Catholic Info
Traditional Catholic Faith => SSPX Resistance News => Topic started by: Louis on May 07, 2014, 07:07:58 PM
-
(Sorry but I had the repost my comments, its was drowned in another discussion)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iWT2Xe32sdI
Fr Pfeiffer sermon is no good at all! During this sermon, Fr. says many errors and calumnies that were refuted before and during the Vatican Council (1870) by great Catholic authors.
I give you an example. Between 18:27 and 19:27, Fr. is talking about the denial of Saint Peter explaining that the first Pope denied Our Lord, so a pope can fell in heresy. That is not true! This is a calumny that was refuted many times before and Fr. Pfeiffer is refuted by the great Dom Guéranger in his book the The Papal Monarchy
This book is not just merely an opinion. It was giving a brief by Pius IX himself saying:
"Brief from Pope Pius IX
To Our dear son Prosper Guéranger, of the Benedictine Congregation of France, Abbot of Solesmes
PIUS IX, SUPREME PONTIFF.
Dear son, greetings and Our apostolic blessing (...)
(...) For this reason they boldly advance certain pernicious doctrines which have been condemned repeatedly, as if there could be no doubt about them, or as though they could be freely taught, at least; from old proponents of these doctrines they scrape together historical quibbles, mutilated passages, calumnies hurled at the Roman Pontiffs, and all sorts of sophistries. With the utmost impudence they bring all these things up again, completely setting aside the solid arguments with which they have been refuted a hundred times. Their purpose is to agitate minds and to incite the men of their faction and the ignorant crowd against the general consensus of the others."
You can read the brief of the Pope on this link:
http://www.loretopubs.org/papal-monarchy-the.html
I didn't find the book in English on the web, but in French at page 97-98 Dom Guéranger refute this Gallican lie that Saint Peter the Pope denied Jesus because he was no Pope at that time, he had only the promise of the Papacy.
Our Lord talk to him in the future when saying: "And I say to thee: That thou art Peter; and upon this rock I will build my church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it." Saint Peter was officially Pope after the Resurrection when Our Lord talks to him at the present tense: " Feed my lambs, Feed my sheep".
For those knowing French:
http://www.liberius.net/livres/De_la_monarchie_pontificale_000000116.pdf
Never, before 1958, did a Pope been an heretic. If someone says so it is because they are repeating lies and calumnies that was first invented by the Schismatic Greeks, repeated by the Renaissance men, the Encyclopedists of the XVIIIth century and the Gallicans and sadly by the SSPX today. I never read or heard Archbishop Lefebvre saying those refuted calumnies, but the SSPX has always been more liberal that its founder!
-
I must say, I'm not sure if starting ANOTHER thread about this is a great idea...
-
I don't know? Was it so "outstanding" as to warrant another thread?
-
It seems to me that St. Peter denying Our Lord was a sin, not a heresy anyway.
-
He also once said that St. Peter cutting off the guards ear was somehow equivalent to heresy since he removed his ability to hear the truth (apparently he doesn't understand that one can still hear with one functioning and one mutilated ear). I found that rather strange.
-
Actually, the SSPX have several reports about Galican errors. They don't promote or accept Galican errors at all.
-
Actually, the SSPX have several reports about Galican errors. They don't promote or accept Galican errors at all.
Centroamerica, just read the book The Papal Monarchy of Dom Guéranger and you will tell me after that if the SSPX or the "Resistance" don't promote or accept Gallican errors at all.
How can you be wrong with this book?
"Therefore, in Our estimation, you have rendered an extremely useful service to the Church by undertaking to refute the main propositions in writings of that sort, and by demonstrating their hostile, impetuous, and contrived character; you have accomplished this with such solid arguments, such brilliance, and such an abundance of evidence drawn from sacred antiquity and ecclesiastical science, that – conveying many things in few words – you have proved empty the pretense of wisdom of those who have wrapped their opinions in ignorant talk. In re-establishing the truth of the Faith, of right reason, and of history, you have acted in the interests of believers, whether learned or uneducated. We express therefore Our gratitude to you for the gift of this volume, and We predict an auspicious and very wide circulation of the work which you have produced by lamplight. As an augury of this success and as a pledge of Our paternal benevolence, We impart to you with great affection Our apostolic blessing.
Given in Rome, at the Basilica of St. Peter, March 12, 1870, the twenty-fourth year of Our Pontificate.
PIUS PP. IX"
A better idea, make it a gift for a priest or a Bishop that you know and respect, it will be a great act of Charity.
http://www.loretopubs.org/papal-monarchy-the.html
-
Actually, the SSPX have several reports about Galican errors. They don't promote or accept Galican errors at all.
Centroamerica, just read the book The Papal Monarchy of Dom Guéranger and you will tell me after that if the SSPX or the "Resistance" don't promote or accept Gallican errors at all.
How can you be wrong with this book?
"Therefore, in Our estimation, you have rendered an extremely useful service to the Church by undertaking to refute the main propositions in writings of that sort, and by demonstrating their hostile, impetuous, and contrived character; you have accomplished this with such solid arguments, such brilliance, and such an abundance of evidence drawn from sacred antiquity and ecclesiastical science, that – conveying many things in few words – you have proved empty the pretense of wisdom of those who have wrapped their opinions in ignorant talk. In re-establishing the truth of the Faith, of right reason, and of history, you have acted in the interests of believers, whether learned or uneducated. We express therefore Our gratitude to you for the gift of this volume, and We predict an auspicious and very wide circulation of the work which you have produced by lamplight. As an augury of this success and as a pledge of Our paternal benevolence, We impart to you with great affection Our apostolic blessing.
Given in Rome, at the Basilica of St. Peter, March 12, 1870, the twenty-fourth year of Our Pontificate.
PIUS PP. IX"
A better idea, make it a gift for a priest or a Bishop that you know and respect, it will be a great act of Charity.
http://www.loretopubs.org/papal-monarchy-the.html
Define Galican errors. :detective:
-
The Gallican errors or to be more precise the Gallican error and the falses calumnies of the "fallen" Popes in history (Saint Peter, Liberius, Honorius, Jean XXII, etc.) that goes with it could be resume like this:
The Vicar of Christ has no role to play in the Church, it becomes a minor detail since we resist him. Worse, the Pope is constantly judged and criticized by all: bishops, priests and faithful. It is a doctrine brought up by the enemies of the Church. In the French speaking world it is often called Gallican because it was strong in France in the XVIIth-XIXth century. To be more clear we can call it by his name: anti infallibilism.
"In the Church, the supreme teacher is the Roman Pontiff. The union of minds therefore calls with perfect agreement in the same faith, perfect submission and obedience of will to the Church and to the Roman Pontiff, as to God Himself.
Obedience must be perfect, because it belongs to the essence of faith"
Pope Leo XIII, Encyclical Sapientiae christianae, 1890
-
"In the Church, the supreme teacher is the Roman Pontiff. The union of minds therefore calls with perfect agreement in the same faith, perfect submission and obedience of will to the Church and to the Roman Pontiff, as to God Himself.
Obedience must be perfect, because it belongs to the essence of faith"
Pope Leo XIII, Encyclical Sapientiae christianae, 1890
This is really important. Because if we don't get it right about our attitude and belief about the Pope we could easily not make it to heaven. The pope is supreme and we owe him perfect obedience. The men in the vatican since 1958 are anti-popes. Just read the early church writings before 1900 - there is a lot because Vat 1 was in the 1870's and it puts the lie to the SSPX view.
Father Pfeiffer is "bending over backwards" trying to support an erroneous view, which the Archbishop never did.
-
"Gallicanism
Gallicanism: This term is used to designate a certain group of religious opinions for some time peculiar to the Church of France, or Gallican Church, and the theological schools of that country. These opinions, in opposition to the ideas which were called in France “Ultramontane,” tended chiefly to a restraint of the pope’s authority in the Church in favor of that of the bishop and the temporal ruler.[25]
These ideas stemmed from times when the popes made concessions to Pepin and Charles the Great in the ruling of the Church in their countries which were to be exercised only under papal control.[26] These ideals were brought forward and promoted more to promote an argument than as a “deliberate opinion maturely conceived and conscious of its own meaning.”[27]
The first glimmerings of the Gallican ideas surfaced during the conflict between Philip the Fair and Boniface VIII in the 1300’s.[28] In 1681 a General Assembly of the French clergy summoned by Louis XIV, King of France, obtained the “Declaration of the Four Articles,” known as the Four Gallican Propositions, namely that:
The pope may not interfere directly or indirectly with the temporal concerns of princes.
In spiritual matters a General Council is superior to the pope.
The rights and customs of the Gallican church are inviolable.
The Pope is not infallible, even in matters of Faith, unless his decision is confirmed by the consent of the Church.[29]
From the second proposition or ideal came the idea that a pope can be judged by a council and of course if a council can judge the pope then so can individuals because individuals make up the councils. This Gallican proposition is the tap root of sedevacantism:
Stricken to death, as a free opinion, by the Council of the Vatican (I), Gallicanism could survive only as a heresy; the Old Catholics have endeavored to keep it alive under this form.[30]
It is from the roots of the Old Catholics that some of today’s sedevacantist bishops come."
http://archives.sspx.org/miscellaneous/sedevacantism/is_sedevacantism_catholic_part_3.htm
-
Sorry, Centro,
The root of that refusal to accept false leaders, which you have loosely termed
Sedevacantism, is to be found in the command of Jesus Christ to declare anathema on those, even those coming dressed up as angels of heaven, who preach a gospel different from that which Christ taught. The propelling reality, or immediate cause, is the fact that these imposters in Rome are, in fact, preaching a gospel worlds different from that which Christ taught.
As the six bishops of Lvov, Ukraine declared in 2012-- Benedict XVI separated himself from the Catholic Church-- he foisted excommunication upon himself as a result of his open and notorious heresies. And Francis is certainly no better.
-
Sorry, Centro,
The root of that refusal to accept false leaders, which you have loosely termed
Sedevacantism, is to be found in the command of Jesus Christ to declare anathema on those, even those coming dressed up as angels of heaven, who preach a gospel different from that which Christ taught. The propelling reality, or immediate cause, is the fact that these imposters in Rome are, in fact, preaching a gospel worlds different from that which Christ taught.
As the six bishops of Lvov, Ukraine declared in 2012-- Benedict XVI separated himself from the Catholic Church-- he foisted excommunication upon himself as a result of his open and notorious heresies. And Francis is certainly no better.
I am quoting a source only and not stating my opinions regarding the sede vacate thesis.
-
Some people are so zealous to defend and debate sedevacantism that they begin to to defend and debate it with someone who is not even arguing the issue.
-
Pius IX: "If a future Pope teaches anything contrary to the Catholic Faith, do not follow him." (Letter to Bishop Brizen). What now?
-
That the pope can err while not defining in matters of faith and morals for the universal Church, and that he may be resisted when he seeks to impose his error on the faithful, is something saints and theologians have taught. St Bellarmine, a favorite of the sedecavantists, even attest to this fact.
One citation will suffice as an example, a passage from St. Robert Bellarmine: “Just as it is lawful to resist the pope that attacks the body, it is also lawful to resist the one who attacks the soul or who disturbs civil order, or, above all, who attempts to destroy the Church . I say that it is lawful to resist him by not doing what he orders and preventing his will from being executed” ( De Romano Pontifice , Lib . II, Ch. 29).
-
I am quoting a source only and not stating my opinions regarding the sede vacate thesis.
Some people are so zealous to defend and debate sedevacantism that they begin to to defend and debate it with someone who is not even arguing the issue.
Yes! This happened to me the other day, somewhat. I simply posted a docuмent I thought someone was looking for, and got the impression some took that to be arguing for one side or another.
-
Some people are so zealous to defend and debate sedevacantism that they begin to to defend and debate it with someone who is not even arguing the issue.
True
-
"The opinion according to which the pope, in virtue of his
infallibility, is an unlimited and absolute Sovereign, supposes a totally
erroneous conception of the dogma of papal infallibility. Thus, as the
[First Vatican Council] declared in clear and explicit terms, and as the
nature of things itself shows, this infallibility is confined to that which
is proper to the supreme pontifical Magisterium, which in truth coincides
with the limits of the infallible Magisterium of the Church generally, which
is limited by the doctrine contained in Sacred Scripture and Tradition, as by
the definitions already pronounced by the Magisterium of the Church. ("A
Collective Declaration of the German Bishops," confirmed by Pope Pius IX)
-
Pius IX: "If a future Pope teaches anything contrary to the Catholic Faith, do not follow him." (Letter to Bishop Brizen). What now?
You quote that of Fr Boulet gallican text I presume? The one in which he quote a book put on the Index by Saint Pius X about a pseudo quote of Adrian VI?
http://fsspx.com/Communicantes/Dec2004/Is_That_Chair_Vacant.htm
This is the decree that put the book of Fr Viollet on the index of forbidden books
« La Sacrée Congrégation des Éminentissimes et Révérndissimes cardinaux de la Sainte Église, préposés et délégués par Notre Très Saint Père le Pape Pie X et le Saint-Siège apostolique à l’indication des livres contenant une doctrine mauvaise, à leur proscription, à leur expurgation et à la permission de les lire dans tout l’univers chrétien, réunie dans le palais apostolique du Vatican, le 5 avril 1906, a condamné et condamne, a proscrit, et a ordonné et ordonne d’ajouter à l’Index des livres défendues les ouvrages suivants : Paul Viollet, L’infaillibilité du Pape et le Syllabus. Étude historique et théologique. Besançon-Paris, 1904. C’est pourquoi, que nul, de n’importe quel grade ou condition, n’édite à l’avenir, en n’importe quel lieu et en n’importe quelle langue, les œuvres susdites, condamnés et proscrites, ne les lise et n’ose les garder, sous les peines indiquées dans l’Index des livres défendus.
Sur l’ordre de Notre Saint Père le Pape Pie X, je, secrétaire, ai relaté tout ce qui précède. Sa Sainteté a approuvé le décret et a ordonné de le promulguer. »
Donné à Rome le 5 avril 1906.
André, card. Steinhuber, Préfet.
Source : Actes de Pie X, t. II, p. 304
The same research has been done on the infamous Pius IX quote to a certain Bishop Brizen... no bishop Brizen was found in the XIXth century and Fr Boulet don't mention any reference, just the quote.
Here is a translation of a commentary on a French site to this Gallican invention:
"Astonishing statement of the Pope who promulgated the dogma of papal infallibility!
It would be a letter that Pope Pius IX had sent to a Bishop Brizen. Again, no reference given. Nothing surprising since, after extensive research, we find no evidence at all of a Bishop Brizen in the nineteenth century! In contrast, under the pontificate of Pius IX, a diocese was name "Brixen" diocese who had two bishops: Bernhard Galura (possibly from 1829 to 1856) and Bishop Vinzenz Gasser (possibly from 1856 to 1879)."
http://wordpress.catholicapedia.net/wp-content/uploads/2013/11/Un_terrible_chatiment.pdf?88c407
When I said earlier than gallicans twist the history to try to find an heretic pope... but they can't find one :pop:
-
No, it was in a sedvacant website: http://www.traditio.com/tradlib/popelim.txt
What about the second quote?
"The opinion according to which the pope, in virtue of his
infallibility, is an unlimited and absolute Sovereign, supposes a totally
erroneous conception of the dogma of papal infallibility. Thus, as the
[First Vatican Council] declared in clear and explicit terms, and as the
nature of things itself shows, this infallibility is confined to that which
is proper to the supreme pontifical Magisterium, which in truth coincides
with the limits of the infallible Magisterium of the Church generally, which
is limited by the doctrine contained in Sacred Scripture and Tradition, as by
the definitions already pronounced by the Magisterium of the Church. ("A
Collective Declaration of the German Bishops," confirmed by Pope Pius IX)
-
Traditio is not a serious site, it is McDonald's theology.
Don't quote something out in the air. Show me the book where it is taken. Quotes are easy to falsified, changing a word, putting a coma where it didn't belong. That quote is wind.
-
This was written a few years after the First Vatican Council declared papal infallibility. It has the imprimatur and 2 theologians recommended this book for it's accuracy.
Familiar Explanation of Christian Doctrine
by Rev. Michael Müller, C.SS.R.
Adapted for the Family and More Advanced Students in Catholic Schools and Colleges. with the Approbation of the Sacred Congregation for the Propagation of the Faith
No. III.
Benziger Brothers: New York, 1876 Printers to the Holy Apostolic See
Nihil Obstat:
Joseph Helmpraecht, C.SS.R.
Baltimore, MD., 24 Sept., 1874
Imprimatur:
J. Roosevelt Bayley
Archiep. Baltimorensis
Baltimore, 24 Sept., 1874
copyright. M. Muller. 1876
Lesson IV.—Infallibility of the Pope
Q. Did our Blessed Saviour foresee that certain men would corrupt or misinterpret His holy Doctrine?
A. He did.
Q. When certain men either corrupted or misinterpreted Christ's holy Doctrine, what was necessary to remove all doubts about its true meaning, and preserve it always pure and uncorrupted?
A. That there should be one particularly priviledged by God to set forth and state plainly with divine certainty the true meaning of Christ's doctrine in all questions where His doctrine was concerned.
Q. What do we call such a priviledged person?
A. The supreme judge in all points of divine law, from whose sentences there is no appeal.
Q. Why is such a judge necessary?
A. To put an end to all disputes about points of divine law.
Q. How so?
A. If every man in the country were to take the laws of the State, and to explain them as he pleased, there would be nothing but confusion and disorder in society. In like manner, if every man were to take the sacred, eternal law of God, the doctrine of Jesus Christ, and to interpret it as he pleased, there would be nothing but confusion in religion.
Q. What safeguard has human wisdom adopted to prevent confusion and disorder in society?
A. It has found it necessary to appoint a supreme judge to decide ultimately in all disputed points of civil law.
Q. What is the plain inference from this?
A. That if even human wisdom sees the necessity of appointing a supreme judge to decide ultimately in all points of civil law, it cannot be supposed that God, who is InfiniteWisdom, should neglect to appoint a supreme judge to decide ultimately in all points of divine law, in order thus to prevent all confusion in religion.
Q. What safeguard has human wisdom adopted to prevent confusion and disorder in society?
A. It has found it necessary to appoint a supreme judge to decide ultimately in all disputed points of civil law.
Q. What is the plain inference from this?
A. That if even human wisdom sees the necessity of appointing a supreme judge to decide ultimately in all points of civil law, it cannot be supposed that God, who is Infinite Wisdom, should neglect to appoint a supreme judge to decide ultimately in all points of divine law, in order thus to prevent all confusion in religion.
Q. Was there ever a time when men were left to themselves, to fashion their own religion, to invent their own creed, their own form of worship, and to decide in matters of religion?
A. No; there always existed on earth a visible teaching authority, to which it was a bounden duty of every man to submit.
Q. Whom did God appoint to be this visible teaching authority before the coming of the Redeemer?
A. During the four thousand years that elapsed before the coming of the Redeemer, the doctrines that were to be believed, the feasts that were to be observed, the sacrifices, the ceremonies of worship, everything was regulated by the living, authoritative voice of the patriarchs, the priests, and the prophets.
Q. How do we know that God in the Old Law appointed a tribunal, presided over by the High-Priest, to judge in all controversies, both of doctrine and morals, and from whose decision there was no appeal?
A. The Jєωιѕн historian, Josephus, who was well aquainted with the laws and religion of his own nation, says: "The High-Priest offers sacrifice to God before the other priests; he guards the laws, judges controversies, punishes the guilty, and whoever disobeys him is punished as one that is impious towards God." Lib. 2, Contra Appium.
Q. Is there still a greater authority than Josephus bearing witness to the fact?
A. Yes; the Word of God itself bears witness to the fact. "If thou perceive," says holy Scripture, "that there be among you a hard and doubtful matter in judgment between blood and blood, cause and cause, and thou seest that the words of the judges within the gates do vary, arise and go up to the place which the Lord thy God shall choose. And thou shalt come to the priests, and to the judge that shall be at that time, and thou shalt ask them, and they shall show thee the truth of the judgment. And thou shalt do whatsoever they shall say, and thou shalt follow their sentence. Neither shalt thou decline to the right hand nor to the left hand. Nut he that will be proud and refuse to obey the commandments of the priest, who ministereth at the time to the Lord thy God, and to the decree of the judge, that man shall die, and thou shalt take away the evil from Israel." Deut. xvii. 8-12.
Q. What do we see from this?
A. Here we see clearly a tribunal appointed by Almighty God Himself to decide in the last resort; a tribunal from whose sentence there is no appeal. There is no exception, the rule is for all, the terrible sentence is pronounced against every transgressor. Whosoever shall refuse to abide by the decision of the High-Priest shall die the death.
Q. How long did this tribunal remain intact?
A. Until the coming of the Saviour
.
Q. Who assures us of this?
A. Our Blessed Redeemer Himself, in these words: "The Scribes and Pharisees have sat in the chair of Moses. All things therefore whatsoever they shall say to you, observe and do." Matt. xxiii. 2.
Q. Now, did our Lord Jesus Christ establish a supreme tribunal; did He give to the world and infallible judge and teacher, to decide ultimately in all controversies, both of faith and morals, whose decision is final, and without appeal?
A. Our Blessed Saviour came not to destroy the Law, but to make it perfect. He therefore established in the New Law that which the Old Law was most necessary for the preservation of faith and morals. He gave to the whole world an infallible judge and teacher, to decide ultimately in all points of faith and morals.
Q. Whom did Jesus Christ appoint as the infallible judge and teacher in all points of faith and morals?
A. St. Peter, the Head of His Church.
Q. Were not all the successors of the Apostles to possess the gift of infallibility?
A. No; the successor of St. Peter, the Pope of Rome, only.
Q. How do we know that the successors of the other Apostles, the Catholic Bishops, were not endowed with the gift of infallibility?
A. Because Jesus Christ never promised it to them.
Q. How do we know that Jesus Christ never promised it to them?
A. Because no such promise is recorded either in Holy Scripture or tradition.
Q. Why did Christ not promise to the Bishops the gift of infallibility?
A. Because He does not multiply and dispense His gifts without necessity.
Q. Was not the gift of infallibility necessary to the Bishops?
A. By no means.
Q. Why not?
A. Because after the Apostles had preached the full doctrine of Christ, their successors had only to guard this doctrine, and deliver it uncorrupted to the faithful.
Q. What does the Apostle St. Paul write to the Bishop St. Timothy on this subject?
A. "Keep that which is committed to thy trust, avoiding the profane novelties of words, and oppositions of knowledge falsely so called." (1 Tim. vi. 20, and 2 Tim. i. 14.) "But evil men and seducers shall grow worse and worse, erring and driving into error. But continue thou in those things which thou hast learned, and which have been committed to thee." 2 Tim. iii. 13.
Q. But did not Christ promise the Apostles and their successors: "The Holy Ghost, the Spirit of Truth, shall be in you, and abide with you forever"? John xiv. 16.
A. He did so promise.
Q. If, then, according to this promise, the Spirit of Truth shall abide forever with the successors of the Apostles, are they not personally infallible?
A. By no means.
Q. Why not?
A. The Spirit of Truth may abide in a person, and yet that person may not be infallible. The Spirit of Truth may abide in a multitude, and yet not each individual of the multitude may possess it in its entirety.
Q. Give an example.
A. A million men may not know the road to a certain city to which they must go. A single guide suffices to set this million on the right road. Once on it, they have only to follow their guide and they cannot go astray. Once the way is pointed out, all know it to be right, but only one could point out the right road to be followed.
Q. Do you mean that Christ wished that in this same manner the Spirit of Truth should abide with the Catholic Bishops?
A. Precisely so; for Christ gave them and all the faithful, in the person of the Head of His Church, an infallible teacher of all the truths which He and His Apostles taught. By invariably following this teacher the Spirit of Truth will always abide with them.
Q. How do we know that the Pope as successor to St. Peter possesses the gift of infallibility?
A. Christ Himself assured St. Peter and his successors of this.
Q. On what occasion?
A. When He told St. Peter that by His prayer to His heavenly Father He had obtained this gift of infallibility for him and all his successors. "I have prayed for thee (Peter) that thy faith fail not, and thou being once converted, confirm thy brethren." Luke xxii. 31, 32.
Q. Why did Christ pray to His Father that St. Peter and his successors should be endowed with the gift of infallibility?
A. Because Christ wished that the never-failing faith of St. Peter and his successors should be forever the foundation-stone of His Church.
Q. On what occasion did Christ assure us of this?
A. When He asked the Apostles: "Whom do you say that I am?" Matt. xvi. 15.
Q.Which of the Apostles made answer to this question?
A. St. Peter.
Q. What was his answer?
A. "Thou art Christ, the Son of the living God."
Q. What answer did Christ make to this reply of St. Peter?
A. He said: "Blessed art thou, Simon Bar Jona: because flesh and blood hath not revealed it to thee, but my Father who is in heaven. And I say to thee: that thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my Church."
Q. What is the meaning of these words of our Lord?
A. Jesus Christ means to say that, as it is My Father who has made known to you, Peter, that I am His Son, I also make known to the whole world, that you and your successors will always know and understand who I am, and what I have taught.
Q. When did Christ build His Church upon Peter, that is, intrust him with the whole flock?
A. When He said to him: "Feed my lambs, feed my sheep." John xxi. 16.
Q. What is the meaning of this?
A. Christ says that His whole flock, teachers and hearers, priests and people, rulers and subjects, must believe and teach as Peter and his successors believe and teach.
Q. Why?
A. Because his faith, according to Christ's solemn words, shall not fail, since no power shall prevail against Peter or any of his successors so as to cause them to teach anything else than what Christ has taught. "The gates of hell shall not prevail against my Church," built upon Peter's faith. Matt. xvi. 18.
Q. What follows from this?
A. That where Peter, that is, the Pope, is, there is the Church of Christ, or in other words, that all those who believe and teach as the Pope does, form the true Church of Christ. St. Ambrose.
Q. Who, by his own motion, often condemned heresies, both before and after the first general council?
A. The Pope.
Q. To whom did the Catholic Bishops always have recourse in all controversies both of faith and morals?
A. To the Pope.
Q. If the obstinacy of the party condemned by the Pope made it advisable to have recourse to general councils, were these councils, then, after the most mature deliberation, ever found to do anything else than to confirm the sentence already passed by the Pope?
A. They were not. (See Q. and A. in Additional Questions and Answers)
Q. Did any Pope ever issue any decree concerning the truths of the faith or sound morality, which was not afterwards received by the great body of the Bishops, as containing the most solid and wholesome doctrine?
A. Such a thing never happened.
Q. Could the greatest enemies of the Catholic faith ever prove that any Pope taught any doctrine contrary to the sacred truths taught by Jesus Christ and His Apostles?
A. Never. (See Q. and A. in Additional Questions and Answers)
Q. What are we to understand from all this?
A. That it has always been the belief of the Catholic Church that the Pope, in his solemn decisions in matters of faith and morals, is infallible.
Q. If this be true, how then could it happen that some years ago a few Bishops and Priests were said not to have held this to be a doctrine of Catholic faith?
A. Because the divine tradition of this doctrine had not been as yet explicitly defined by the Holy Father.
Q. Did those Bishops, assembled in the Council of the Vatican, continue to oppose the dogma of the infallibility of the Pope, after it was defined?
A. No. All, without exception, freely and joyfully subscribed their names to the decrees of the council, and professed their faith in the infallibility of the Pope.
Q. If, then, in a general council, or assembly of all the Catholic Bishops, the meaning of a certain doctrine of Christ was to be set forth in precise language, and the majority of Bishops would explain it in one sense, and the minority in another, on which side would be the truth?
A. On that side, though it be the minority of Bishops, which agrees with the Pope.
Q. Why?
A. Simply because Christ bound Himself solemnly only to Peter and his successors that their faith should never fail; that is, that every one of them would always be so enlightened by the Holy Ghost as to understand the true meaning of His doctrine, and state and teach it plainly with divine certainty. "Where Peter is, there is the Church."
Q. Must we, then, believe that such decisions of the Pope in matters of faith and morals are infallibly true?
A. Yes; because this is an article of faith, which we must believe, as firmly as we believe that there is a God.
Q. If anyone should say, or even think otherwise, what would he be before God?
A. An apostate from the faith.
Q. Does the Pope then teach anything new, when in such misinterpretations of Christ's doctrine he declares what is to be believed?
A. No; he plainly states the truth in the sense in which Jesus Christ and the Apostles preached it.
Q. Can you now tell me whose office it is to guard the doctrine of Christ, as preached by the Apostles, and proclaim and apply it always and everywhere, one and the same, and to defend the rights of God on earth against every enemy, at all times, and in all places?
A. This is the Pope's office.
Q. Who is appointed by God Himself to declare and apply the invariable doctrine of Jesus Christ, and to govern all men and nations, kings and peoples, according to this invariable doctrine?
A. The Pope.
Q. Must the Pope as guardian and judge of the law of God, resist with all his might every passion or tendency of every age, nation, community, or individual, whenever it leaves the law of God?
A. He is bound in conscience to do so.
Q. When does the Pope speak "ex Cathedra," or infallibly?
A. He speaks infallibly whenever in the discharge of his office of pastor and teacher of all Christians, he defines (that is, finally determines), according to his supreme apostolic authority, a doctrine concerning faith or morals, to be held by the Universal Church, or anything else that is conducive to the preservation of faith and morals.
Q.When the Pope, in accordance with the duty of his apostolic ministry and his supreme apostolic authority, proceeds, in briefs, encyclical letters, consistorial allocutions, and other apostolic letters, to declare certain truths, to reprobate perverse doctrines, and condemn certain errors, must such declarations of truth, and condemnations of error, be considered as infallible, and as binding in conscience, and requiring our firm interior assent, although they do not express an anathema on those who disagree?
A. Such declarations of truth and condemnations of error are infallible, or ex cathedra acts of the Pope, and, therefore are binding in conscience, and requiring our firm interior assent; to refuse which would be for us a mortal sin, since such a refusal would be a virtual denial of the dogma of infallibility, and we should be heretics were we conscious of such a denial. St. Alphonsus Liguori. Theol. Mor., Lib I., 104.
Q. Are not such doctrinal utterances of the Pontiff of imperfect and incomplete authority until they are confirmed and accepted by the Bishops of the Church?
A. Nothing is ever farther from the thoughts of the bishops than that the papal declarations of truth, and condemnations of error, should need the confirmation and acceptance of the pastors of the Church to be true utterances of the Holy Ghost, and binding in conscience, because their confirmation and acceptance does not add certainty to that which is already infallible.
Q. What does the Vatican Council teach on this subject?
A. It teaches that "the definitions of the Roman Pontiff, concerning faith and morals, are irreformable of themselves, and not by force of the consent of the Church thereto." Sess. iv., c. iv.
Q. What have the Fathers of the Church styled the Pope?
A. The mouth of the Church, ever living and open to teach the whole world;
The centre of Christian faith and unity, and the light of truth for the universe;
The Father of souls, the guide of consciences, and the sovereign judge of the religious interests of mankind; The Prince of priests—a greater Patriarch than Abraham—greater than Melchisedech in priesthood—than Moses in authority—than Samuel in jurisdiction; a Peter in power, Christ by unction, pastor of pastors, guide of guides, the cardinal joint of all churches, the impregnable citadel of the communion of the children of God, the immovable corner-stone upon which the Church of God reposes.
Q. Why have the Fathers given these titles to the Pope?
A. Because the Pope is the infallible teacher of the Church of Christ.
Q. What sentiments, then, should every Catholic express concerning the Pope?
A. I acknowledge in the Pope an authority before which my soul bows, and yet suffers no humiliation.
-
Q. Must the Pope as guardian and judge of the law of God, resist with all his might every passion or tendency of every age, nation, community, or individual, whenever it leaves the law of God?
A. He is bound in conscience to do so.
Q. When does the Pope speak "ex Cathedra," or infallibly?
A. He speaks infallibly whenever in the discharge of his office of pastor and teacher of all Christians, he defines (that is, finally determines), according to his supreme apostolic authority, a doctrine concerning faith or morals, to be held by the Universal Church, or anything else that is conducive to the preservation of faith and morals.
Q.When the Pope, in accordance with the duty of his apostolic ministry and his supreme apostolic authority, proceeds, in briefs, encyclical letters, consistorial allocutions, and other apostolic letters, to declare certain truths, to reprobate perverse doctrines, and condemn certain errors, must such declarations of truth, and condemnations of error, be considered as infallible, and as binding in conscience, and requiring our firm interior assent, although they do not express an anathema on those who disagree?
A. Such declarations of truth and condemnations of error are infallible, or ex cathedra acts of the Pope, and, therefore are binding in conscience, and requiring our firm interior assent; to refuse which would be for us a mortal sin, since such a refusal would be a virtual denial of the dogma of infallibility, and we should be heretics were we conscious of such a denial. St. Alphonsus Liguori. Theol. Mor., Lib I., 104.
Q. Are not such doctrinal utterances of the Pontiff of imperfect and incomplete authority until they are confirmed and accepted by the Bishops of the Church?
A. Nothing is ever farther from the thoughts of the bishops than that the papal declarations of truth, and condemnations of error, should need the confirmation and acceptance of the pastors of the Church to be true utterances of the Holy Ghost, and binding in conscience, because their confirmation and acceptance does not add certainty to that which is already infallible.
Q. What does the Vatican Council teach on this subject?
A. It teaches that "the definitions of the Roman Pontiff, concerning faith and morals, are irreformable of themselves, and not by force of the consent of the Church thereto." Sess. iv., c. iv.
Q. What have the Fathers of the Church styled the Pope?
A. The mouth of the Church, ever living and open to teach the whole world;
The centre of Christian faith and unity, and the light of truth for the universe;
The Father of souls, the guide of consciences, and the sovereign judge of the religious interests of mankind; The Prince of priests—a greater Patriarch than Abraham—greater than Melchisedech in priesthood—than Moses in authority—than Samuel in jurisdiction; a Peter in power, Christ by unction, pastor of pastors, guide of guides, the cardinal joint of all churches, the impregnable citadel of the communion of the children of God, the immovable corner-stone upon which the Church of God reposes.
Q. Why have the Fathers given these titles to the Pope?
A. Because the Pope is the infallible teacher of the Church of Christ.
Q. What sentiments, then, should every Catholic express concerning the Pope?
A. I acknowledge in the Pope an authority before which my soul bows, and yet suffers no humiliation.
Thank you Beatifico for this 1876 approved by the Sacred Congregation for the Propagation of the Faith book.
-
Traditio is not a serious site < >
I feel that it does have some good things on the site, but when Pluger and Nely were elected SSPX's First and Second Assistants, it claimed (as I remember) that both these men were anti-Deal. Traditio couldn't have got it more wrong!
-
I know that it won't please everybody but the Truth cannot be mixed with error. When I was talking earlier about Gallicans errors here is another example:
In his Eleison Comments # 342 (February 1st 2014) Sedevacantist Anxiety II H. E. Bishop Williamson mention an example that is a Gallican error, often repeated in the SSPX
"But the Conciliar Popes have poisoned the Faith and endangered the eternal salvation of millions upon millions of Catholics. That is contrary to the Church’s indefectibility. In the Arian crisis of the 4th century, Pope Liberius endangered the Faith by condemning St Athanasius and by backing Arian bishops in the East. For a few moments the Church’s indefectibility went not through the Pope but through his seeming adversary. However that meant neither that Liberius was not Pope nor that Athanasius was Pope. Similarly the indefectibility of the Church today goes through the faithful followers of the line taken by Archbishop Lefebvre, but that need not mean that Paul VI was not Pope."
So Liberius seem to be an example of an heretic Pope, that is not true!
Here is Benedict XV Encyclical Principi Apostolorum Petro (1920)
"3. The ancient Fathers, especially those who held the more illustrious chairs of the East, since they accepted these privileges as proper to the pontifical authority, took refuge in the Apostolic See whenever heresy or internal strife troubled them. For it alone promised safety in extreme crises. Basil the Great [8] did so, as did the renowned defender of the Nicene Creed, Athanasius,[9] as well as John Chrysostom.[10] For these inspired Fathers of the orthodox faith appealed from the councils of bishops to the supreme judgement of the Roman Pontiffs according to the prescriptions [11] of the ecclesiastical Canons. Who can say that they were wanting in conformity to the command which they had from Christ? Indeed, lest they should prove faithless in their duty, some went fearlessly into exile, as did Librius and Silverius and Martinus. Others pleaded vigorously for the cause of the orthodox faith and for its defenders who had appealed to the Pope, or to vindicate the memory of those who had died. Innocent I [12] is an example. He commanded the bishops of the East to insert the name of St. John Chrysostom in the liturgical list of the orthodox Fathers to be mentioned at mass."
For the real Catholic history of the great Pope Saint Liberius here is an English translation of an excerpt of the monumental Histoire Universelle de l'Église Catholique of Fr. René François Rohrbacher (1789-1856):
"The Alleged Fall of Pope Liberius
Nothing has been proven more soundly, according to the Gallicans, or used more often in support of their opinions, than the alleged fall of Pope Liberius..."
You can continue reading the story on this link:
http://www.papastronsay.com/resources/PopeLiberius/Rohrbacher.htm
In Xto Rege,
-
"Pope Liberius endangered the Faith by condemning St Athanasius and by backing Arian bishops in the East"
So, you do not agree with the above statement ?
Bishop Williamson did not mention heresy. How could you jump to that conclusion?
-
"Pope Liberius endangered the Faith by condemning St Athanasius and by backing Arian bishops in the East"
So, you do not agree with the above statement ?
Bishop Williamson did not mention heresy. How could you jump to that conclusion?
"In the Greek Menology we read, at the 27th September, "The blessed Liberius, defender of the truth, was Bishop of Rome during the reign of Constantius. His zeal made him undertake the defence of the great Athanasius. Then Liberius, who fought with his whole strength against the malice of the heretics, was exiled to Berea in Thrace. But the Romans, who loved and honored him, remained faithful to him, and besought the Emperor to restore him. Liberius returned to Rome, where he died after wisely governing his flock."
That is the problem in Bishop Williamson comment:
For a few moments the Church’s indefectibility went not through the Pope but through his seeming adversary.
-
Is that statement true or not?
"Pope Liberius endangered the Faith by condemning St Athanasius and by backing Arian bishops in the East"
Because if it is true, the conclusion "For a few moments the Church’s indefectibility went not through the Pope but through his seeming adversary
", seems to be obvious, no matter what we ready in the Greek Menology.
-
Fr Pfeiffer sermon is no good at all! During this sermon, Fr. says many errors and calumnies that were refuted before and during the Vatican Council (1870) by great Catholic authors.
Appalling accusation. Reverend Father may be mistaken, but to accuse him of "saying many errors and calumnies" is a very grave matter. We should avoid this sort of unjust, exaggerated and hurtful comments against holy priests. It causes scandal in the readers and it may discourage the priest if he reads it. Inevitably someone will give me the thumbs down for stating what should be obvious to all good Christians. So be it as long as it helps to reflect on such issues.
-
Is that statement true or not?
"Pope Liberius endangered the Faith by condemning St Athanasius and by backing Arian bishops in the East"
Because if it is true, the conclusion "For a few moments the Church’s indefectibility went not through the Pope but through his seeming adversary
", seems to be obvious, no matter what we ready in the Greek Menology.
Thank you Guga for making me search for docuмents in English. In French we have plenty of them. The answer is NO, Pope Saint Liberius never endangered the Faith by condemning Saint Athanasius because Saint Liberius never condemned him but defended him into exile.
I found an article from The American Catholic Quarterly Review volume 8 (1883). So, it is after the Vatican Council (1870), when in the 1860's Pius IX ordered a vast search for proof and docuмents to refute the Gallicans and antinfabilists historical calumnies and lies. Here is the passage:
"When Eusebius, the eunuch sent by the Emperor to tempt the Pope with gold, received no better reception than Simon Magus, who tempted Peter, he resorted to threats. The interview thereupon ended, and the Pope replied to the threats by letter as follows :
"You think to force me to subscribe to the condemnation of the Patriarch of Alexandria. How can I? Three consecutive councils, one of which represented the universal episcopate, have recognized, verified, and proclaimed the innocence of Athanasius. He was present. We ourselves have heard all the calumnies with which they would crush him peremptorily refuted. We have admitted him to our communion We have pledged him the most tender affection; and now that he is absent, persecuted, proscribed, are we to hurl an anathema against him? No! such is not the rule of the ecclesiastical canons, nor the tradition of the blessed and great Apostle Peter, which our predecessors have transmitted to us. The Emperor, you say, wishes for peace; let him commence by recalling the cruel edicts he has launched against the Patriarch; let him set Athanasius at liberty, and place him firmly in his See." Hist. Arian., No.36.
Language like this was not calculated to appease an Emperor. The Gesta Liberii, a scroll lately discovered, tells us that for a time the Pontiff retired to the catacomb of Noella, in the Via Salaria, a voluntary exile; but his retreat was discovered, and he was led to Milan, where the Emperor held the following dialogue with him, reported in substance both by Athanasius and Theodoret.
Said the Emperor: "As you are Bishop of our city we exhort you to reject the communion of Athanasius. The world has judged him," etc.
Liberius: "Sir, ecclesiastical judgments must be just. Establish a tribunal, . . . . and, if he be found guilty, judgment will be pronounced. . . . We cannot condemn a man who has not been tried."
Emperor: "The world has condemned his impiety."
Liberius: "Those who subscribed his condemnation have not seen all that passed. The glory you promise them, or the punishment you threaten, has influenced them."
Emperor: "What do you mean by the words glory and punishment?"
Liberius: "Those who love not the glory of God and prefer your favors, have condemned him without trial. This is unworthy of Christians."
Emperor: "He has been judged by the Council of Tyre, where he was present."
Liberius: "Not in his presence but after his withdrawal." (Here a bishop, who was by, put in that Liberius wished to boast on his return to Rome, that he had baffled the Emperor.)
Emperor: "What do you account yourself in the world to raise yourself alone to disturb the earth?"
Liberius: "Even if I were alone the cause of the faith would not fall." . . . . .
Emperor: "What has been once decreed cannot be reversed. The judgment of the majority of the bishops must decide, and you are the only one attached to this wretch."
Liberius: "Sir, we have never heard that, in the absence of the accused, a judge would consider him a wretch, as if he were his particular enemy."
Emperor: "He has offended the world in general, me in particular. . . . I will send you back to Rome if you embrace the communion of the Churches. Yield for peace sake; subscribe, and return to Rome?"
Liberius: "I have already bid adieu to my brethren in Rome."
Emperor "You will have three days to consider," etc. . . .
Liberius: "Three days nor three months will not change my resolution. Send me where you like."
Here is language worthy of a Pope. Who can imagine this hero yielding cringingly afterwards to this very Emperor and retracting these sublime words? But if the Pope had prevaricated and condemned Athanasius, of what use would it have been for the latter to publish this interview? Both Athanasius and the Arian faction, and the whole world, in fact, knew the importance of having the Roman Bishop on their side. Hence the efforts made around to secure his subscription. Hence the forgeries of Arians, so unjust to Liberius. Hence, too, the History and other works written by the Bishop of Alexandria. It would, therefore, have been doubly absurd for Athanasius to hope for favor claiming the Bishop of Rome's suffrage, if that suffrage had been reversed, and himself cut off from the Pope's communion."
PP. 542-543
http://books.google.ca/books?id=a5INAQAAIAAJ&printsec=frontcover&hl=fr&source=gbs_ge_summary_r&cad=0#v=onepage&q&f=false
-
That the pope can err while not defining in matters of faith and morals for the universal Church, and that he may be resisted when he seeks to impose his error on the faithful, is something saints and theologians have taught. St Bellarmine, a favorite of the sedecavantists, even attest to this fact.
One citation will suffice as an example, a passage from St. Robert Bellarmine: “Just as it is lawful to resist the pope that attacks the body, it is also lawful to resist the one who attacks the soul or who disturbs civil order, or, above all, who attempts to destroy the Church . I say that it is lawful to resist him by not doing what he orders and preventing his will from being executed” ( De Romano Pontifice , Lib . II, Ch. 29).
This is the conclusion of Saint Robert Bellarmine (1610) on a supposed heretical Pope:
"A pope who is a manifest heretic automatically (per se) ceases to be pope and head, just as he ceases automatically to be a Christian and a member of the Church. Wherefore, he can be judged and punished by the Church. This is the teaching of all the ancient Fathers who teach that manifest heretics immediately lose all jurisdiction." De Romano Pontifice. II, Ch.30
The passage before Ch. 29 was not about a possible heretic Pope but about gallicanism errors.
-
"A pope who is a manifest heretic automatically (per se) ceases to be pope and head, just as he ceases automatically to be a Christian and a member of the Church. Wherefore, he can be judged and punished by the Church.
First, notice in this cited statement of St. Bellarmine, that it is the Church Herself that judges and punishes the Pope, not the common layman.
Second, St. Bellarmine does not represent the binding authority of the Church. The truth is that there is not unanimity of opinion among the theologians about what happens should a Pope fall into heresy. Even if there were unanimity, this opinion still would not have infallibility. Infallibility resides only in the extraordinary pontifical teachings or in the ordinary pontifical teachings when unanimous, and also in episcopal teachings throughout the centuries when they are unanimous.
-
First, notice in this cited statement of St. Bellarmine, that it is the Church Herself that judges and punishes the Pope, not the common layman.
Second, St. Bellarmine does not represent the binding authority of the Church. The truth is that there is not unanimity of opinion among the theologians about what happens should a Pope fall into heresy. Even if there were unanimity, this opinion still would not have infallibility. Infallibility resides only in the extraordinary pontifical teachings or in the ordinary pontifical teachings when unanimous, and also in episcopal teachings throughout the centuries when they are unanimous.
Shame on you, Cantarella, for implying that CI's growing mob of sedevacantists is made up merely of common laymen! Some of them have a direct line to the Holy Ghost; the rest of them know a guy (or a website) with a direct line to the Holy Ghost. Why, we can read fifty or so new comments every single day that state, almost in so many words, that that's how Divine revelation works to counteract a bum like Humble Frank!
Put otherwise, brava for a truly laudable comment.
To speak more plainly, you have also squarely hit the mark about the great Bellarmine. The saint's ears must be burning in heaven when he hears his name used every day as a cat-o'-nine-tails to flog those among us who missed the consecration ceremony wherein a hundred or so of CI's SV commenters were granted the Apostolic status once reserved only to the post-Resurrection Twelve, plus the slightly later additions of Paul and Barnabas.
Besides, if Aquinas could correct and indeed reject the opinions of Augustine, as he did rather more than once, why should virtually the only comment of Bellarmine's that interests the SV members here be accorded the status of irreformable doctrine?
__________________________
On the matter of Pope Liberius—not Saint Liberius!—it is odd that no one has yet referred to the thoughtful article (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/09217a.htm) by a certain John Chapman in the old Catholic Encyclopedia. One of its principal virtues is that it lays out the reasons for the conflicting opinions on that pope's actions vis-à-vis Arianism and Saint Athanasius. Professor Chapman clearly inclines to a view as friendly to Liberius as Louis's, but he also states quite plainly that the question "has been and can be freely debated among Catholics."
-
"A pope who is a manifest heretic automatically (per se) ceases to be pope and head, just as he ceases automatically to be a Christian and a member of the Church. Wherefore, he can be judged and punished by the Church.
First, notice in this cited statement of St. Bellarmine, that it is the Church Herself that judges and punishes the Pope, not the common layman.
Second, St. Bellarmine does not represent the binding authority of the Church. The truth is that there is not unanimity of opinion among the theologians about what happens should a Pope fall into heresy. Even if there were unanimity, this opinion still would not have infallibility. Infallibility resides only in the extraordinary pontifical teachings or in the ordinary pontifical teachings when unanimous, and also in episcopal teachings throughout the centuries when they are unanimous.
More importantly, the only way a heretic is "manifest" without the judgment of the Church is by self-admission.
Last I checked, none of the recent popes have admitted to knowing themselves to be heretics.
So to rely on St. Bellarmine's quote doesn't get them very far.
-
"A pope who is a manifest heretic automatically (per se) ceases to be pope and head, just as he ceases automatically to be a Christian and a member of the Church. Wherefore, he can be judged and punished by the Church.
First, notice in this cited statement of St. Bellarmine, that it is the Church Herself that judges and punishes the Pope, not the common layman.
Second, St. Bellarmine does not represent the binding authority of the Church. The truth is that there is not unanimity of opinion among the theologians about what happens should a Pope fall into heresy. Even if there were unanimity, this opinion still would not have infallibility. Infallibility resides only in the extraordinary pontifical teachings or in the ordinary pontifical teachings when unanimous, and also in episcopal teachings throughout the centuries when they are unanimous.
More importantly, the only way a heretic is "manifest" without the judgment of the Church is by self-admission.
Last I checked, none of the recent popes have admitted to knowing themselves to be heretics.
So to rely on St. Bellarmine's quote doesn't get them very far.
Source?
Manifest and self admitting are two different things. Something can be manifest without the offender admitting to the crime; that doesn't make what is manifest "unmanifest."
-
Manifest
adjective
Readily perceived by the eye or the understanding; evident; obvious; apparent; plain: a manifest error.
verb (used with object)
to make clear or evident to the eye or the understanding; show plainly: He manifested his approval with a hearty laugh.
-
Excerpted from this discussion, with the authorities relied upon for the opinion being St. Robert Bellarmine and Suarez:
http://www.cathinfo.com/catholic.php/Bellarmine-and-Suarez-on-The-Question-of-a-Heretical-Pope
Manifest Heresy
Another important point that needs clarification is what St. Bellarmine meant by the term “manifest heretic”. When he said “a pope who is a manifest heretic automatically ceases to be pope”, he was not referring merely to a Pope that has made materially heretical statements, or to a Pope who has given reason to believe he has lost the faith; manifest heresy requires something more: since heresy, properly so-called, requires pertinacity in the will (not simply an error in the intellect), in order for a person who has made materially heretical statements to be considered formally heretical in the external forum, pertinacity in the will would also have to be manifest. Obviously, if a Pope publicly defected from the Faith by leaving the Church, or by publicly admitting that he rejects a defined dogma, this, in and of itself, would suffice to demonstrate pertinacity in the external forum. But without such an open admission of guilt, there would have to be another way to demonstrate that he was manifestly obstinate in his position. The other way, according to St. Bellarmine, is for the Pope to remain obstinate after two warnings. Only then would pertinacity be sufficiently demonstrated to render the Pope a manifest heretic. St. Bellarmine bases this on [mistakenly said “in”] the authority of St. Paul.
“In the first place” wrote Bellarmine, “it is proven with arguments from authority and from reason that the manifest heretic is ‘ipso facto’ deposed. The argument from authority is based on Saint Paul, who orders that the heretic be avoided after two warnings, that is, after showing himself to be manifestly obstinate – which means before any excommunication or judicial sentence (…) Therefore… 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.” (6)
As we can see, according to Bellarmine a manifest heretic is one who remains obstinate “after two warnings”. Such manifest obstinancy reveals pertinacity in the will, which is necessary for a materially heretical statement to qualify as formal heresy in the external forum. By remaining obstinate after a solemn and public warning, the Pope would, in a sense, pass judgment upon himself, thereby showing himself to be a heretic properly so-called. It is for this reason, according to Bellarmine, that the Pope – “who judges all and is judged by no one” – can himself be judged and punished by the Church.
But the question arises: who would have the authority to issue a solemn and public warning to the Pope? The eminent eighteenth century Italian theologian, Father Pietro Ballerini, addressed this very point. He wrote: “The Cardinals, who are his counselors, can do this; or the Roman Clergy, or the Roman Synod, if, being met, they judge this opportune”. Then, after citing St. Paul’s letter to Titus (the same portion St. Bellarmine cited as his authority), Fr. Ballerini added:
“For the person who, admonished once or twice, does not repent, but continues pertinacious in an opinion contrary to a manifest or public dogma - not being able, on account of this public pertinacity to be excused, by any means, of heresy properly so called, which requires pertinacity - this person declares himself openly a heretic. He reveals that by his own will he has turned away from the Catholic Faith and the Church, in such form that now no declaration or sentence of any one whatsoever is necessary to cut him from the body of the Church. (…) Therefore the Pontiff who after such a solemn and public warning by the Cardinals, by the Roman Clergy or even by the Synod, maintained himself hardened in heresy and openly turned himself away from the Church, would have to be avoided, according to the precept of Saint Paul. So that he might not cause damage to the rest, he would have to have his heresy and contumacy publicly proclaimed, so that all might be able to be equally on guard in relation to him. Thus, the sentence which he had pronounced against himself would be made known to all the Church, making clear that by his own will be had turned away and separated himself from the body of the Church, and that in a certain way he had abdicated the Pontificate, which no one holds or can hold if he does not belong to the Church”. (Italics added) (7)
By remaining obstinate after two public warnings, issued by the proper authorities, the Pope would, as Fr. Ballerini said, pronounce sentence “upon himself”, thereby “making it clear that by his own will he had turned away and separated himself from the body of the Church” and, in a certain way, “abdicated the Pontificate”.
-
In the middle of 2012 ( I believe), six Orthodox Ukrainain Catholic Bishops
(they are in union with Rome) of LVOV publicly warned Benedict XVI that he was a manifest heretic, and warned him that, if he did not adjure his heresies ( which they listed some of), then he would be, within a set amount of time, placing himself outside the Catholic faith as an excommunicated person, with no right or title to any position within the Catholic Church.
Needless to say, Ratzinger did not heed the public warning and monition. The six Bishops, thereupon, declared that benedict XVI excommunicated himself, by his open, notorious, willful and manifest heresies, and lost all power of his office.
When I showed this report to Msgr. deMallerais in New Jersey, his first comment was "I've never heard of them." So, I left him the reports. The next day, I asked him about the bishops' actions, and his response was "oh-- I threw that away-- they are Orthodox!"
Well DUH!
So, these priests ( many of them) and these bishops know they are playing fast and loose with the truth. they want to keep the faithful uninformed only to hold onto their own self importance. It is becoming more and more clear, that their battle has little, if anything , to do with the salvation of souls-- it has only to do with kingdom building.
-
In the middle of 2012 ( I believe), six Orthodox Ukrainain Catholic Bishops
(they are in union with Rome) of LVOV publicly warned Benedict XVI that he was a manifest heretic, and warned him that, if he did not adjure his heresies ( which they listed some of), then he would be, within a set amount of time, placing himself outside the Catholic faith as an excommunicated person, with no right or title to any position within the Catholic Church.
Needless to say, Ratzinger did not heed the public warning and monition. The six Bishops, thereupon, declared that benedict XVI excommunicated himself, by his open, notorious, willful and manifest heresies, and lost all power of his office.
When I showed this report to Msgr. deMallerais in New Jersey, his first comment was "I've never heard of them." So, I left him the reports. The next day, I asked him about the bishops' actions, and his response was "oh-- I threw that away-- they are Orthodox!"
Well DUH!
So, these priests ( many of them) and these bishops know they are playing fast and loose with the truth. they want to keep the faithful uninformed only to hold onto their own self importance. It is becoming more and more clear, that their battle has little, if anything , to do with the salvation of souls-- it has only to do with kingdom building.
I recall reading about these Ukraine bishops from Lvov, and I went to their website at the time, and I shared some of this information with knowledgeable Catholics I knew at the time, and they had the same response as that you have described +TdM having, hugeman, that "They're Orthodox, so why should we care what they think or do?"
I couldn't find anything that clearly showed these Ukrainian bishops to be "Orthodox" insofar as their denying defined dogmas of the Church such as the Immaculate Conception, the Assumption of Our Lady or papal infallibility.
In fact, on the surface, why would they be going through this process of public announcement and manifestation of pertinacity, concluding that Benedict XVI would therefore be "placing himself outside the Catholic faith as an excommunicated person, with no right or title to any position within the Catholic Church," if they HAD NO BELIEF IN THE PRIMACY OF THE POPE?
Seeing this come up now, the question remains as I understand this -- that it could very well be, that our Catholic priests and Bishop Tissier de Mallerais are making a mistake by saying "they're Orthodox" when perhaps their "Orthodoxy" is defined by the fact that they made this proclamation of the manifest heresy of Benedict XVI!
Do you see the subtle twist going on? I'm wondering if their "Orthodoxy" has nothing to do with defined dogmas, and everything to do with the manifest heresy of recent popes -- If they were Americans we'd say they were 'sedevacantists', but since they're Ukrainians, we say "THEY'RE ORTHODOX!"
What a world!!
One of the priests I asked about this is most definitive regarding the exclusion of the Orthodox from the Church since they deny defined dogma (papal supremacy). PLUS, he acknowledges that Benedict XVI is a Modernist whose heresies of fact which were published in books long before he was elected to the papacy, remain, and "Pope Emeritus Benedict" has never abjured his errors.
.
-
Excerpted from this discussion, with the authorities relied upon for the opinion being St. Robert Bellarmine and Suarez:
http://www.cathinfo.com/catholic.php/Bellarmine-and-Suarez-on-The-Question-of-a-Heretical-Pope
Manifest Heresy
in order for a person who has made materially heretical statements to be considered formally heretical in the external forum, pertinacity in the will would also have to be manifest. Obviously, if a Pope publicly defected from the Faith by leaving the Church, or by publicly admitting that he rejects a defined dogma, this, in and of itself, would suffice to demonstrate pertinacity in the external forum. But without such an open admission of guilt, there would have to be another way to demonstrate that he was manifestly obstinate in his position.
...
By remaining obstinate after two public warnings, issued by the proper authorities, the Pope would, as Fr. Ballerini said, pronounce sentence “upon himself”, thereby “making it clear that by his own will he had turned away and separated himself from the body of the Church” and, in a certain way, “abdicated the Pontificate”.
The bold is Siscoe's creation, what he quotes doesn't support it and neither does Ballerini support Siscoe's attempt not to prove sedevacantism FALSE, but to prove it unlawful or otherwise unapproachable. You realize this, yes? Siscoe's article never once touches on whether or not these men are popes, but focuses entirely on trying prove that we can't SAY they aren't, regardless of whether or not they are or aren't. In other words, keep the truth to yourself :)
Admonitions are not necessary to determine that a heretic is manifest (history shows that even the Church does not always admonish before she condemns), and they certainly aren't restricted only to members of the hierarchy for them to be "valid" admonitions. Ballerini himself says this. Siscoe is an embarrassment to right-thinking. His article is like a TV dinner, packaged up to sate the very specific needs of a very specific audience and prepared with no regard for the purpose of consumption.