July 15: To obtain good bishops, changeless Catholic Truth outweighs today’s Catholic Authority.
What if it could be shown, by the testimony of long-time SSPX priests, that Lefebvre reserved relations with Rome to himself, and the SG Schmidberger, tasked only with administrative details, resented Lefebvre not trusting in him to talk with Rome?
And what if Lefebvre happened to chance upon Schmidberger unexpectedly in Rome, where he should not have been?
And what if it could be shown that Lefebvre was working to ensure Schmidberger was not re-elected in 1994, at the time of his death in 1991?
And what if the SSPX was being sold out from under Lefebvre’s feet while he was still alive?
And what if Rome cultivated such weakness from one SG to his successor, and thereby succeeded in turning the direction of the entire ship?
Would anyone be interested in hearing that story, such that it would be worth the effort to tell the story, or would it simply be deemed inconvenient, and ignored?
Let me know, because I am equally capable of telling that story, or shaking off the dust and just going fishing.
What if it could be shown, by the testimony of long-time SSPX priests, that Lefebvre reserved relations with Rome to himself, and the SG Schmidberger, tasked only with administrative details, resented Lefebvre not trusting in him to talk with Rome?You can't both fish and tell the story?
And what if Lefebvre happened to chance upon Schmidberger unexpectedly in Rome, where he should not have been?
And what if it could be shown that Lefebvre was working to ensure Schmidberger was not re-elected in 1994, at the time of his death in 1991?
And what if the SSPX was being sold out from under Lefebvre’s feet while he was still alive?
And what if Rome cultivated such weakness from one SG to his successor, and thereby succeeded in turning the direction of the entire ship?
Would anyone be interested in hearing that story, such that it would be worth the effort to tell the story, or would it simply be deemed inconvenient, and ignored?
Let me know, because I am equally capable of telling that story, or shaking off the dust and just going fishing.
What if it could be shown, by the testimony of long-time SSPX priests, that Lefebvre reserved relations with Rome to himself, and the SG Schmidberger, tasked only with administrative details, resented Lefebvre not trusting in him to talk with Rome?
And what if Lefebvre happened to chance upon Schmidberger unexpectedly in Rome, where he should not have been?
And what if it could be shown that Lefebvre was working to ensure Schmidberger was not re-elected in 1994, at the time of his death in 1991?
And what if the SSPX was being sold out from under Lefebvre’s feet while he was still alive?
And what if Rome cultivated such weakness from one SG to his successor, and thereby succeeded in turning the direction of the entire ship?
Would anyone be interested in hearing that story, such that it would be worth the effort to tell the story, or would it simply be deemed inconvenient, and ignored?
Let me know, because I am equally capable of telling that story, or shaking off the dust and just going fishing.
DCCCXXXIX #839
August 12, 2023
TWO KINDS of BISHOP – V
Getting to Heaven is a major enterprise,
Excluding even the shadow of compromise.
It is time to tie together and bring to an end this series of five issues of these “Comments,” because, circling around the theme of what kind of bishops are needed today for the survival of the Catholic Faith tomorrow, the first four issues have ranged over a variety of topics. Here they are in brief:—
July 15: To obtain good bishops, changeless Catholic Truth outweighs today’s Catholic Authority.
Are you implying Fr. Schmidberger is a freemason infiltrator?
What if it could be shown, by the testimony of long-time SSPX priests, that Lefebvre reserved relations with Rome to himself, and the SG Schmidberger, tasked only with administrative details, resented Lefebvre not trusting in him to talk with Rome?Go ahead and tell it but make sure there is enough solid evidence to prove it.
...
Would anyone be interested in hearing that story, such that it would be worth the effort to tell the story, or would it simply be deemed inconvenient, and ignored?
Let me know, because I am equally capable of telling that story, or shaking off the dust and just going fishing.
What if it could be shown, by the testimony of long-time SSPX priests, that Lefebvre reserved relations with Rome to himself, and the SG Schmidberger, tasked only with administrative details, resented Lefebvre not trusting in him to talk with Rome?
And what if Lefebvre happened to chance upon Schmidberger unexpectedly in Rome, where he should not have been?
And what if it could be shown that Lefebvre was working to ensure Schmidberger was not re-elected in 1994, at the time of his death in 1991?
And what if the SSPX was being sold out from under Lefebvre’s feet while he was still alive?
And what if Rome cultivated such weakness from one SG to his successor, and thereby succeeded in turning the direction of the entire ship?
Would anyone be interested in hearing that story, such that it would be worth the effort to tell the story, or would it simply be deemed inconvenient, and ignored?
Let me know, because I am equally capable of telling that story, or shaking off the dust and just going fishing.
3. The infallibility of the Pope. The SSPX (during Lefebvre) has always been wobbly on this, coming up with a pragmatic solution that did not line up logically with perennial Catholic teaching. The correct answer is the material-formal distinction. Call it Cassiciacuм, sedeprivationism, or whatever. SSPX has been wrong about this from day one. And it is this achilles heel, based on disregard for the principle of non-contradiction, that promotes all of the SSPX errors that follow.
You make it sound like the Sedevacantists actually solved the Crisis in the Church in a 100% satisfactory manner, leaving NO unanswered questions or outstanding issues; everyone who hasn't joined Sedevacantism is just too stupid (or malicious) to see it.
Not only has no one "solved" the Crisis -- painfully obvious as the Crisis remains and does not look to end soon or via human agency -- but all should be agreed, particularly if one has read the countless visions of the Saints and others, that God ALONE can heal the innumerable, deep, and unspeakable wounds rendering sadly-negligible the influence of Holy Church upon a wicked, disordered, miserable world. We can make and have made a great mess; God alone can clean it up, especially now. Happily, although He is under no obligation to do so, He can and has promised to do so. Hold fast; Godspeed.
I've seen, learned about, and yes considered Sedevacantism many times. I just don't know. But what I do know: I haven't see ANY good come out of Sedevacantism AS SUCH. All the "good things" Sedevacantists might tell friends about their chapels, fellow-parishioners, group, and/or priests are actually proper to the Traditional Movement, not Sedevacantism in particular.
You make it sound like the Sedevacantists actually solved the Crisis in the Church in a 100% satisfactory manner, leaving NO unanswered questions or outstanding issues; everyone who hasn't joined Sedevacantism is just too stupid (or malicious) to see it.
But the FACTS do not line up. The Sedevacantist world is 100% as chaotic as the non-Sede quarters of the Traditional Movement. Sedevacantists agree on very little. They can't even elect a Pope with any credibility (i.e., ending up with more than 100 followers.) And we're how many years into the "interregnum"? Pope Pius XII died in 1958. The Novus Ordo was released in 1969. Every bit of Sedevacantism is USELESS. USELESS I tell you. It hasn't helped the Crisis ONE IOTA. See my graphic below. Every "good" you could point out from the CMRI, SSPV, etc. goes in the light blue circle -- nothing at all in the purple.
Conclavist sedevacantists have been a joke up to the present day. Which attempted "pope" hasn't been ridiculed by virtually everyone? And don't get me started on the NON-conclavists. What use is a sedevacantist who makes no effort after 60 years to rectify the "no pope" situation by electing one? To me, a non-conclavist sedevacantist is a contradiction in terms. At least the conclavists are consistent -- albeit they make fools of themselves every time they try to elect a Pope.
And yes, the Sedevacantists had their chance. I suppose you're going to blame +Lefebvre and his SSPX for being some kind of "compromisers" or "controlled opposition" sucking away all the people and money into a dead end. But I call BS. Firstly, Trads are an independent, stubborn, "thinking for themselves" bunch. They aren't sheep. If 80% of the general public are sheep, it's probably more like 10% of Trads. And today we have the Internet. +Lefebvre never commanded a network of media outlets all parroting the same "party line" (like the MSM today) or any other such power. He never had a stranglehold or monopoly on the hearts and minds of Trads everywhere. He also never had any "allies" from the usual sources: the Novus Ordo, governments, the Media, etc. No, he was opposed every bit as much as any Sede IN EVERY WAY. No, the Trads all came to the SSPX ON THEIR OWN because THEY BELIEVED the SSPX had the safest, most Catholic course -- the best lifeboat for surviving this shipwreck. You'll have to blame them.
There is STILL an argument to be made, and believed, that +Lefebvre mapped out the best possible course, the best/safest/most Catholic reaction to the Crisis in the Church. I personally believe this.
I've seen, learned about, and yes considered Sedevacantism many times. I just don't know. But what I do know: I haven't see ANY good come out of Sedevacantism AS SUCH. All the "good things" Sedevacantists might tell friends about their chapels, fellow-parishioners, group, and/or priests are actually proper to the Traditional Movement, not Sedevacantism in particular.
He is NOT EVEN VALIDLY ELECTED. He is a pure antipope based on objective evidence law and fact.Illegitimate elections do not make a papacy invalid. Examples abound in Church history.
Only God can save us. Not the SSPX. Not the Resistance. Not Sedevacantism.
Dear young priests, get hold of any texts of the Archbishop himself, and devour them, but beware of editions so doctored by the Newsociety as to cut out anything running contrary to its Newness . . .Is there a list of doctored editions/dates of the Archbishop's books? Such docuмentation could provide in person proof to priests, ect, who need some waking up.
Illegitimate elections do not make a papacy invalid. Examples abound in Church history.
The only thing that will save the Church is the Consecration of Russia by the pope and all the bishops. Nevertheless, the proper understanding of the situation in the Church is a prerequisite to any progress towards that solution.
Imagine a patient who suspects his arm is fractured. The modernist doctor pulls out a microscope. The sedevacantist doctor pulls out a telescope. The normal doctor uses the x-ray machine. No one pretends the x-ray machine will heal the arm, but the proper diagnosis acquired by the use of that instrument will help much more than the instruments employed by the modernist or the sedevacantist. The three systems of assessing the nature of the crisis are not equal.
"...one point must be considered absolutely incontrovertible and placed firmly above any doubt whatever: the adhesion of the universal Church will be always, in itself, an infallible sign of the legitimacy of a determined Pontiff, and therefore also of the existence of all the conditions required for legitimacy itself.
...the aforementioned adhesion of the Church heals in the root all fault in the election and proves infallibly the existence of all the required conditions."
-Cardinal Billot
"It is of no importance that in past centuries some Pontiff was illegitimately elected or took possession of the Pontificate by fraud; it is enough that he was accepted afterwards by the whole Church as Pope, since by such acceptance he would have become the true Pontiff."
-Saint Alphonsus de Ligouri
...The most obvious (elephant-in-the-room) problem is that Universi Dominici Gregis requires that the previous Pope to have died BEFORE a new election could be held. That law could have been changed if that was the intent of the legislator, Pope Benedict XVI. He did not change that requirement in the law, so we must assume it was not his intent to do so.
By the way, Benedict XVI did make other minor modifications to Universi Dominici Gregis days after his announced "resignation." So, it's not like he wasn't aware of the docuмent.
3. I further establish that the College of Cardinals may make no dispositions whatsoever concerning the rights of the Apostolic See and of the Roman Church, much less allow any of these rights to lapse, either directly or indirectly, even though it be to resolve disputes or to prosecute actions perpetrated against these same rights after the death or valid resignation of the Pope.12 All the Cardinals are obliged to defend these rights.
77. I decree that the dispositions concerning everything that precedes the election of the Roman Pontiff and the carrying out of the election itself must be observed in full, even if the vacancy of the Apostolic See should occur as a result of the resignation of the Supreme Pontiff, in accordance with the provisions of Canon 333 § 2 of the Code of Canon Law and Canon 44 § 2 of the Code of Canons of the Eastern Churches.
I'm sure that it is useless to point this out, but using [ctrl]+f, search term "resig", returns these results in the linked docuмent, Universi Dominici Gregis.
Emile, you seem to think that I claim that a Pope can't resign. That is not my position. Of course a Pope can resign as Canon 332.2 allows.
However, even if the Pope does resign, the Apostolic See is not completely vacant, until that Pope dies. A new election is only triggered after the complete vacancy of the Apostolic See, which can occur only upon the death of the Pontiff. The idea of having a "pope emeritus" and another acting Pope at the same time is not allowed by current Church law.
Upon the resignation of a Pope, the Apostolic See is still occupied by the members of the Roman Curia until the death of the Pope. See UDG (https://www.vatican.va/content/john-paul-ii/en/apost_constitutions/docuмents/hf_jp-ii_apc_22021996_universi-dominici-gregis.html) section 14 which says:
14. According to the provisions of Article 6 of the Apostolic Constitution Pastor Bonus,13 at the death of the Pope all the heads of the Dicasteries of the Roman Curia — the Cardinal Secretary of State and the Cardinal Prefects, the Archbishop Presidents, together with the members of those Dicasteries — cease to exercise their office. An exception is made for the Camerlengo of Holy Roman Church and the Major Penitentiary, who continue to exercise their ordinary functions, submitting to the College of Cardinals matters that would have had to be referred to the Supreme Pontiff.
Let's now look at Pastor Bonus (https://www.vatican.va/content/john-paul-ii/en/apost_constitutions/docuмents/hf_jp-ii_apc_19880628_pastor-bonus.html) Article 6:
Art. 6 — On the death of the Supreme Pontiff, all moderators and members of the dicasteries cease from their office. The camerlengo of the Roman Church and the major penitentiary are excepted, who expedite ordinary business and refer to the College of Cardinals those things which would have been referred to the Supreme Pontiff.
So, going back to your quote from UDG 77, you should be able to better understand the meaning of the phrase "even if the vacancy of the Apostolic See should occur as a result of the resignation of the Supreme Pontiff." The correct interpretation can be paraphrased thus:
"even if the Pope resigns according to Canon 332.2 (which he can do), the type of partial "vacancy" created by that papal resignation does not mean that the requirements of UDG (concerning waiting for the death of the Pope to hold an election) can be ignored. In fact, if those requirements are ignored, the election is null and void."
You have to understand that a papal "resignation" does not allow creating of a two-living-Pope situation. There can ever be only one living Pope, according to this current law of papal elections. That in the past, with Celestine V for instance, a two-living-Pope situation existed is irrelevant. The current law of papal elections makes that situation illegal.
But Benedict knew that Bergoglio would do what he did. That is why Benedict visited the shrine of Celestine V a few years before the resignation, to draw attention to what was about to happen:
https://www.npr.org/2013/02/26/172890937/the-hermit-pope-who-set-the-precedent-for-benedict-xvi
Benedict made this strange trip to see Celestine V in 2009. Benedict was giving a clue that he was being treated unjustly like Celestine V and would suffer a similar fate...being forced to resign against his will.
The difference? In the time of Celestine V, there was NO LAW OF PAPAL ELECTIONS. Celestine V was told (by the man who was to be his successor) that it was okay for him (Celestine) to resign and for a new conclave to be held. These events caused problems in the Church because of the two-living-Pope problem.
Universi Dominici Gregis makes it EXPLICITLY illegal to do what was done in the time of Celestine V. But it was done anyway by Bergoglio and his minions. This is why Bergoglio's election was null and void. The Emperor has no clothes!
https://americanliterature.com/author/hans-christian-andersen/short-story/the-emperors-new-clothes
I'm sure that it is useless to point this out...
...The most obvious (elephant-in-the-room) problem is that Universi Dominici Gregis requires that the previous Pope to have died BEFORE a new election could be held.is flat-out false.
This is exactly why I prefaced my post with
I simply was showing that your statementis flat-out false.
With this, and several of your other recent posts, using the most gentle phrasing that I can muster, I cannot but conclude that your understanding of Ecclesial matters is rather novel.
Bergoglio is the Antichrist.Uhhh...no.
Uhhh...no.
Yes, it is true. And he will deceive "even the elect." Don't be that guy, Pax. May Our Lord remove your blinders.
Are you affiliated with the book, "To Deceive the Elect: The Catholic Doctrine on the Question of a Heretical Pope"?
To deceive the elect: The catholic doctrine on the question of a heretical Pope: Kramer, Fr. Paul: 9781945658136: Amazon.com: Books (https://www.amazon.com/deceive-elect-catholic-doctrine-heretical/dp/1945658134)
Cardinal Billot and St. Alphonsus were expressing theological opinions. Those opinions were later negated by subsequent papal Apostolic Constitutions. An authentic Papal decree overrides a mere theological opinion.At first glance the decree seems to contradict St. Alphonsus, but read him again. St. Alphonsus (and others) say that the universal acceptance of the new pope makes him truly the pope, even if the election was fraudulent.
At first glance the decree seems to contradict St. Alphonsus, but read him again. St. Alphonsus (and others) say that the universal acceptance of the new pope makes him truly the pope, even if the election was fraudulent.
A pope elected according to the laws would be pope from the moment the election was concluded. Perhaps a large number would despise the outcome and erect an antipope, yet by virtue of the legitimate election, the new pope would still be pope.
A candidate elected illegitimately would not be pope by virtue of the election, but would become pope because of the universal acceptance of the Church. The decree and St. Alphonsus are actually dealing with two separate questions.
So if I break into your house while you are out of town, change the locks and sell your house, would I get to keep the money from the home sale? After all, I was "universally-accepted" by the locksmith, the realtor, the banker, the neighbors, etc. Does that sound right to you?I'm not going to appoint myself a Doctor of the Church by making up an answer why God has decided to legitimize pontiffs through universal acceptance who were not legitimate by the law. I'm only showing what the actual Doctors have said about this. John of St. Thomas actually labels this de fide, not just 'a theory'.
If ignoring the papal election law and getting away with it is as good as following the law, why have the law in the first place? Do you see how perverse that is?
The Universal and Peaceful acceptance theory does not apply in the case of Bergoglio whose election was subject to the very specific law of Universi Dominici Gregis. In the distant past, when there were not specific laws governing papal elections, UPA theory could apply.
I'm not going to appoint myself a Doctor of the Church by making up an answer why God has decided to legitimize pontiffs through universal acceptance who were not legitimate by the law. I'm only showing what the actual Doctors have said about this. John of St. Thomas actually labels this de fide, not just 'a theory'.
Take a minute and read again the distinction made in the previous post. St. Alphonsus would not necessarily affirm that Francis was pope in the moments immediately after the election. However, once he was universally accepted, that acceptance made him pope even if he wasn't already.
The Apostolic Constitution of a Pope overrides any opinion of a Doctor of the Church in this matter. Here again is what the Pope said the law is:Take a breath. When the election is fraudulent, the elected is not pope. He has no rights given from the election.
76. Should the election take place in a way other than that prescribed in the present Constitution, or should the conditions laid down here not be observed, the election is for this very reason null and void, without any need for a declaration on the matter; consequently, it confers no right on the one elected.
Note, the Pope did not say it confers no right on the elected unless he is later universally and peacefully accepted. He could have said that, right? But he did not say that because it is ludicrous and makes the Apostolic Constitution completely meaningless.
The Apostolic Constitution of a Pope overrides any opinion of a Doctor of the Church in this matter. Here again is what the Pope said the law is:
76. Should the election take place in a way other than that prescribed in the present Constitution, or should the conditions laid down here not be observed, the election is for this very reason null and void, without any need for a declaration on the matter; consequently, it confers no right on the one elected.
Note, the Pope did not say it confers no right on the elected unless he is later universally and peacefully accepted. He could have said that, right? But he did not say that because it is ludicrous and makes the Apostolic Constitution completely meaningless.
5. Should doubts arise concerning the prescriptions contained in this Constitution, or concerning the manner of putting them into effect, I decree that all power of issuing a judgment in this regard belongs to the College of Cardinals, to which I grant the faculty of interpreting doubtful or controverted points. I also establish that should it be necessary to discuss these or other similar questions, except the act of election, it suffices that the majority of the Cardinals present should concur in the same opinion.
6. In the same way, should there be a problem which, in the view of the majority of the assembled Cardinals, cannot be postponed until another time, the College of Cardinals may act according to the majority opinion.
Yes, it is true. And he will deceive "even the elect." Don't be that guy, Pax. May Our Lord remove your blinders.
The idea that the Catholic Pope (or any pope) could be the Antichrist, and/or that the Catholic Church could be (or become) the "Great Whore of Babylon" is a 100% Protestant error, a heresy born in the depths of hell.
I've read many books on Catholic prophecies, Tradition, Lives of the Saints, etc. and studied for a few years at a Trad seminary. That's how I became convinced of this particular fact.
WHERE did you get the idea the Antichrist would be a pope, or even a man who claims to be pope?
Now if you're saying he's a TYPE or PREFIGURE of the actual Antichrist to come, we have no argument. History is full of types, allegories, dress-rehearsals, and precursors. God frequently works that way.
"...one point must be considered absolutely incontrovertible and placed firmly above any doubt whatever: the adhesion of the universal Church will be always, in itself, an infallible sign of the legitimacy of a determined Pontiff, and therefore also of the existence of all the conditions required for legitimacy itself..
...the aforementioned adhesion of the Church heals in the root all fault in the election and proves infallibly the existence of all the required conditions."
-Cardinal Billot
"It is of no importance that in past centuries some Pontiff was illegitimately elected or took possession of the Pontificate by fraud; it is enough that he was accepted afterwards by the whole Church as Pope, since by such acceptance he would have become the true Pontiff."
-Saint Alphonsus de Ligouri
.
Thank you for posting these quotes, NIFH. As much as this idea is maligned, the logic behind it is very simple, is explained by probably both the eminent authors you quote, and has never been refuted.
The argument is simple: We must accept with certainty any universal papal teaching on faith or morals. But we cannot accept the teaching of any pope with certainty unless we likewise know for certain that such a man is pope. Therefore there must be some observable, certain criterion to know that some particular man is pope. But the only criterion that fits that description is the universal acceptance of the whole Church of a particular man as pope. Why? Because if the whole Church could be wrong about who the pope is, then the whole Church could be led into error, which is contrary to the promises of Christ.
People who reject this teaching are unable to provide any other universally observable, objective criterion by which the faithful could know for certain that some particular man is pope. I know this because I have asked this question before: "If a man can be universally accepted as pope by the whole Church and still not be pope, then what criterion can give infallible certainty to the whole Church that someone is pope?" I have never gotten an answer to this.
If someone asserts that a man can be accepted peacefully by the universal Church as the pope, and somehow not be the pope, then every papacy is called into doubt, and therefore every defined dogma and every canonized saint and every papal teaching is likewise called into doubt. There is no way to know whether someone is pope or not, or to know whether there was some legal problem in the way his election took place, or anything else.
If you deny Universal Peaceful Acceptance, then either there must be some other universally-observable criterion that can give everyone certainty that someone is pope, or no man can be certainly known to be the pope.
If there is a third possibility, I would love to hear what it is. This is why both St. Alphonsus and Cardinal Billot taught this idea, along with many others.
If you deny Universal Peaceful Acceptance, then either there must be some other universally-observable criterion that can give everyone certainty that someone is pope, or no man can be certainly known to be the pope.
Yeti, why do you ignore St. Alphonsus exact words? Note that he said:St. Alphonsus gives the principle in the second half of his quote, and applies it to the example in the first half of the quote. The principle--universal acceptance makes a man pope--he applied to illegitimately elected popes in past centuries. In addressing the case of modern illegitimately elected popes, the same principle is applied. The greater amount of details in modern laws of papal election may increase the certainty that Francis was not pope immediately following the election, but does not affect in the least the principle of universal acceptance causing him to gain office shortly afterwards.
"It is of no importance that in past centuries some Pontiff was illegitimately elected or took possession of the Pontificate by fraud..."
He DID NOT say:
"It is of no importance that at any time some Pontiff might be illegitimately elected or took possession of the Pontificate by fraud..."
Compare those two statements. This entire discussions of Billot and Alphonsus is about papal elections in the distant past. Those Popes were accepted as legitimate by future Popes, even though there might have been questions/rumors surrounding their elections. You and others are trying to improperly apply what they said to future elections that are completely different, because these recent elections are governed by very detailed papal election laws.
If the second statement was true (which it definitely is not), it would completely undermine the fact of the law of papal elections that have been promulgated by recent Popes as Apostolic Constitutions. It is equivalent to saying that you can break the law and become Pope as long as you trick enough people and get away with it. That is perverse and not Catholic.
Unity of FaithWhile John XXII was teaching error in the 14th century, there was an antipope Nicholas V whose teaching may have been completely orthodox. Yet, John was the true pope.
To be fair, this is St Alphonsus’ opinion as a theologian (as well as Billot’s opinion). It can be disagreed with and isn’t dogma.John of St. Thomas labelled this principle de Fide.
While John XXII was teaching error in the 14th century, there was an antipope Nicholas V whose teaching may have been completely orthodox. Yet, John was the true pope.
John of St. Thomas labelled this principle de Fide.
The idea that the Catholic Pope (or any pope) could be the Antichrist, and/or that the Catholic Church could be (or become) the "Great Whore of Babylon" is a 100% Protestant error, a heresy born in the depths of hell.Rev. E. Sylvester Berry, The Apocalypse of John (1921), p. 135:
I've read many books on Catholic prophecies, Tradition, Lives of the Saints, etc. and studied for a few years at a Trad seminary. That's how I became convinced of this particular fact.
WHERE did you get the idea the Antichrist would be a pope, or even a man who claims to be pope?
Now if you're saying he's a TYPE or PREFIGURE of the actual Antichrist to come, we have no argument. History is full of types, allegories, dress-rehearsals, and precursors. God frequently works that way.
Rev. E. Sylvester Berry, The Apocalypse of John (1921), p. 135:
"[Rev. 13:11] The beast arising from the earth is a false prophet—the prophet of Antichrist. Our divine Saviour has a representative on earth in the person of the Pope upon whom He has conferred full powers to teach and govern. Likewise Antichrist will have his representative in the false prophet who will be endowed with the plenitude of satanic powers to deceive the nations. . . The two horns denote a twofold authority—spiritual and temporal. As indicated by the resemblance to a lamb, THE PROPHET WILL PROBABLY SET HIMSELF UP IN ROME AS A SORT OF ANTIPOPE DURING THE VACANCY OF THE PAPAL THRONE mentioned above."
Stunning prediction of the vacancy and connects the antipopes with the antichrist.
p. 138:
« [Rev. 13:16] The followers of Antichrist will be marked with a character in imitation of the sign that St. John saw upon the foreheads of the servants of God. This indicates that Antichrist and his prophet will introduce ceremonies to imitate the Sacraments of the Church. In fact there will be a complete organization—a church of Satan set up in opposition to the Church of Christ. Satan will assume the part of God the Father; Antichrist will be honored as Saviour, and his prophet will usurp the role of Pope. Their ceremonies will counterfeit the Sacraments and their works of magic be heralded as miracles.»
Stunning prediction of the invalid sacraments and false miracles like the Bogus Ordo eucharistic deception plaguing many.
Unity of Faith.
Pope John XXII never taught anything against the faith.John XXII taught that souls do not enter Heaven or Hell before the Last Judgement. He gave speeches, wrote letters and even a book about it. The clergy went into an uproar, particularly the faculty of the University of Paris. On his deathbed, the pope said he accepted whatever the Church would define about it. His successor clarified the question.
You are misinformed. John of St. Thomas agrees with my position:The treatise is lengthy and thorough. In the quote you provided, he says it is de Fide that the lawfully elected and universally accepted candidate is truly pope. That does not mean that an illegitimately elected and universally accepted candidate is not pope. Continue reading and you will find:
John of St. Thomas
X. Sit conclusio : De fide divina est immediate hunc hominem in particulari rite electum et acceptatum ab Ecclesia esse summum pontificem, et successorem Petri, no solum quoad se, se detiam quoad nos, licet multo magis quoad nos id manifestur, quando de facto pontifex aliquid definit, nec in ipso exercitio, et quasi practice aliquis Catholicorum ab hac conclusione dessentit, licet in acta signato, et quasi speculative putent se id non credere fide divina.
Translation
“Our conclusion is the following. It is immediately of divine faith that this man in particular, properly elected and accepted by the Church, is the supreme pontiff and the successor of Peter, not only quoad se (in himself) but also quoad nos (in relation to us) —although it is made much more manifest quoad nos (to us) when de facto the pope defines something. In practice, no Catholic disagrees with our conclusion, even though, when he considers it as a theoretical question, he might not think that he believes it with divine faith. (…)”
Rite (https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/rite#Latin) (https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/rite#Latin)
Etymology
From rītus (https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/ritus#Latin) (“rite, custom”), presumably from an ablative of an old third-declension form *rītis.
Adverb
rīte (not comparable (https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Appendix:Glossary#comparative))
- according to religious usage, with due observances, with proper ceremonies, ceremonially, solemnly, duly
Therefore, according to John of St. Thomas, if the election does not use the proper ceremonies and duly observe all requirements, then that person is not included under John of St. Thomas's opinion. Universi Dominici Gregis (https://www.vatican.va/content/john-paul-ii/en/apost_constitutions/docuмents/hf_jp-ii_apc_22021996_universi-dominici-gregis.html) agrees with John of St. Thomas and goes further to nullify such an improper election, in Section 76:
76. Should the election take place in a way other than that prescribed in the present Constitution, or should the conditions laid down here not be observed, the election is for this very reason null and void, without any need for a declaration on the matter; consequently, it confers no right on the one elected.
The treatise is lengthy and thorough. In the quote you provided, he says it is de Fide that the lawfully elected and universally accepted candidate is truly pope. That does not mean that an illegitimately elected and universally accepted candidate is not pope. Continue reading and you will find:
"...if the Cardinals elect him in a questionable manner, the Church can correct their election, as the Council of Constance determined in its 41st session. Hence, the proposition [that the one elected is a true Pope] is rendered de fide, as already has been explained, by the acceptance of the Church..."
John of St. Thomas's concern was putting to rest questions about past papal elections (those that occurred during the Western Schism) to establish certain dogmatic facts, specifically that Pope so-and-so was the actual Pope in the past and not an Antipope. That is the subject matter of his mention of a de fide declaration. It is about dogmatic facts (the real Pope's name) not a dogmatic teaching to be applied in all future papal elections. Anyone interested can confirm what I saying by reading about the Council of Constance here.The putting to rest of questions about past papal elections is one of the conclusions following from the application of the principle of universal acceptance. The principle is not thereby limited to that specific application. It applies to all elections.
(https://www.papalencyclicals.net/councils/ecuм16.htm)
The problem with the 2013 false conclave is not about an election that is carried out in a "questionable manner." A "question" implies that there is some doubt about the situation.
No, the 2013 conclave is objectively, unquestionably illegal. The Pope was still living at the time of the election. The law governing papal elections, Universi Dominici Gregis (https://www.vatican.va/content/john-paul-ii/en/apost_constitutions/docuмents/hf_jp-ii_apc_22021996_universi-dominici-gregis.html), requires, in Section 49 that the election can be held no sooner than "on the fifteenth day after the death of the Pope."
And, as I have shown over and over, that Apostolic Constitution states later the following:
76. Should the election take place in a way other than that prescribed in the present Constitution, or should the conditions laid down here not be observed, the election is for this very reason null and void, without any need for a declaration on the matter; consequently, it confers no right on the one elected.
St. Alphonsus gives the principle in the second half of his quote, and applies it to the example in the first half of the quote. The principle--universal acceptance makes a man pope--he applied to illegitimately elected popes in past centuries. In addressing the case of modern illegitimately elected popes, the same principle is applied. The greater amount of details in modern laws of papal election may increase the certainty that Francis was not pope immediately following the election, but does not affect in the least the principle of universal acceptance causing him to gain office shortly afterwards.
.
No, there are lots of people with whom I have unity of faith, and most of them are not the pope.
John XXII taught that souls do not enter Heaven or Hell before the Last Judgement. He gave speeches, wrote letters and even a book about it. The clergy went into an uproar, particularly the faculty of the University of Paris. On his deathbed, the pope said he accepted whatever the Church would define about it. His successor clarified the question.Regarding Pope John XXII
The putting to rest of questions about past papal elections is one of the conclusions following from the application of the principle of universal acceptance. The principle is not thereby limited to that specific application. It applies to all elections.
Number 76 is not in contradiction to the principle, nor does it even deal with the same question. An illegitimate election confers no right on the elected. The rights of the papal office are conferred some time later by the universal acceptance of the Church alone.
The principle of universal acceptance has no power to make a heretic a pope because the public sin of manifest formal heresy per se (i.e., by its very nature) separates the heretic from the Church. Therefore, Jorge Bergoglio, who was invalidly elected. cannot become pope through universal acceptance.There is no record of Bergoglio teaching heresy and admitting it to be contrary to the teaching of the Church. That is formal heresy. As far as material heresy goes, Bergoglio is a champion.
Regarding Pope John XXIII did not say he taught heresy, but error against the Faith. At his time, it was not a dogma. The fact that it is now a dogma means that it always has been true, only now we have more certainty that it is part of the Faith. The point is, he taught an error against the Faith and was yet a true pope. And he was not the only one.
"However, he taught this as a private teacher, not as Pontiff, and he held it theoretically or for the sake of debate, thinking that he could be deceived in these matters and permitting others to think differently until the question should be decided authoritatively. Hence he took care to have the matter studied by the Doctors, and frequently summoning debates in his presence on this point, he was prepared to abandon his opinion if it was shown to be against the faith. Indeed, on the day before his death he ordered a declaration of the true doctrine in the presence of all the Cardinals, etc. He said that previously he thought differently about this matter by pondering it and speaking about it. In this way he prepared the way for his successor, Benedict XII, to proclaim a definition of the true teaching [see Denz. 530-531]."
- Fr. Joseph F. Sagüés, S.J., Sacrae Theologiae Summa IVB: On the Last Things, trans. by Fr. Kenneth Baker, S.J.
Prior to Pope Benedict XII's definition, the issue was up for discussion. Pope John XXII never formally taught any heresy to the Church...that's just a bunch of malarkey.
It's also a well know fact that Saint Bernard also held to the same opinion as Pope John XXII
"St. Bernard [Doctor of the Church, 1090-1153] often taught that deceased just persons immediately after death will obtain immense happiness, but not the beatific vision until the resurrection [of their bodies]."
- Fr. Joseph F. Sagüés, S.J., Sacrae Theologiae Summa IVB: On the Last Things, trans. by Fr. Kenneth Baker, S.J.
Please, one step at a time. So are you admitting that John of St. Thomas's used of the phrase "de fide" in the quote that you provided is in relation to a "dogmatic fact," not a "theological conclusion?" Yes or No?In that sentence, he says it is a dogmatic fact that Pope so-and-so was indeed pope. Dogmatic facts can only follow on dogmatic teachings. Every effect requires a proportionate cause. No principle which is merely probable can establish a certain conclusion. By denoting a fact as 'de Fide' it is necessarily implicit in that assertion that the principle from which the conclusion stems is likewise 'de Fide'.
In that sentence, he says it is a dogmatic fact that Pope so-and-so was indeed pope. Dogmatic facts can only follow on dogmatic teachings. Every effect requires a proportionate cause. No principle which is merely probable can establish a certain conclusion. By denoting a fact as 'de Fide' it is necessarily implicit in that assertion that the principle from which the conclusion stems is likewise 'de Fide'.
In fact, John of St. Thomas says that only a "duly elected" Pope can be the subject matter of the Universal and Peaceful Acceptance doctrine.You're still zooming in too closely on that section of the treatise. There he is only saying that a properly elected candidate is 'de Fide' the pope. That is not the same thing as saying that only a properly elected candidate is 'de Fide' the pope.
“Our conclusion is the following. It is immediately of divine faith that this man in particular, properly elected and accepted by the Church, is the supreme pontiff and the successor of Peter, not only quoad se (in himself) but also quoad nos (in relation to us) —although it is made much more manifest quoad nos (to us) when de facto the pope defines something. In practice, no Catholic disagrees with our conclusion, even though, when he considers it as a theoretical question, he might not think that he believes it with divine faith. (…)”
You're still zooming in too closely on that section of the treatise. There he is only saying that a properly elected candidate is 'de Fide' the pope. That is not the same thing as saying that only a properly elected candidate is 'de Fide' the pope.
Zoom out a little bit and continue reading to where he treats of the case of improper election.
"...if the Cardinals elect him in a questionable manner, the Church can correct their election, as the Council of Constance determined in its 41st session. Hence, the proposition [that the one elected is a true Pope] is rendered de fide, as already has been explained, by the acceptance of the Church..."
There is no record of Bergoglio teaching heresy and admitting it to be contrary to the teaching of the Church. That is formal heresy. As far as material heresy goes, Bergoglio is a champion.
One does not have to admit he holds a teaching contradictory to that of the Church is in order to be a formal heretic.:confused: Then what is heresy?
:confused: Then what is heresy?
If you are certain of your position, show me the quote from the Council of Constance where this universal dogma (not a "dogmatic fact") is declared explicitly.It's not my position. I am nothing. I am not a Doctor of the Church, and I refuse to appoint myself one. My purpose has been to bring you to face the fact that you are opposing yourself to John of Saint Thomas.
[Heresy is] A proposition that contradicts a Church teaching that must be believed with Divine and Catholic Faith.Correct.
Formal heresy only occurs when the speaker admits he is contradicting the Church.
It's not my position. I am nothing. I am not a Doctor of the Church, and I refuse to appoint myself one. My purpose has been to bring you to face the fact that you are opposing yourself to John of Saint Thomas.
Now that you seem to want to begin attacking his explanation, I do not feel called upon to accompany you in that enterprise as his advocate. Perhaps if you have time, once you have worked out in your own mind that you have intellectually vanquished John of St. Thomas, you will advance on Suarez, who likewise teaches universal acceptance as 'de Fide'. From there, I can betray to you the names of no less than 50 actual theologians who dare hold such an audacious position.
This is not what I advise. Everyone makes misstakes. No one knows everything, save God. One of the benefits of posting behind an anonymous username is how much easier it is to abandon an error. If we used our real names, our fallen human nature, ever prone to pride, would find it more difficult.
Wrong. If that were the case, then every suspect brought to trial would not be convicted unless he admitted he is contradicting a Church teaching. However, pertinacity can be demonstrated with moral certitude without the suspect admitting his heresy.It is true that there is one way for a heretic to be declared a formal heretic without admitting it himself. This happens when a proper authority confronts him (in a trial for example) and says, "I am telling you that what you are saying is heresy, and if you do not retract, you will become a formal heretic". The problem today is that the pope himself is a material heretic, and no man on Earth has the proper authority over him to confront him authoritatively. I think St. Robert Bellarmine in addressing this possibility teaches that in such a case, the college of bishops could act as that authority. Well, let them do so, and Francis will lose his office if he does not retract.
"Thus it is proven that according to Catholic Doctrine, for one to be considered a formal heretic, it is not necessary that he, 'renounce the Church as the RULE of faith by PUBLIC PROFESSION', or explicitly admit that one is knowingly in heresy; but it suffices that one either 1) assertively state his disbelief in one single article of faith, because, one who offends against even one article is guilty of all, because disbelieving in one destroys the formal cause of faith from which that article depends; or, that the nature or circuмstances of ones words or deeds constitute moral certitude of formal heresy. Hence, Cardinal Robert Bellarmine, who was a high official of the Roman Inquisition, and is a Doctor of the Church, teaches that, 'men are not bound, or able to read hearts; but when they see that someone is a heretic by his external works, they judge him to be a heretic pure and simple [simpliciter], and condemn him as a heretic.'"
Kramer, Paul. To deceive the elect: The catholic doctrine on the question of a heretical Pope . Kindle Edition.
Your previous false claim was that John of St. Thomas stated that there was a universal Catholic dogma related to Universal Peaceful Acceptance. Your false evidence for that turned out to be his discussion of the particular "dogmatic fact" established during the 41st Session of Constance. A universal theological dogma and a particular "dogmatic fact" are not the same thing. Yet you, in your error, confound the two ideas. It is not John of St. Thomas who is wrong. It is your interpretation of John of St. Thomas that is wrong.The term he used is not 'universal dogma'. He said "de Fide". There are categories of 'de Fide' truths: 'de Fide divina', 'de Fide catolica', 'de Fide definita (dogma)', 'de Fide ecclesiastica'.
A "dogmatic fact" is nothing more than a particular ruling by a Pope or an Ecuмenical Council on some factual controversy. In the example you provided, the Council of Constance stated which particular papal claimants were actual Popes as opposed to the particular papal claimants who were Antipopes during the period of the Western Schism.
If we were to apply the idea of establishing a "dogmatic fact" to the case of Bergoglio, then we would need to wait for either a future Pope or Ecuмenical Council to rule on his antipapacy as a "dogmatic fact." So why are you claiming that the Bergoglio papacy is established as a "dogmatic fact?" There has been no dogmatic ruling by either a Pope or an Ecuмenical Council on Bergoglio's antipapacy.
The term he used is not 'universal dogma'. He said "de Fide". There are categories of 'de Fide' truths: 'de Fide divina', 'de Fide catolica', 'de Fide definita (dogma)', 'de Fide ecclesiastica'.
"...the Church can correct their election...". That's a principle, not just a historical fact.
"...rendered de Fide...BY the acceptance of the Church." Not by a stand-alone ruling of a particular Council.
The words de fide simply mean it must be believed by faith. Your statement above shows a complete lack of understanding in this matter.Keep Ott open to the same page and read §8 for the categories of 'de Fide' truths.
If you have Ludwig Ott's Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma, look at the Introduction, §6. Catholic Truths. You will see that Ott says that there are three types of "Catholic Truth":
1. Theological conclusions (conclusiones theologicae) in the strict sense.
2. Dogmatic facts (facta dogmatica).
3. Truths of reason, which have not been revealed, but which are intrinsically associated with the revealed truth.
Ott further says that "dogmatic facts" are...
"...historical truths which are not revealed but which are intrinsically connected with revealed truth, for example, the legality of a Pope or of a General Council, or the fact of he Roman episcopate of St. Peter."
You are not distinguishing properly between a "dogmatic fact" and a "dogmatic theological conclusion." The former deals with "particular" things. The latter deals with "universal" theological principles. In a categorical syllogism, a "dogmatic fact" would always be used in the Minor Premise, while the dogmatic theological principle would be used in the Major Premise. They are not interchangable.
Keep Ott open to the same page and read §8 for the categories of 'de Fide' truths.
You're evading the John of St. Thomas quote now. "...rendered de Fide...BY the acceptance of the Church."
I will try to go systematically through this exchange.1-2. "Now, the acceptance of the Church is realized both negatively, by the fact that the Church does not contradict the news of the election wherever it becomes known, and positively, by the gradual acceptance of the prelates of the Church, beginning with the place of the election, and spreading throughout the rest of the world. As soon as men see or hear that a Pope has been elected, and that the election is not contested, they are obliged to believe that that man is the Pope, and to accept him."
1. You stated that John of St. Thomas taught that the "Universal Peaceful Acceptance" of a particular Pope can be "de fide." If understood correctly (as referring to a "dogmatic fact"), I agree that it is possible for a past papal claimant to be accepted by a Pope or and Ecuмenical Council.
2. Only a Church authority with the power to declare a "dogmatic fact" (such as a Pope or an Ecuмenical Council) can declare that a particular papal claimant was, in the past, actually a Pope. The opinions of laymen or Cardinals or Bishops or priest on the matter are not relevant. Again, only a Pope or an Ecuмenical council can declare a "dogmatic fact."
3. As John of St. Thomas says in another place (which I quoted earlier), that it is his opinion that only a lawfully/duly/properly elected papal claimant can be the subject of "universal peaceful acceptance" declaration made by a Pope or an Ecuмenical Council. An unlawfully-elected Pope would not be considered, according to John of St. Thomas.
4. The precise theological dogma involved when a Pope or an Ecuмenical Council declares a "dogmatic fact" is discussed in Ott in Part 2, Chapter 1, §13, 3: Bearers of Infallibility. In that section, Ott explains that ONLY the Pope and a valid Ecuмenical Council can declare new infallible dogmas.
5. There is no general theological dogma called "universal peaceful acceptance" dogma. You seem to have access to Ott's book. Tell me where I can find this "dogma" of "universal peaceful acceptance" discussed in Ott's book.
6. Now, turning to Bergoglio. The the declaration of "universal peaceful acceptance" does not apply to him for two reasons:
a) there has been no declaration of "dogmatic fact" made by a later Pope or an Ecuмenical Council that Bergoglio was a valid Pope.
b) there would never be such a declaration of "dogmatic fact" made in Bergoglio's case anyway because his election was unlawful.
1-2. "Now, the acceptance of the Church is realized both negatively, by the fact that the Church does not contradict the news of the election wherever it becomes known, and positively, by the gradual acceptance of the prelates of the Church, beginning with the place of the election, and spreading throughout the rest of the world. As soon as men see or hear that a Pope has been elected, and that the election is not contested, they are obliged to believe that that man is the Pope, and to accept him."
Not acceptance by a succeeding pope, or a Council. Acceptance by the prelates of the world.
3. That section of the treatise deals only with a lawfully elected pope. He does not say the principle applies only to a lawfully elected pope. Bring yourself to read the rest of the treatise.
4-5. Not all 'de Fide' truths are dogmas proper.
6. Your reasoning is founded on errors in the previous numbers.
1-2. As I explained to Sean in the other thread, John of St. Thomas is not discussing infallible "dogmatic facts," truth, or teaching in that particular quote.
1-2. As I explained to Sean in the other thread, John of St. Thomas is not discussing infallible "dogmatic facts," truth, or teaching in that particular quote. He is explaining that Catholics should not have unreasonable doubts about a papal elections, assuming that two things are true:1-2. That particular quote contains the explanation of what constitutes universal acceptance. He clarified it as the acceptance of the prelates. Later comes the quote you seem not to be able to address. "... rendered de Fide...BY the acceptance of the Church". Not by a particular ruling of a pope or Council, as you thought.
a) the Church does not contradict the "news of the election," meaning that the Church authorities don't positively deny that the election took place.
b) the "prelates of the Church" gradually accept the news of the election, meaning that "the election is not contested."
But IF and ONLY IF those two things are true, are Catholics "obliged to believe that that man is the Pope." And this "obligation" is not irrevocable. It is not an infallible dogma, de fide. It only becomes de fide (infallible) when it has been declared as a "dogmatic fact" by the infallible teaching authority of the Church. And the "acceptance" process happens "gradually." The "prelates of the Church" do not immediately accept, upon hearing the news. They are allowed to judge and consider any concerns from those who might wish to "contest" the election for some reason.
3. Thanks for admitting that John of St. Thomas limits the "de fide" (infallible) aspect to "a lawfully-elected Pope." This is true, of course. If John of St. Thomas really meant that non-lawfully-elected Popes could be the beneficiaries a "de fide" declaration, then why did he bother to add that detail (rite electum) to his description? Rather than telling me to read the rest of the treatise to find the contrary, you should provide the evidence for your argument, since you claim to know that it exists. Please provide quotes with context.
4. You say "not all 'de fide' truths are dogmas proper." What is your point? A "dogmatic fact" declared infallibly by those with infallible teaching authority in the Church is a dogma. The Council of Constance declared that Pope Gregory XI was the true Pope infallibly. That was/is a "dogmatic fact." It is "of divine faith" (de fide) in John of St. Thomas's language, because the Church's infallible teachers when teaching infallibly must be taken on faith, i.e., they cannot be doubted by Catholics.
5. I asked you to tell me where I can find this imaginary "dogma" of "universal peaceful acceptance" discussed in Ott's Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma. You did not do that. Because, as I have been telling you, there is no such dogma of "universal and peaceful acceptance of a Pope." There are only specific actions which have declared "dogmatic facts" concerning certain Popes whose elections were contested.
6. Again, turning to Bergoglio. The declaration of "universal peaceful acceptance" (a "dogmatic fact") does not apply to him for two reasons:
a) there has been no declaration of "dogmatic fact" made by a later Pope or an Ecuмenical Council that Bergoglio was a valid Pope.
b) there could never be such a declaration of "dogmatic fact" made in Bergoglio's case anyway because his election was unlawful. And, as John of St. Thomas says, only a lawfully-elected Pope can be universally and peacefully accepted by the Church.
No. He said it’s de fide, and those who would refuse to accept a universally recognized pope are not merely schismatics, but heretics as well.
Please review the quotes in the other thread, especially this one:
“Whoever would deny that a particular man is Pope after he has been peacefully and canonically accepted, would not only be a schismatic, but also a heretic; for, not only would he rend the unity of the Church… but he would also add to this a perverse doctrine, by denying that the man accepted by the Church is to be regarded as the Pope and the rule of faith. Pertinent here is the teaching of St. Jerome (Commentary on Titus, chapter 3) and of St. Thomas (IIa IIae Q. 39 A. 1 ad 3), that every schism concocts some heresy for itself, in order to justify its withdrawal from the Church. Thus, although schism is distinct from heresy, in most cases it is accompanied by the latter, and prepares the way for it. In the case at hand, whoever would deny the proposition just stated would not be a pure schismatic, but also a heretic, as Suarez also reckons (above, in the solution to the fourth objection)."[10] (http://file:///C:/Users/user/Desktop/PUA.docx#_ftn10)
That segment of the treatise is limited to the case of lawfully elected popes. The case of unlawful elections is addressed in a subsequent segment, and it doesn't say what you want it to say.
To spell it out, I do not have to find a dogma. John does not say it is a dogma. He says universal acceptance is 'of the Faith'. He explains how it is of the Faith, just slow down a bit and read it. I'm not going to defend his explanation here. If you want to deny he disagrees with you, stop running around and look at the quote you've consistently evaded.
What John of St. Thomas says is "of the faith" (aka "de fide," aka a "dogmatic fact") is any infallible declaration, promulgated by those granted the gift of infallible teaching in the Church, that a particular papal claimant, lawfully-elected, is/was the true Pope. That, and only that, is "de fide," according to John of St. Thomas.
And, again, Bergoglio has not been elected lawfully according to the papal election law, Universi Dominici Gregis. But even if you tried to claim that he had been lawfully-elected, he definitely has not been declared as infallibly "the Pope" by a later Pope or an Ecuмenical Council. So, this diversion into the writings of John of St. Thomas has no bearing on the status of Bergoglio.
That, and only that, is "de fide," according to John of St. Thomas.That, yes. Only that, no. Confer evaded quote.
That, yes. Only that, no. Confer evaded quote.Which quote are you saying that I have evaded? I thought that I had addressed the John of St. Thomas quotes that you provided. If I missed one, tell me which one.
No, the church does not declare dogmatic facts; dogmatic facts are corollaries of dogma.
What JST has said, is that the universal and unanimous consent of the cardinals is like a definition of an ecuмenical council, and as such is de fide for whatever particular pope has received it.
Answered here (https://www.cathinfo.com/catholic-living-in-the-modern-world/journet-quotes-pertinent-to-sedevacantism/msg900309/#msg900309) in other thread.
I will try to go systematically through this exchange.
1. You stated that John of St. Thomas taught that
As I explained to Sean in the other thread, John of St. Thomas is not discussing ...
No. [John of St. Thomas] said it’s de fide
The point is, John of St. Thomas uses the term
I was referring to a different quote from John of St. Thomas
What John of St. Thomas says is "of the faith"
What JST has said, is that
I thought that I had addressed the John of St. Thomas quotes that you provided. If I missed one, tell me which one.
:laugh1::facepalm:
Man alive! You R&R people are absolutely obsessed with John of St. Thomas! And these quotes are from this page alone!! Would you even have heard of him if didn't teach that a pope who becomes a private heretic remains in office until he is deposed?
For you people, he is some sort of super-hero. He's like King Solomon, Christopher Columbus, Aristotle, St. Pius X, Thomas Edison, Google, Isaac Newton, Joseph Smith, Charlemagne, Mohammed, Batman, Alexander the Great, Jack Bauer and Donald Trump all wrapped into one!
Got a question? Consult John of St. Thomas! Why ask anyone else? Seriously, some of you people are like this:
"How about checking what St. Alphonsus has to say on the question?"
"Nah, why bother? John of St. Thomas knew more than he did."
"Or St. Robert Bellarmine?"
"That idiot? He was refuted by John of St. Thomas!"
"Or look in the Summa?"
"I just threw my Summa in the trash! It was wasting space on my shelf that I needed for the works of John of St. Thomas..."
"Or the Council of Trent?"
"I'm sure all they did at Trent was copy/paste John of St. Thomas. What else would they use?"
"Is it possible John of St. Thomas is wrong here?"
...........:trollface:
Not likely, as St. Alphonsus and Billot agree with him.
On what point exactly does Saint Alphonsus agree with JST?
PS:
It is interesting to me that in the debate between St. Bellarmine and Cajetan, neither seems to have addressed the matter of universal acceptance.
It seems that the classical theologians who followed them were able to absorb their work, and with the passage of time, make some additional insights, which in turn developed the subject matter a bit more:
JST, just one generation behind St. Bellarmine and Cajetan, then St. Alphonsus, Billot, all the way up to (the lesser) Journet on the eve of V2 included the matter of universal consent of the cardinals into their opinions/conclusions.
That maturing or development of doctrine (if such it is) never occurred to me before, but now I’m wondering if there’s something to it?
It is true that there is one way for a heretic to be declared a formal heretic without admitting it himself. This happens when a proper authority confronts him (in a trial for example) and says, "I am telling you that what you are saying is heresy, and if you do not retract, you will become a formal heretic". The problem today is that the pope himself is a material heretic, and no man on Earth has the proper authority over him to confront him authoritatively. I think St. Robert Bellarmine in addressing this possibility teaches that in such a case, the college of bishops could act as that authority. Well, let them do so, and Francis will lose his office if he does not retract.
St. Robert's statement, quoted by Fr. Kramer, needs to be understood in the light of the distinction between objective and subjective. It is the same distinction that helps us reconcile in our minds two quotes of Our Lord about judging others.
"Beware of false prophets, who come to you in the clothing of sheep, but inwardly they are ravening wolves. By their fruits you shall know them". (Matthew 7:15-6). Our Lord teaches us to judge our pastors.
"Judge not, that you may not be judged," (Matthew 7:1). Our Lord teaches us not to judge.
The distinction is that we must judge our pastors objectively, and must not judge our pastors subjectively.
Objective--relating to the facts
Subjective--relating to the person
Objective judgement of Pope Francis: This man smiles a lot and has nice and sweet words, but his teaching does not match the dogmas of the Faith. Francis is a wolf. Let's stay clear.
Subjective judgement of Pope Francis: This man, in his heart, hates Jesus Christ, and intends to lead souls to Hell.
The objective judgement is commanded by Our Lord, the subjective judgement is forbidden. We cannot rule out the possibility that Francis really intends to work against Jesus Christ, but only God knows. All we know is that Francis is objectively a wolf, and we must stay away.
This is what St. Robert means when he says to condemn someone as a heretic "pure and simple". The facts show that he is a material heretic, the fruits show us he is an objective wolf, but whether or not it is his personal intention, in the courtroom of our minds, the jury is still out.
:laugh1::facepalm:
Man alive! You R&R people are absolutely obsessed with John of St. Thomas! And these quotes are from this page alone!! Would you even have heard of him if didn't teach that a pope who becomes a private heretic remains in office until he is deposed?
For you people, he is some sort of super-hero. He's like King Solomon, Christopher Columbus, Aristotle, St. Pius X, Thomas Edison, Google, Isaac Newton, Joseph Smith, Charlemagne, Mohammed, Batman, Alexander the Great, Jack Bauer and Donald Trump all wrapped into one!
Got a question? Consult John of St. Thomas! Why ask anyone else? Seriously, some of you people are like this:
"How about checking what St. Alphonsus has to say on the question?"
"Nah, why bother? John of St. Thomas knew more than he did."
"Or St. Robert Bellarmine?"
"That idiot? He was refuted by John of St. Thomas!"
"Or look in the Summa?"
"I just threw my Summa in the trash! It was wasting space on my shelf that I needed for the works of John of St. Thomas..."
"Or the Council of Trent?"
"I'm sure all they did at Trent was copy/paste John of St. Thomas. What else would they use?"
"Is it possible John of St. Thomas is wrong here?"
...........:trollface:
The real problem is Antipope Bergoglio. We need to quit arguing about dead people. The events discussed in 2 Thessalonians 2 are happening now. Those who "consent to iniquity" by acknowledging Bergoglio as "the Holy Father" will suffer spiritually because they will not "receive the love of the Truth." They will consent to the lie that he is the Vicar of Christ.
Shame on you for so harshly accusing those who do not share your love of Benevacantism. Who do you think you are, anyway?
St. Paul said it Meg. I'm just passing it along.
Who do I think I am? I'm a Roman Catholic. I don't submit to lies or liars. Bergoglio is a liar. He is the antithesis of Christ. He is not and never will be "the Pope," "the Holy Father."
And you are here to convert us all to your version of "Truth," correct? Because previously, were have been in the dark, and have consented to iniquity (in your opinion).
You are here to show us the light, right?
Happy Feast of the Immaculate Heart of Mary, Meg!
But I have consented to iniquity, in your opinion, since I believe that Francis is the Pope. You have so judged, and therefore I am judged by God, correct?
I do believe that IF a person believes in their heart that Bergoglio is a "bad man" and doesn't care if he is a "bad man," and IF that same person, agrees that the "bad man" should be called "Papa" or "the Pope" or "the Holy Father," then that person has "consented to iniquity."
Now, you will notice that the word IF has been bolded above, that means I don't have access to the internal forum of any other human being. So I cannot "judge" in the above matter. Only the person himself can accuse himself and judge himself.
IF a person is really bothered by what I have said, that MIGHT be an indication that his conscience has been awakened. But since I have no access to that person's internal forum, I can't say for sure.
IF the person's conscience has been awakened. It MIGHT be best for that person to examine their conscience humbly, repent of any sins they are aware of and seek absolution using the Sacrament of Penance.
You said in a previous post that those who believe that Francis is the Pope are consenting to iniquity, and that they (we) cannot receive the love of Truth and will suffer spiritually. You talk like a cult leader.
Then ignore me and pray for me, as I do for you.
Can't do the former, but can do the latter. I'm not a fan of the cult leader mentality.
Fr. Thomas Slater, S.J., in his A Manual of Moral Theology (https://archive.org/details/MN5034ucmf_1/page/n299/mode/1up), Page 285:It is no sin to recognize that Pope Francis teaches against our Faith. We have a right to distance ourselves from him because it is a fact that his actions are those of an objective wolf.
“It is no sin to think that another is wicked or has committed a sin if we know it to be a fact.”
It is no sin to recognize that Pope Francis teaches against our Faith. We have a right to distance ourselves from him because it is a fact that his actions are those of an objective wolf.
To think that he has committed a subjective sin is beyond our ability, until he admits it himself or until the college of bishops confront him. That the matter of the sin is present, yes. That the intention to commit the sin is present, no.
You can check what formal heresy is without cracking a single theological manual. Look up 'formal' in the American Heritage Dictionary of the English language if you don't trust my explanation. If you want to propose that the word denotes otherwise in theological parlance, try to find a manual that will back you up.
"Formal" means, in the case of heresy, pertinacity, that is, being aware that a teaching is against the Catholic Faith and still adhering to it anyways. One does not need absolute certitude that one has committed a subjective sin. One only needs moral certitude based on the evidence of external actions. It is the same degree of certitude that a canonical judge would need to declare one a heretic. The simple layman can in conscience make that judgement based on the evidence and thereby reject the heretic's authority.You are inventing your own definition of 'formal', and understandably giving no source to confirm the definition. One must not only be aware that one is contradicting the Faith, one must formalize it, that is, one must say so. It is plain English.
"Archbishop Lefebvre had an idea of the danger when he resigned in 1982 as Superior General of what was still then the Society, and put its Superiorate in the hands of younger successors. For at the same time he reserved to himself all questions of relations with Rome. With his long years of direct experience of dealing as Apostolic Delegate to French Africa with Vatican officials, he suspected that the young priests of his Society might prove to be like babes in the wood amidst the wolves and sharks at work in the Vatican, and so it turned out, because the Big Bad Wolf had such lovely teeth, as Little Red Riding Hood told him! “All the better with which to devour you, my darling,” came the answer. And since modernist minds have lost objective truth, all the more power to deceive do the “sincere” lies of Roman officials have. Subjectively, they are “sincere,” especially lovely teeth! Objectively, they are deadly." - Bp. WilliamsonTo celebrate the Novus Ordo is certainly sinful matter. Simply from the viewpoint of law, it is disobedience to the current regulations, namely Quo Primum. If celebrated with full knowledge of it's illegitimacy, and full consent, well...
But if the hierarchy of New Rome is "objectively deadly," with their sincere, sharp, "lovely teeth," then why is not the New Mass an objective mortal sin, since it is the crowned fruit, the objective of their deadly earnestness?
You are inventing your own definition of 'formal', and understandably giving no source to confirm the definition. One must not only be aware that one is contradicting the Faith, one must formalize it, that is, one must say so. It is plain English.
The simple layman is allowed in conscience to see that the intentions of Pope Francis are questionable, given the things he says. It does not take much research to find out that the modernist clergy had perverse education, and that it is possible their personal culpability may be diminished. God knows.
The judgement we make is purely objective: we know he teaches heresy, therefore we stay away. As far as we know, they have not lost the authority to teach the truth. They're just not doing so.
"The moral object may be consider in one of two ways: materially, when its own relationship to the eternal law is considered; formally, in so far as its morality is recognized by the conscience of the agent. An object that is materially evil constitutes material sin; an object that is formally evil constitutes a formal sin.""...formally, in so far as its morality is recognized by the conscience of the agent."
(Handbook of Moral Theology, Dominic M. Prummer, O.P., 1956, Section 46)
Once again, if one must "say so" in order for him to be condemned as a heretic, then only those that "say so" can be convicted in a canonical trial.
"...formally, in so far as its morality is recognized by the conscience of the agent."
Precisely.
Where is this recognition? Where does Pope Francis recognize that his teaching contradicts the Faith? Over and over he will say that his heresies conform with the Faith. I'm just as sick and tired of it as you are, but the recognition is not there. Is he sincerely and gravely mistaken, due to his perverted education? Does he know full well, and pretends not to know? God knows. I don't know. You don't know. We know it's fishy, we have the right to make an objective judgement and stay away, but until we get his recognition of his own heresy, we cannot say he is a formal heretic.
"...formally, in so far as its morality is recognized by the conscience of the agent."
Precisely.
Where is this recognition? Where does Pope Francis recognize that his teaching contradicts the Faith? Over and over he will say that his heresies conform with the Faith. I'm just as sick and tired of it as you are, but the recognition is not there. Is he sincerely and gravely mistaken, due to his perverted education? Does he know full well, and pretends not to know? God knows. I don't know. You don't know. We know it's fishy, we have the right to make an objective judgement and stay away, but until we get his recognition of his own heresy, we cannot say he is a formal heretic.
829. Heresy is not formal unless one pertinaciously rejects the truth, knowing his error and consenting to it.(a) One must know that one’s belief is opposed to divine revelation or to Catholic faith. Hence, those who were born and brought up in Protestantism, and who in good faith accept the confession of their denomination, are not formal but material heretics. Even those who are ignorant of their errors through grave fault and who hold to them firmly, are guilty, not of formal heresy, but of sinful ignorance (see 904 sqq.)(b) One must willingly consent to the error. But for formal heresy it is not required that a person give his assent out of malice, or that he continue in obstinate rejection for a long time, or that he refuse to heed admonitions given him. Pertinacity here means true consent to recognized error, and this can proceed from weakness (e.g., from anger or other passion); it can be given in an instant, and does not presuppose an admonition disregarded. Hence, if one sees the truth of the Catholic Church, but fears that assent will involve many obligations and out of weakness turns away from the truth, one then and there pertinaciously consents to error.830. Examples of material heresy are: (a) Catholics who deny certain dogmas of faith, because they have not been well instructed, but who are ready to correct their errors, whenever the Church’s teaching is brought home to them; (b) non-Catholics who do not accept the Catholic Church, but who have never had any misgivings about the tenets of their own denomination, or who in doubts have searched for the truth to the best of their ability.
Bergoglio doesn't get to claim "material heresy" because he doesn't "recognize that his teaching contradicts the Faith." The contradiction is an objective fact, determined by logically analyzing propositions.The contradiction is an objective fact, as you say. Therefore, he is objectively a heretic.
Bergoglio has officially taught, and published in the Acta Apostolicae Sedis, that, in certain situations, for pastoral reasons, a divorced and remarried Catholic without an annulment can receive Holy Communion.
That is formal, obstinate heresy, as the Dubia (and the lack of a response) has proved. Bergoglio is not "ignorant" of the perennial teaching of the Church regarding D&R Catholics.
Here is the explanation of formal and material heresy in Callan and McHugh's Moral Theology (https://www.gutenberg.org/files/35354/35354-h/35354-h.html):
A man who’s supposedly the head of the Catholic Church, born in 1936 and doesn’t know what heresy is??? :facepalm:The pope doesn't know up from down? Yes, that is exactly how bad things have gotten. The very Vicar of Christ has a brain made of mush. You're going to have to go back farther than 1936 to return to the days before seminaries were safe from Modernist filth.
The degenerate communist knows more about heresy than you will ever know. Maybe this tidbit will help you understand:
Spanish Original shows Francis admitted his Teaching is “perhaps a Heresy, I don’t know”
https://novusordowatch.org/2015/05/spanish-original-heresy/
The contradiction is an objective fact, as you say. Therefore, he is objectively a heretic.
That 'Communion for 'remarried'' garbage is a fine example of objective heresy. Lack of response is not recognizing anything. Yes it's fishy to say the least. But it could also be that his trusted councilors gave him some perverted reasoning why the authors of the Dubia are incorrect, and it's not worth responding to that flavor of idiocy, for example, or whatever. Remember, Pope Francis has thousands of bishops cheering him on, and a handful who reproach him. It's probably obvious to his mind that he can't be that far off, since the mass of bishops love him.
Proposition #2 and #3 contradict one another. Therefore, Bergoglio has officially taught a direct, objective heresy against the faith. It is not possible to claim that Bergoglio does not know the teaching of the Catholic church in this matter. This makes him a formal heretic.Direct objective heresy, no doubt.
Bergoglio was warned by four Cardinals of his error and he did not respond to the warning with any explanation. This makes him an obstinate and formal heretic.
"...formally, in so far as its morality is recognized by the conscience of the agent."
Precisely.
Where is this recognition? Where does Pope Francis recognize that his teaching contradicts the Faith? Over and over he will say that his heresies conform with the Faith. I'm just as sick and tired of it as you are, but the recognition is not there. Is he sincerely and gravely mistaken, due to his perverted education? Does he know full well, and pretends not to know? God knows. I don't know. You don't know. We know it's fishy, we have the right to make an objective judgement and stay away, but until we get his recognition of his own heresy, we cannot say he is a formal heretic.
Direct objective heresy, no doubt.
It is quite possible to claim the pope does not know this is heresy. Thank God on your knees for whatever grasp of reality you have. The pope and many other high clergymen believe in the evolution of dogma, that certain Church teachings were only "substantial anchorages" good for some historical circuмstances and not applicable to today's circuмstances, and other felonious ideas that induce vomiting in our healthier minds.
St. Robert Bellarmine talks about the entire college of bishops being able to confront a pope, forcing him to either recant or become a formal heretic. Well, he might not have meant absolutely %100 of them, but surely more than four.
But didn't you imply that the "recognition" has to be explicitly expressed by the heretic, that is, that he explicitly admit that he knows he is teaching heresy?Without an explicit recognition, we cannot say that he knows he is teaching heresy. We, and the Church herself, cannot see into the conscience of anyone. De internis Ecclesia non judicat. Prummer presumes the reader will already be aware of this.
If that papal claimant contradicts the de fide dogma because he believes "in the evolution of dogma," then that papal claimant is a guilty of an even worse heresy than the first: he is a Modernist.The belief in the evolution of dogma is so serious that it unhooks the mind from the very concept of immovable definitions. As a result, their minds are so adrift as to no longer be capable of troubling over discrepancies between 'what the Church teaches' (as they see it) in various epochs. Yes, it confirms him as an objective heretic. Nay, more, a superheretic.
Being a Modernist does not excuse the papal claimant from being a "formal heretic." It confirms him as a heretic.
Without an explicit recognition, we cannot say that he knows he is teaching heresy. We, and the Church herself, cannot see into the conscience of anyone. De internis Ecclesia non judicat. Prummer presumes the reader will already be aware of this.
Yes, it confirms him as an objective heretic. Nay, more, a superheretic.
§1. The following are removed from an ecclesiastical office by the law itself:1/ a person who has lost the clerical state;2/ a person who has publicly defected from the Catholic faith or from the communion of the Church;3/ a cleric who has attempted marriage even if only civilly.§2. The removal mentioned in nn. 2 and 3 can be enforced only if it is established by the declaration of a competent authority.
As proven at www.antipope.com, Bergoglio was never lawfully-elected Pope to begin with. But as of 2016, he was not even capable of holding any office in the Church..
.
I'm curious, Angelus, is there anyone else in the world who agrees with your "obvious" interpretation of Universi Domini Gregis and the conclusions you draw from it? Anyone at all?
Therefore, you are in effect admitting that a judge in a canonical trial cannot render a guilty verdict for heresy against the one on trial unless the one on trial explicitly admits that he is a heretic. We both know that that is ridiculous. Please stop with this nonsense.No. A competent authority can bring a suspect to trial and say, "With my authority, I am telling you that when you say the Church teaches 'X', you are dead wrong and in fact teaching heresy. Recant or become a formal heretic". Even if the suspect continues to say he is teaching in accordance with the Faith, he nevertheless becomes a formal heretic.
Good. Now combine what you said above with what Canon 194 (1983 Code) states:See in §2 the mention of a competent authority. The pope can admit it himself, or the entire college of bishops, according to St. Robert. Material heresy does not suffice.
Bergoglio has attempted to officially promulgate objective heresy. His objective act can be seen in the external forum. We do not need to worry about his internal mental state or his psychological history. The promulgation of the heresy was public, and Bergoglio is obstinate in maintaining his heretical position when confronted by the Dubia Cardinals.
Heresy is one of the three ways to defect from the Catholic faith. Therefore, by "publicly defecting from the Catholic faith," Bergoglio has been removed from whatever office he held in the Church "by the law itself." This defection and de jure removal occurred in March 2016.
As proven at www.antipope.com, Bergoglio was never lawfully-elected Pope to begin with. But as of 2016, he was not even capable of holding any office in the Church.
No. A competent authority can bring a suspect to trial and say, "With my authority, I am telling you that when you say the Church teaches 'X', you are dead wrong and in fact teaching heresy. Recant or become a formal heretic". Even if the suspect continues to say he is teaching in accordance with the Faith, he nevertheless becomes a formal heretic.
The problem with a materially heretical pope is that no one on Earth has the authority to bring him to trial. St. Robert Bellarmine says the entire college of bishops together does have that authority. Let them use it, and if Francis doesn't recant, sedevacantism will become the truth, according to St. Robert.
See in §2 the mention of a competent authority. The pope can admit it himself, or the entire college of bishops, according to St. Robert. Material heresy does not suffice.
Archbishop Lefebvre said a young priest is permitted 2 heresies per sermon. He was talking about material heresies stemming from misunderstanding. A priest who publicly pronounces a material heresy in his sermon is not removed from office.
Again, let's look closely at what Canon 194 says:
Can. 194 §1. The following are removed from an ecclesiastical office by the law itself:1/ a person who has lost the clerical state;2/ a person who has publicly defected from the Catholic faith or from the communion of the Church;3/ a cleric who has attempted marriage even if only civilly.§2. The removal mentioned in nn. 2 and 3 can be enforced only if it is established by the declaration of a competent authority.
The "removal" from office happens automatically from a legal perspective. This means that the person who "defects from the Catholic faith" no longer has any authority that his office would have given him. This "removal" of his legitimacy happens without any action of any other human being.
The "enforcement" of the "removal" requires that a competent authority make a declaration. So, before sending in the police to force Bergoglio to physically leave the Vatican, the competent authority would have to "declare" his removal. But from the perspective of Canon Law, his "removal" from office already took place before the physical "enforcement" of it.
What this means practically is that the moment a papal claimant "defects from the Catholic faith" all Catholics must cease to recognize that he has any right to be called "the Pope" and ceases to have any legitimate authority over the true Church and its members. The fact that he has "captured" the Vatican (and the minds of all the blind "Catholics") does not relieve us from our duty to recognize that he is no longer Pope and act accordingly.
What this means practically is that the moment a papal claimant "defects from the Catholic faith" all Catholics must cease to recognize that he has any right to be called "the Pope" and ceases to have any legitimate authority over the true Church and its members.Uhhhh, no.
Uhhhh, no.
This is the whole point of the debate between +Bellarmine and Cajetan (and others). The "practical" aspects of the law can only happen AFTER the authorities take action (i.e. declare and remove). Before the authorities take action, then we can only "theoretically" stop listening/resist such a heretic.
The debate still rages on 500 years later. It's not a settled question, so quit acting like it is.
Can. 194 §1. The following are removed from an ecclesiastical office by the law itself:1/ a person who has lost the clerical state;2/ a person who has publicly defected from the Catholic faith or from the communion of the Church;3/ a cleric who has attempted marriage even if only civilly.§2. The removal mentioned in nn. 2 and 3 can be enforced only if it is established by the declaration of a competent authority.
Can. 188 Any office becomes vacant upon the fact and without any declaration by tacit resignation recognized by the law itself if a cleric:
...
4. Publicly defects from the Catholic Faith.
Canon 2314 §1. All apostates from the Christian faith and each and every heretic or schismatic:
1. They automatically incur excommunication;
2. Unless they respect warnings, they shall be deprived of a benefice, dignity, pension, office, or other office, if they have any in the Church, they shall be declared infamous, and the clerics, with repeated warning, shall be deposed;
3. If they have given their name to a non-Catholic sect or publicly adhered to it, they are automatically infamous and, according to the firm provision of can. 188, no. 4, the clerics, having been warned unsuccessfully, are degraded [laicized].
Uhhhh, no.
This is the whole point of the debate between +Bellarmine and Cajetan (and others). The "practical" aspects of the law can only happen AFTER the authorities take action (i.e. declare and remove). Before the authorities take action, then we can only "theoretically" stop listening/resist such a heretic.
The debate still rages on 500 years later. It's not a settled question, so quit acting like it is.
2/ a person who has publicly defected from the Catholic faith or from the communion of the Church;
If a materially heretical pope is violently suspect of heresy, the cardinals/college of bishops can gather to determine whether he is pope by first determining whether he is a public formal heretic. If they prove that is a public formal heretic, then that would be the evidence that he is not pope. In the case of Jorge Bergoglio there are two things against him: first, he was not validly elected; second, he is a public formal heretic as demonstrated by his words and actions over the last 10 years. Therefore, the only thing the cardinals/college of bishops have to do is declare it for the sake of those who are still in the dark.When a pope is a suspect of heresy, the bishops can convene, not to determine if he is pope, nor to determine if he is a formal heretic. If he has admitted heresy himself, he loses office automatically without any need for the bishops to meet. The bishops gather to confront the pope with his heresy. If after the confrontation he does not renounce his heresy, at that moment he becomes a formal heretic and loses his office. The bishops don't remove him, it is beyond their authority. Our Lord removes him, and only after he remains obstinate after the confrontation of the bishops.
Again, let's look closely at what Canon 194 says:The public defection must be formal.
Can. 194 §1. The following are removed from an ecclesiastical office by the law itself:1/ a person who has lost the clerical state;2/ a person who has publicly defected from the Catholic faith or from the communion of the Church;3/ a cleric who has attempted marriage even if only civilly.§2. The removal mentioned in nn. 2 and 3 can be enforced only if it is established by the declaration of a competent authority.
The "removal" from office happens automatically from a legal perspective. This means that the person who "defects from the Catholic faith" no longer has any authority that his office would have given him. This "removal" of his legitimacy happens without any action of any other human being.
The "enforcement" of the "removal" requires that a competent authority make a declaration. So, before sending in the police to force Bergoglio to physically leave the Vatican, the competent authority would have to "declare" his removal. But from the perspective of Canon Law, his "removal" from office already took place before the physical "enforcement" of it.
What this means practically is that the moment a papal claimant "defects from the Catholic faith" all Catholics must cease to recognize that he has any right to be called "the Pope" and ceases to have any legitimate authority over the true Church and its members. The fact that he has "captured" the Vatican (and the minds of all the blind "Catholics") does not relieve us from our duty to recognize that he is no longer Pope and act accordingly.
Regarding public "defection," I quote the immortal words of Inigo Montoya:
You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means. - YouTube (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YIP6EwqMEoE&t=1s)
3. The juridical-administrative act of abandoning the Church does not per se constitute a formal act of defection as understood in the Code, given that there could still be the will to remain in the communion of the faith.
On the other hand, heresy (whether formal or material), schism and apostasy do not in themselves constitute a formal act of defection if they are not externally concretized and manifested to the ecclesiastical authority in the required manner.
So, the ecclesiastical office becomes legally "vacant" at the moment that the officeholder "defects from the Catholic faith.":facepalm: For the 53rd time....WHO decides that the officeholder "defected from the Faith"? You? Me?
The public defection must be formal.
Imagine the young parish priest, who misunderstands a point of doctrine and publicly pronounces heresy in his sermon. By your interpretation, he ceases at that moment to be the parish priest. That is not how it works.
The public defection must be formal.
Imagine the young parish priest, who misunderstands a point of doctrine and publicly pronounces heresy in his sermon. By your interpretation, he ceases at that moment to be the parish priest. That is not how it works.
:facepalm: For the 53rd time....WHO decides that the officeholder "defected from the Faith"? You? Me?
I say that Benedict defected from the Faith. Catholic Knight disagrees.
Catholic Knight says that Francis defected. But Meg disagrees.
So who's right? Answer: Nobody is. Until the Church Authorities say so, then the question is left as debatable. That's how the church hierarchy works.
If you disagree, then you're preaching a private-interpretation of canon law, which is basically legal-protestantism.
:facepalm: For the 53rd time....WHO decides that the officeholder "defected from the Faith"? You? Me?
I say that Benedict defected from the Faith. Catholic Knight disagrees.
Catholic Knight says that Francis defected. But Meg disagrees.
So who's right? Answer: Nobody is. Until the Church Authorities say so, then the question is left as debatable. That's how the church hierarchy works.
If you disagree, then you're preaching a private-interpretation of canon law, which is basically legal-protestantism.
It's not like I don't think that Francis is a heretic. He is. But has he ever said that he is leaving the Catholic Faith for another faith? No, he hasn't. That's what public defection means in the context of the canon law that they keep citing.
Similarly, in Catholic law, the word "heresy" has a definition. Canon 194 explains what happens when one holding an ecclesiastical office publicly teaches heresy. Bergoglio publicly taught heresy in Amoris Laetitia. 2+2=4
Canon 194 says nothing about heresy. Where is the word "heresy" used?
...this Pontifical Council questions and requests for clarification concerning the so-called actus formalis defectionis ab Ecclesia catholica mentioned in canons 1086, § 1, 1117 and 1124 of the Code of Canon Law. The concept therein presented is new to canonical legislation and is distinct from the other – rather “virtual” (that is, deduced from behaviors) – forms of “notoriously” or “publicly” abandoning the faith (cfr. can. 171, § 1, 4°; 194, § 1, 2°; 316, § 1; 694, § 1, 1°; 1071, § 1, 4° and § 2). In the latter circuмstances, those who have been baptized or received into the Catholic Church continue to be bound by merely ecclesiastical laws (cfr. can. 11).
Meg, if you will read this docuмent (https://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/pontifical_councils/intrptxt/docuмents/rc_pc_intrptxt_doc_20060313_actus-formalis_en.html), you should be able to understand that the entire discussion is clarifying the distinction between the two concepts:
1. Defection from the Catholic Church
2. Defection from the Catholic Faith
Note the bolded part referencing Canon 194 §1.2. The writer is distinguishing between the concept called "actus formalis defectionis ab Ecclesia catholica [defection from the Catholic Church] from the other concept that they call "abandoning the faith" which it says is found in Canon 194.
Do you see that? It is the core distinction being made in that docuмent.
A "formal heretic" is a person who is aware of the teaching of the Church but holds something contrary to that Church teaching.The example of the young parish priest illustrates the absurdity of your unique attempt at understanding the law.
We are not discussing a "young parish priest." We are talking about Bergoglio. You are trying to make people think that Bergoglio is ignorant of the Church teaching that divorce and remarriage is a mortal sin. Or that Bergoglio is ignorant of the Church teaching that a person in a state of mortal sin cannot worthily receive Holy Communion. Or that Bergoglio is ignorant of the Church teaching that Catholic dogma in those matters cannot evolve in a Modernistic way.
Why do you keep posting this? Bergoglio is not an ignorant "material heretic." He is an extremely knowledgable deceiver. You seem think that he is the Pope, but that he fails to understand the most elementary Catholic teachings on divorce and remarriage and the Eucharist.
Bergoglio's heresy in Amoris Laetitia was formal, public, and obstinate. There is no doubt about that.
You claimed that canon 194 explains what happens when one holding an ecclesiastical office publicly teaches heresy, and yet heresy is not mentioned in that canon at all. You are not being honest.
Canon 194 §1. The following are removed from an ecclesiastical office by the law itself:2/ a person who has publicly defected from the Catholic faith or from the communion of the Church;
The example of the young parish priest illustrates the absurdity of your unique attempt at understanding the law.
I cannot forcibly prevent you from passing subjective judgement on the soul of Pope Francis--namely, that he is an "extremely knowledgeable deceiver". But you are incapable of such judgement (like the rest of us).
It is objectively obvious that Jorge Bergoglio, the antipope, is familiar with the true Catholic dogma on the matters discussed in Amoris Laetitia.Given his mis-education, and taking into account his stated intention to teach in accordance with the Faith, it is objectively unclear if the pope has ever understood fundamental Catholic teaching as much as our five-year-olds do.
Given his mis-education, and taking into account his stated intention to teach in accordance with the Faith, it is objectively unclear if the pope has ever understood fundamental Catholic teaching as much as our five-year-olds do.
Since [practicing ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖs] are virtuous in other areas of their lives, and know the doctrine, can we say that they are all in error, because they do not feel, in conscience, that their relationships are sinful? And how can we act pastorally so that these people feel, in their way of life, called by God to a healthy affective life that produces fruit? Should we recognize that their relationships can open up and give seeds of true Christian love, such as the good they can accomplish, the response they can give to the Lord?
To "defect from the faith" is to be guilty of either heresy or apostasy. Rather than use both of those terms, the law simply uses a single word to encompass the meaning of both of those more specific words.
You seem to think that "to defect from the Catholic faith" is synonymous with "to defect from the Catholic Church." But that is clearly wrong, which you can see by looking at Canon 194 §1.2 again,
Here is the relevant part of the Canon:
Meg, Canon 194 §1.2 refers to two different possible defections:
1) a person who has publicly defected from the Catholic faith
OR
2) a person who has publicly defected from the communion of the Church;
If to "defect from the Catholic faith" means the same thing as to "leave the Church" (as you seem to think), what does to "defect from the communion of the Church" mean?
When a pope is a suspect of heresy, the bishops can convene, not to determine if he is pope, nor to determine if he is a formal heretic. If he has admitted heresy himself, he loses office automatically without any need for the bishops to meet. The bishops gather to confront the pope with his heresy. If after the confrontation he does not renounce his heresy, at that moment he becomes a formal heretic and loses his office. The bishops don't remove him, it is beyond their authority. Our Lord removes him, and only after he remains obstinate after the confrontation of the bishops.
Angelus, it is no use to explain to Meg. I already showed her black and white evidence that leaving the Catholic Church is not the exclusive meaning of defecting from the Catholic Faith. She refused to accept that black and white evidence.
There is a difference between being suspect of heresy and being manifestly heretical. The most obvious example of the latter is if the heretic were himself to admit he is a heretic. However, it is not necessary for one to admit he is a heretic to be manifestly heretical. Manifest heresy can be ascertained by even a simple layman. Canon 188.4º of the 1917 Code supports my assertion:The public defection must be formal. 'Formal' has a precise definition that everyone else uses, even if you personally decide to reinvent the term.
"Ob tacitam renuntiationem ab ipso iure admissam quaelibet officia vacant ipso facto et sine ulla declaratione, si clericus: A fide catholica publice defecerit."
"Any office becomes vacant upon the fact and without any declaration by tacit resignation recognized by the law itself if a cleric: Publicly defects from the Catholic faith."
ANY office BECOMES VACANT upon the FACT of public defection from the Catholic Faith WITHOUT any declaration. Therefore, this canon recognizes that the declaration by a competent authority is not necessary for the loss of office. A fact is perceived by the senses and apprehended by the intellect. Therefore, a judgment (private, without juridical force) of public defection, when there is sufficient evidence, can be made by a simple layman. If this was not the case, then Canon 188.4º would not make sense in stating that the loss of office occurs without any declaration because if one cannot make the judgment on his own despite the factual evidence and the Church does not make a declaration, how would anybody know that the loss of office took place? Canon 188.4º is therefore made futile by such an erroneous interpretation.
Now nowhere in this canon or in the explanations by canonists does it require that the heretic admit he is a heretic for Canon 188.4º to take effect.
If formally leaving the Catholic Faith by means of giving a public defection statement is not the exclusive means, then canon law would state that. It does not. So we have to go with what is stated, as it is stated. No "explanation" that you provide changes that simple fact.
The public defection must be formal. 'Formal' has a precise definition that everyone else uses, even if you personally decide to reinvent the term.
Where does the canon state that "publicly defects from the Catholic Faith" means "formally leaves the Catholic Church"?
What else could defecting mean?
Here's an online dictionary that provides a definition:
"Defect
"To leave a country, political party, etc., especially in order to join an opposing one.
"Example: ""The British spy, Kim Philby, defected to the Soviet Union from Britain in 1963.""
DEFECTING | English meaning - Cambridge Dictionary (https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/defecting)
Meg, the problem is not with the definition of the word "defect." The problem is that Canon 194 tells us what the defection is from, specifically:
EITHER
1. from the Catholic faith
OR
2. from communion of the Church
So, in Canon 194, the verb "defect" applies to both cases. Each case is different. Defection from "the faith" means either "heresy" or "apostasy." Defection from "communion of the Church" means "schism."
Neither of those things means what you claim it means. You say that you mean "formally leaving the Catholic Faith by means of giving a public defection statement." The concept you are referring to is called a formal "defection from the Catholic Church." That concept is discussed in the Vatican docuмent that I linked to above.
True, the problem may not be with what seems obvious to me regarding "defect." However, your definition, which also requires a further definition, doesn't work, since the canon law in question doesn't say anything about heresy.
Also, as has been pointed out I believe already on this thread, it isn't known for sure that this canon law would apply to a Pope. So the matter is far from settled, as the Benevacantists seem to believe.
Meg, a person who is a formally, publicly, and obstinately rejects a de fide teaching of the Catholic faith (e.g., denies that divorce and remarriage is a mortal sin that prevents a person from worthily receiving the Eucharist) no longer has any legitimate authority to "teach" Catholics. He is a heretic. It doesn't matter if he is a school teacher, a theologian, a priest, a bishop or "the Pope."
Canon 194 says that he automatically loses his office. The seat in that office becomes "legally vacant" automatically.
You seem to be saying that if "the Pope" told everyone, definitively, that Jesus was not God, he would still be the Pope, as long as he didn't also formal make a declaration that he was leaving the Catholic Church. And you, Meg, would be obliged to continue to call him "the Pope." Is that what you would do, Meg?
You do realize that this subject has been debated for a long time here, right?
Your interpretation for that canon doesn't work. No, it doesn't say that a Pope that publicly promotes heretical views automatically loses his office.
You didn't answer my question, Meg.
If "the Pope" stated publicly, definitively, and obstinately that Jesus was not God, but merely a man, would he still be the Pope?
What Church teaching states that the laity are required to make such a determination? I'm asking for a SPECIFIC teaching, not a roundabout ambiguous teaching - something that sedevacantists have trouble producing.
Can. 748 §1. All persons are bound to seek the truth in those things which regard God and his Church and by virtue of divine law are bound by the obligation and possess the right of embracing and observing the truth which they have come to know.
Can. 750 §1. A person must believe with divine and Catholic faith all those things contained in the word of God, written or handed on, that is, in the one deposit of faith entrusted to the Church, and at the same time proposed as divinely revealed either by the solemn magisterium of the Church or by its ordinary and universal magisterium which is manifested by the common adherence of the Christian faithful under the leadership of the sacred magisterium; therefore all are bound to avoid any doctrines whatsoever contrary to them.§2. Each and every thing which is proposed definitively by the magisterium of the Church concerning the doctrine of faith and morals, that is, each and every thing which is required to safeguard reverently and to expound faithfully the same deposit of faith, is also to be firm-ly embraced and retained; therefore, one who rejects those propositions which are to be held definitively is opposed to the doctrine of the Catholic Church.
Can. 751 Heresy is the obstinate denial or obstinate doubt after the reception of baptism of some truth which is to be believed by divine and Catholic faith; apostasy is the total repudiation of the Christian faith; schism is the refusal of submission to the Supreme Pontiff or of communion with the members of the Church subject to him.
Can. 229 §1. Lay persons are bound by the obligation and possess the right to acquire knowledge of Christian doctrine appropriate to the capacity and condition of each in order for them to be able to live according to this doctrine, announce it themselves, defend it if necessary, and take their part in exercising the apostolate.
Read those Canons carefully, Meg. As a Catholic, you are "bound by the obligation...of embracing and observing the truth..."(Canon 748).
If you think it is "true" that Bergoglio is a heretic, then you are "bound by the obligation" to embrace and observe that "truth." You are further required by Canon 229 to "defend [Catholic doctrine] if necessary." A heretic "is opposed to the doctrine of the Church" (Canon 750 §2)
Therefore, as a Catholic, you are obligated to seek, embrace, observe and defend the truth against a heretic. If you are running around telling everyone that a heretic is "the Pope" are you defending the truth against that heretic? Of course you aren't. But you are obligated to do so. You are obligated to defend Holy Mother Church against her enemy, not call him your "Holy Father."
I knew you wouldn't be able to provide what I asked for. How could you, when such a teaching does not exist?
I already know what Truths are required to save my soul. I am not required to make a determination on the status of the Pope.
10 And in all seduction of iniquity to them that perish; because they receive not the love of the truth, that they might be saved. Therefore God shall send them the operation of error, to believe lying: 11 That all may be judged who have not believed the truth, but have consented to iniquity.
[10] "God shall send": That is God shall suffer them to be deceived by lying wonders, and false miracles, in punishment of their not entertaining the love of truth.
Are you willing to "consent to iniquity," Meg? Or are you going to stand up and defend the truth?
Etsi Multa, Pius IX:
[color=rgb(var(--color_25))]Further Heresies[/color]
[color=rgb(var(--color_25))]22. And surely what these sons of perdition intend is quite clear from their other writings, especially that impious and most imprudent one which has only recently been published by the person whom they recently constituted as a pseudo-bishop. For these writings attack and pervert the true power of jurisdiction of the Roman Pontiff and the bishops, who are the successors of blessed Peter and the apostles; they transfer it instead to the people, or, as they say, to the community. They obstinately reject and oppose the infallible magisterium both of the Roman Pontiff and of the whole Church in teaching matters. Incredibly, they boldly affirm that the Roman Pontiff and all the bishops, the priests and the people conjoined with him in the unity of faith and communion fell into heresy when they approved and professed the definitions of the Ecuмenical Vatican Council. Therefore they deny also the indefectibility of the Church and blasphemously declare that it has perished throughout the world and that its visible Head and the bishops have erred. They assert the necessity of restoring a legitimate episcopacy in the person of their pseudo-bishop, who has entered not by the gate but from elsewhere like a thief or robber and calls the damnation of Christ upon his head.[/color]
Hmmm....this sounds familiar.
Just because I believe that Francis is the pope, it doesn't follow that I am "consenting" to iniquity. That's not what the Catholic Church teaches. Maybe your church is different -it certainly isn't Catholic.
You sound like a schismatic cult leader.
“Since [practicing ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖs] are virtuous in other areas of their lives, and know the doctrine, can we say that they are all in error, because they do not feel, in conscience, that their relationships are sinful? And how can we act pastorally so that these people feel, in their way of life, called by God to a healthy affective life that produces fruit? Should we recognize that their relationships can open up and give seeds of true Christian love, such as the good they can accomplish, the response they can give to the Lord?”
Yes, Meg, you are "consenting to iniquity" if you believe that Bergoglio is a heretic but you continue to acknowledge that he is the true leader of the Roman Catholic Church. You are confusing people with your contradictory, non-Catholic beliefs.
The guy you are calling "the Pope" said this recently:
Instead of arguing with me about theological intricacies (which you clearly know nothing about), why don't you start "resisting" Bergoglio? You defend him at every opportunity. How about defending Jesus and his Church?
I have no interest in becoming a schismatic like yourself.
You do not have any real theological knowledge about the subject at hand. You seem to have only fear, and you want everyone else to fear as well.
I put trust in my Lord and savior Jesus Christ. I do not put my trust in men who are afraid.
This one's for you, Meg:
1 And after these things, I saw another angel come down from heaven, having great power: and the earth was enlightened with his glory. 2 And he cried out with a strong voice, saying: Babylon the great is fallen, is fallen; and is become the habitation of devils, and the hold of every unclean spirit, and the hold of every unclean and hateful bird: 3 Because all nations have drunk of the wine of the wrath of her fornication; and the kings of the earth have committed fornication with her; and the merchants of the earth have been made rich by the power of her delicacies. 4 And I heard another voice from heaven, saying: Go out from her, my people; that you be not partakers of her sins, and that you receive not of her plagues. 5 For her sins have reached unto heaven, and the Lord hath remembered her iniquities.
Can you guess which "schismatic" wrote that, Meg?
Please provide a precise definition of "formal" and the source of your definition.The explanation you provided from Prummer is enough.
I'm well aware of your fears about the Antichrist, whom you believe is Pope Francis. You've broadcasted your fears often enough here.
Maybe you should just grow a couple, and stop being so fearful. It's a bit effeminate, you know? Trust in Our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ, and his Blessed Mother. Whatever bad things that may await us, they will get us through it. Do you trust in them?
What else could defecting mean?
Here's an online dictionary that provides a definition:
"Defect
"To leave a country, political party, etc., especially in order to join an opposing one.
"Example: ""The British spy, Kim Philby, defected to the Soviet Union from Britain in 1963.""
DEFECTING | English meaning - Cambridge Dictionary (https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/defecting)
The explanation you provided from Prummer is enough.
Anyway, your shirt is nailed to the wall with the 'young parish priest' example. Of course you are free to wriggle out of your shirt and run around to other topics unclothed, but that's not very dignified.
So according to you, then, the Arian bishops who refused to leave their sees did not defect from the Catholic Faith, right?
According to me? Since when do the laity make that kind of determination?
According to your definition of defecting from the Catholic Faith
What do the Arian bishops have to do with it? In those days, the laity couldn't do anything about Arianism in the Church. All they could do was to keep their faith with true Catholic sacraments as best they could.
It wasn't until Constantine called the Council of Nicaea that Arianism began to be dealt with, since it was condemned at the Council. But it took awhile to deal with. It was the leaders of the Church that condemned Arianism. That's the difference between you and me. I'm not the leadership of the Church, and you aren't either. But you think you are.
According to your definition of "defect from the Catholic Faith", did the Arian bishops who refused to leave their sees "defect from the Catholic Faith"?
Why do I need to make that determination? Since when do the laity make that determination?
From a logic standpoint, you can answer my question because of your definition of "defect from the Catholic Faith".
I can't answer your question, because it isn't logical for the laity to make those decisions. Your question simply serves to highlight the difference between dogmatic benevacantists such as yourself, and a regular R&R trad like me.
The laity aren't the ones to make any absolute decision on the status of the Pope. Never have been. Our salvation is not based on knowing whether the Pope is a true Pope or not. It is beyond our purview. We can, however, recognize when the leadership is teaching something against the faith, and avoid them, as was done in the Arian Crisis, and wait until such a time as the leadership is sane again, and modernism hopefully denounced.
Bishops that leave the Catholic Church publicly defect from the Catholic Faith
But some Arian bishops did not leave the Catholic Church
Therefore.....
Therefore you have made a decision that should be left up to the leadership of the Catholic Church.
So according to you, Meg, to "defect from the Catholic Faith" means to leave the Catholic Church. You have provided no evidence to back up your claim. On the other hand, I have provided evidence from two canonists (see this post (https://www.cathinfo.com/sspx-resistance-news/joint-statement-of-sspx-mc-priests-fr-david-hewko-fr-hugo-ruiz-v/msg900887/#msg900887)) that to "defect from the Catholic Faith" need not mean leaving the Catholic Church. Therefore, please either back up your assertion or retract it.
I said that the canon law you cited meant that public defection means giving a public statement that one was leaving the Catholic Church. It has to do with the canon law that you and the other benevacantist brought up, and keep bringing up.
I'm not going to back up what I said, and I will not retract it. Just because you provide your interpretations from canonists, it doesn't mean that your interpretation is correct, since you are still interpreting that canon law, because the canon law is not explicit.
The canon law does not state that a Pope who states heretical views automatically loses his office. The canon law says nothing about heresy. My opinion might not be correct either. Bottom line is, we just have our opinions, which we should not force others to follow. But you are trying to force others to your POV.