you rule out beforehand any arguments against your predetermined conclusions.

There's nothing in there from CMRI; it's simply a translation of Bellarmine.  So I have no doubt that you didn't even bother to click the link before denouncing it, since you rule out beforehand any arguments against your predetermined conclusions.

Despite your use of an obnoxiously large font, Billuart's position has to do with ordinary lower-level prelates, and not popes.  Take the case of Cardinal Cushing, for instance.  He was clearly a manifest heretic.  But the faithful are not obliged to avoid him, and he can retain a certain amount of jurisdiction and continue to exercise jurisdiction, though color of title, at the very least, until he would be deposed by Rome.

But the papacy is different:

1) because Popes receive their authority from Christ and
2) no one can judge or denounce or depose him

Billuart (and Pope Martin) were referring to jurisdiction with regard to receiving the Sacraments.  Thus, although Cushing was a manifest heretic, the priests appointed by Cushing would still retain jurisdiction to hear Confessions, for instance.  That's all that was in that text that you continue to misapply.

In his closing paragraph, Billuart admits that all that went before does not necessarily apply to the papacy (something you ignore), but then states that he believes God would continue to supply jurisdiction for the good of the Church.  But this is along the lines of the "color of title" position held by the sedevacantists, and would be limited to things like making appointments or jurisdiction for the reception of the Sacraments.

There's nothing in there from CMRI; it's simply a translation of Bellarmine.  So I have no doubt that you didn't even bother to click the link before denouncing it, since you rule out beforehand any arguments against your predetermined conclusions.

Despite your use of an obnoxiously large font, Billuart's position has to do with ordinary lower-level prelates, and not popes.  Take the case of Cardinal Cushing, for instance.  He was clearly a manifest heretic.  But the faithful are not obliged to avoid him, and he can retain a certain amount of jurisdiction and continue to exercise jurisdiction, though color of title, at the very least, until he would be deposed by Rome.

But the papacy is different:

1) because Popes receive their authority from Christ and
2) no one can judge or denounce or depose him

Billuart (and Pope Martin) were referring to jurisdiction with regard to receiving the Sacraments.  Thus, although Cushing was a manifest heretic, the priests appointed by Cushing would still retain jurisdiction to hear Confessions, for instance.  That's all that was in that text that you continue to misapply.

In his closing paragraph, Billuart admits that all that went before does not necessarily apply to the papacy (something you ignore), but then states that he believes God would continue to supply jurisdiction for the good of the Church.  But this is along the lines of the "color of title" position held by the sedevacantists, and would be limited to things like making appointments or jurisdiction for the reception of the Sacraments.

But the point is, if the sin of heresy, of its nature, severed a person from the Church, a person who committed the sin of heresy by an interior act alone would be severed from the Church.   The sin of heresy only severs the internal bonds that joins a person to the Church.  It does not sever the external bonds.  What severs the external bond is not a "public sin" of heresy, it is notorious heresy (and nothing less than notorious heresy); and notorious heresy severs the external bonds even if the person in question is not guilty of the sin.

None of the recent popes, including Francis, has come close to being a notorious heretic. 

Certainly the Mystici Corporis Christi statement about membership in the Church is quite in line with the teaching of the De ecclesia militante. According to Pope Pius XII, four factors alone are necessary in order that a man be counted as a member of the true Church. These are (1) the reception of baptism, and thus the possession of the baptismal character, (2) the profession of the true faith, which is, of course, the faith of the Catholic Church, (3) the fact that a person has not cut himself away from the structure or the fabric of the "Body," which is, of course, the Church itself, and (4) the fact that a person has not been expelled from the membership of the Church by competent ecclesiastical authority.

It is the nature of the third of these four factors which, in the context of the encyclical, is not completely clear. Very definitely a person would cut himself off from the structure of the ecclesiastical Body if he entered into a state of public heresy or apostasy. But that condition had already been taken care of in the naming of the second of the factors which the Mystici Corporis Christi lists as requisite for membership in the true Church. Very definitely the "cutting away" mentioned in the third point of this statement might involve entrance into the state of schism. But it could, of course, imply that some act against the spiritual or invisible bond of unity within the Church might also cut a person away from membership in the Church. The text of the Mystici Corporis Christi is not, in itself, sufficiently clear on this point.

Yet, over the course of the years, it has become increasingly obvious that the common teaching of the Catholic theologians holds that people are members of the Church or parts of the Church only by the possession of these visible or palpable factors. The term "member of the Church" can legitimately be applied only to those baptized persons who have not frustrated the force of their baptismal characters by public heresy or apostasy, or by schism, and who have not been expelled from the Church by competent ecclesiastical authority. The theological demonstration that backs up this thesis is still and always will be the "proof from reason" which St. Robert Bellarmine alleged in support of his teaching in the De ecclesia militante.11 More effectively, perhaps, than any other writer in the history of the Catholic Church, St. Robert pointed to the fact that the basic Catholic claim, that the Church militant according to the dispensation of the New Testament is essentially a visible Church, involves and includes the teaching that membership in the Church is possessed by all and only the people who have those factors which go to make up the visible or external bond of unity within the Church of God.

Therefore, the true opinion is the fifth, according to which the Pope who is manifestly a heretic ceases by himself to be Pope and head, in the same way as he ceases to be a Christian and a member of the body of the Church; and for this reason he can be judged and punished by the Church. This is the opinion of all the ancient Fathers, who teach that manifest heretics immediately lose all jurisdiction, and outstandingly that of St. Cyprian (lib. 4, epist. 2) who speaks as follows of Novatian, who was Pope [i.e. antipope] in the schism which occurred during the pontificate of St. Cornelius: “He would not be able to retain the episcopate [i.e. of Rome], and, if he was made bishop before, he separated himself from the body of those who were, like him, bishops, and from the unity of the Church.”

https://cmri.org/articles-on-the-traditional-catholic-faith/on-the-roman-pontiff/

St. Robert Bellarmine

De Romano Pontifice, lib. II, cap. 30

* December of 428: Nestorius began preaching his "new heresy" ("new heresy" is what the early canonists called a heresy that had not yet been the subject of a judgment by a council) that that Mary is not the Mother of God, but only the Mother of Christ.

* This resulted in a division between those who agreed with Nestorius and those who did not, with some of the latter being excommunicated by Nestorius and the bishops who sided with him.

* St. Cyril, Patriarch of Alexandria, sent Nestorius a formal warning informing him that his position was heretical.* Nestorius persisted in his error.* St. Cyril sent Nestorius a second formal warning.

* Nestorius continued to persist in his error.

* St. Cyril sent Nestorius a second formal warning.

* Nestorius continued to persist in his error.

* St. Cyril sent a letter to Pope Celestine to apprise him of the situation, and to inform him that he would not separate from communion with Nestorius without a judgment from the Pope.

* Pope Celestine convoked a council to consider the accusations against Nestorius.  The council met in August of 430 during which the writings of Nestorius were carefully examined and his errors condemned. Celestine wrote a letter to Nestorius advising him of the findings of the Council. The letter informed Nestorius that this was his third and final warning and gave him 10 days to recant.  If he failed to do so, he would cease to be in communion with the Church and would be ipso facto deposed.  Included with the letter were 12 propositions that Nestorius was required to affirm and profess.

Pius XII: "24. Let every one then abhor sin (peccatum), which defiles the mystical members of our Redeemer; but if anyone unhappily falls and his obstinacy has not made him unworthy of communion with the faithful, let him be received with great love, and let eager charity see in him a weak member of Jesus Christ. For, as the Bishop of Hippo remarks, it is better "to be cured within the Church's community than to be cut off from its body as incurable members. ' (August., Serm., CXXXVII)." 

If a person falls into sin without, yet is obstinacy has not made him unworthy of communion with the faithful (had retained the external bonds), he is to be received with greater love, for, as Augustine teaches, it is better "to be cured within the Church's community than to be cut off from its body as incurable members."

To gain insight into the mind of Pius XII, we should ask who St. Augustine was referring to in the quote he cited? Was he referring to someone who was only guilty of a moral offense, or was he referring to those who openly attacking the faith, and therefore have apparently fallen into the sin of heresy, yet remained in communion with the Church?  It was the latter.  In the quote Pius XII cited, the Bishop of Hippo is speaking of the Pelagians who had not yet separated from the Church and joined a Pelagian sect.  Here is the full quote in context:

St. August., Sermin, CXXXVII:  “But because he went off, having been found guilty and detested by the Church rather than corrected and subdued, I was afraid that it was perhaps he himself who was trying to disturb your faith, and for this reason I thought I should mention his name.  But it makes no difference whether it is he or others who partake of his error.  For there are more than we would expect. And where they are not refuted, they win over others to their sect, and they are becoming so numerous that I do not know where they will turn up.  Yet we prefer that they be healed within the framework of the Church rather than cut off from its body like incurable members, at least if the very gravity of the situation permits this.”

So, when Pius XII said "if anyone unhappily falls and his obstinacy has not made him unworthy of communion with the faithful, let him be received with great love, and let eager charity see in him a weak member of Jesus Christ," he was including those who fall into errors against the faith, and who spread them openly.  As long as they remain within the framework of the Church, they remain part of the Church's body.  And remaining part of the body suffices for a person to hold office in the Church.

21. August., Epist., CLVII, 3, 22: Migne, P.L., XXXIII, 686.

22. August., Serm., CXXXVII, 1: Migne, P.L., XXXVIII, 754.

22. We have said much about these questions in our other works and sermons in church, because there were also among us certain persons who sowed these new seeds of their error wherever they could, some of whom the mercy of the Lord healed from that disease through our ministry and that of our brothers. And I suspect that there are still some here, especially in Carthage, but they now whisper in hiding, fearing the most well-founded faith of the Church. For in the church of the same city one of them by the name of Caelestius had already deviously begun to seek the honor of the priesthood, but he was brought by the solid faith and freedom of the brothers straight to an episcopal court on account of these discourses opposed to the grace of Christ.17 He was, however, forced to confess that infants must be baptized because they too need redemption.

Although at the time he refused to say there anything more explicit about original sin, he did, nonetheless, do considerable harm to his position by the mention of redemption. After all, from what did they need to be redeemed except from the power of the devil in which they could not have been except by the bonds of sin? Or at what price are they redeemed except by the blood of Christ, of which scripture stated most clearly that it was shed for the forgiveness of sins?18 But because he went off, having been found guilty and detested by the Church rather than corrected and subdued, I was afraid that it was perhaps he himself there who was trying to disturb your faith, and for this reason I thought I should mention his name.

But it makes no difference whether it is he or others who partake of his error. For there are more than we would expect. And where they are not refuted, they win over others to their sect, and they are becoming so numerous that 1 do not know where they will turn up. Yet we prefer that they be healed within the framework of the Church rather than cut off from its body like incurable members, at least if the very gravity of the situation permits this.

For we have to fear that more may begin to go bad if the rottenness is spared. But the mercy of our Lord, which would rather set them free from this plague, is able to do so. And it will undoubtedly do this if they faithfully pay attention to and hold what scripture says: He who calls upon the Lord will be saved (Jl 2:32).

To Hilary, his blessed lord and venerable brother in the truth of Christ and fellow priest, Augustine sends greetings in the Lord.

1 . Since our honorable son, Palladius, was setting sail from our shore when he asked for a favor, he bestowed on me an even greater one. For he asked that I not only commend him to Your Grace but also that I commend myself to your prayers, my blessed lord and venerable brother in the love of Christ. When I do this, Your Holiness will, of course, do what we both hope for from you. Your Holiness will hear from the courier whom I mentioned about our situation, since I know that in your love for us you are concerned about us, just as we are concerned about you in our love for you. Now I shall mention briefly what is most necessary. A certain new heresy inimical to the grace of Christ is trying to rise up in opposition to the Church of Christ but has not yet been clearly separated from the Church. This heresy arises from human beings who dare to attribute so much power to human weakness as to claim that the only things that pertain to the grace of God are our having been created with free choice and the ability not to sin and our having received from God commandments that we can fulfill. But they claim that we do not need any help from God to keep and fulfill the commandments. They admit that we need the forgiveness of sins because we are not able to undo the wrong actions that we did in the past. But they say that the human will is by its natural ability, without the help of the grace of God, sufficient from then on, thanks to virtue, for avoiding and conquering future sins and overcoming all temptations. They claim that even infants do not need the grace of the savior in order to be set free from perdition through baptism, since they contracted no infection of sin from Adam.

2. Your Reverence sees perfectly well, along with us, how inimical this idea is to the grace of God that has been granted to the human race through Jesus Christ our Lord and how they are trying to overthrow the foundations of the whole Christian faith. Nor ought we to be silent with you about how, with pastoral concern, you should watch out for such people whom we want and desire to be healed in the Church rather than cut off from it.

For, when I was writing this, I learned that in the church of Carthage a decree of the council of bishops was drawn up against them to be sent by letter to the holy and venerable Pope Innocent, and we ourselves have also likewise written to the same Apostolic See concerning the council of Numidia.1

3. For all of us who have hope in Christ ought to resist this pestilential impiety and with one heart condemn and anathematize it. It contradicts even our prayers when it allows us to say, Forgive us our debts as we alsoforgive our debtors (Mt 6: 1 2), but allows it in such a way as to claim that a human being in this corruptible body, which weighs down the soul,2 can by his own strength attain such great righteousness that it is not necessary to say, Forgive us our debts. But they do not accept the words that follow, Bring us not into temptation (Mt 6: 13), in the sense that we should pray to God in order that he may help us to overcome temptations to sins but in order that no human misfortune may attack our body and afflict us, since it already lies in our power to conquer temptations to sins by the ability ofour nature, so that we should think that it is useless to ask for this by prayers. We cannot in one short letter gather together all or even most of the arguments of so great an impiety, especially since, when I was writing these ideas, the couriers who were about to set sail did not allow me to delay longer. I think, however, that I have not been a burden to your eyes because I could not be silent about avoiding so great an evil with all vigilance and with the help of the Lord.

The more freely We embraced a program of complete moderation, the more we foresaw that, in order to reconcile souls and bring them to the unity of spirit in the bond of peace (which, we are glad to say, has by God’s favor already happily occurred in many), it would be of enormous assistance to be prepared in case pertinacious sectarians of the synod — if any, God forbid, still remain, — should be free in the future to bring in as allies Catholic schools and make them partners of their own just condemnation in order to set in motion new disturbances: They endeavor to entice to their side the clearly unwilling and resistant schools by a kind of distorted likeness of similar terms, even though the schools profess expressly different opinions. Then, if any previously imagined, milder opinion about the synod has hitherto escaped the notice of these imprudent men, let every opportunity of complaining still be closed to them. If they are sound in doctrine, as they wish to seem, they cannot take it hard that the teachings identified in this manner — teachings that exhibit errors from which they claim to be entirely distant — stand condemned.

Yet We did not think that We had sincerely proved our mildness, or more correctly, the charity that impels us toward our brother, whom we wish to assist by every means, if We may still be able.[9] Indeed, We are impelled by the charity that moved our predecessor Celestine.[10] He did not refuse to wait with a greater patience than what seemed to be called for, even against what the law demanded, for priests [=bishops] to mend their ways. For we, along with Augustine and the Fathers of Milevis, prefer and desire that men who teach perverse things be healed in the Church by pastoral care rather than be cut off from Her without hope of salvation, if necessity does not force one to act. [11]

Therefore, so as it should not appear that any effort to win over a brother was overlooked, before We progressed further, We thought to summon the aforementioned bishop to Us by means of very cordial letters written to him at our request, promising that we would receive him with good will and that he would not be barred from freely and openly declaring what seemed to him to meet the needs of his interests. In truth, We had not lost all hope of the possibility that, if he possessed that teachable mind, which Augustíne[12], following the Apostle, required above all else in a bishop, as soon as the chief points of doctrine under dispute, which seemed worthy of greater consideration, were proposed to him simply and candidly, without contention and rancor, then almost beyond a doubt he could, upon reflection, more reasonably explain what had been proposed ambiguously and openly repudiate the notions displaying manifest perversity. And so, with his name held in high regard amid the delighted acclaim of all good men, the turmoil aroused in the Church would be restrained as peaceably as possible by means of a much-desired correction.[13]


[11] Epistle 176, no. 4; 178, no. 2 in the Maurist edition.

The tenth chapter of the Gospel of John. Of the shepherd, and the hireling, and the thief.

1. Your faith, dearly beloved, is not ignorant, and I know that you have so learned by the teaching of that Master from heaven, in whom you have placed your hope, that our Lord Jesus Christ, who has now suffered for us and risen again, is the Head of the Church, and the Church is His Body, and that in His Body the unity of the members and the bond of charity is, as it were, its sound health. But whosoever grows cold in charity, has become enfeebled in the Body of Christ. But He who has already exalted our Head, is able also to make even the feeble members whole; provided, that is, that they be not cut off by excessive impiety, but adhere to the Body until they be made whole. For whatsoever yet adheres to the body, is not beyond hope of healing; whereas that which has been cut off, can neither be in process of curing, nor be healed. Since then He is the Head of the Church, and the Church is His Body, Whole Christ is both the Head and the Body. He has already risen again. We have therefore the Head in heaven. Our Head intercedes for us. Our Head without sin and without death, now propitiates God for our sins; that we too at the end rising again, and changed into heavenly glory, may follow our Head. For where the Head is, there are the rest of the members also. But while we are here, we are members; let us not despair, for we shall follow our Head.

24. Let every one then abhor sin, which defiles the mystical members of our Redeemer; but if anyone unhappily falls and his obstinacy has not made him unworthy of communion with the faithful, let him be received with great love, and let eager charity see in him a weak member of Jesus Christ. For, as the Bishop of Hippo remarks, it is better "to be cured within the Church's community than to be cut off from its body as incurable members."[21] "As long as a member still forms part of the body there is no reason to despair of its cure; once it has been cut off, it can be neither cured nor healed." [22]


21. August., Epist., CLVII, 3, 22: Migne, P.L., XXXIII, 686.

22. August., Serm., CXXXVII, 1: Migne, P.L., XXXVIII, 754.

But He who has already exalted our Head, is able also to make even the feeble members whole; provided, that is, that they be not cut off by excessive impiety, but adhere to the Body until they be made whole. For whatsoever yet adheres to the body, is not beyond hope of healing; whereas that which has been cut off, can neither be in process of curing, nor be healed.

Have you remained under the Church's "teaching power and external rule and government"?  If not, unlike the Pelagian heretics St. Augustine spoke of, you have cut yourself off from the framework and body of the Church, and hence are not "in the process of curing, nor [can] be healed."