-
In Issue 24, Fr. Chazal states the following:
"Yet again, allow me to repeat that the jurisdiction of a public heretic is illicit ipso facto....."
The jurisdiction of a public heretic is not only illicit ipso facto, but it is also invalid ipso facto. A public heretic is not a member of the Church. Heresy per se separates the public heretic from the Church.
-
In Issue 24, Fr. Chazal states the following:
"Yet again, allow me to repeat that the jurisdiction of a public heretic is illicit ipso facto....."
The jurisdiction of a public heretic is not only illicit ipso facto, but it is also invalid ipso facto. A public heretic is not a member of the Church. Heresy per se separates the public heretic from the Church.
And yet Fr. Chazal still refers to them as popes. Do you?
-
https://www.cathinfo.com/files/mcspx/MilesChristi-24.pdf (https://www.cathinfo.com/files/mcspx/MilesChristi-24.pdf) January 2023
A very good communication from Fr. Chazal. He talks briefly about the Bp. Ballini consecration, and touches on many relevant subjects.
-
In Issue 24, Fr. Chazal states the following:
"Yet again, allow me to repeat that the jurisdiction of a public heretic is illicit ipso facto....."
The jurisdiction of a public heretic is not only illicit ipso facto, but it is also invalid ipso facto. A public heretic is not a member of the Church. Heresy per se separates the public heretic from the Church.
Actually, they're both wrong:
Juridical acts remain valid and licit unless a declaratory or condemnatory sentence is declared.
1917 Code of Canon Law, Canon 2264:
"Acts of jurisdiction, whether for the external forum or the internal forum, placed by one excommunicated are illicit; and if a condemnatory or declaratory sentence has been laid down, they are also invalid with due regard to prescription of Canon 2261, S. 3 [i.e. the validity and licitness of obtaining acts of sacramental ministry from an excommunicated cleric when one is in danger of death]; otherwise, they are valid and, indeed, are even licit if they are sought by a member of the faithful in accordance with the norm of the mentioned Canon 2261, S. 2 [i.e. seeking sacramental ministry from an excommunicated cleric for any just cause, expecially if other ministers are lacking; no explanation of one's reasons is required]."
In other words, even if Francis is a raging heretic, his acts of jurisdiction would be VALID and LICIT, because he was never subject to condemnatory or declaratory sentence.
-
Actually, they're both wrong:
Juridical acts remain valid and licit unless a declaratory or condemnatory sentence is declared.
1917 Code of Canon Law, Canon 2264:
"Acts of jurisdiction, whether for the external forum or the internal forum, placed by one excommunicated are illicit; and if a condemnatory or declaratory sentence has been laid down, they are also invalid with due regard to prescription of Canon 2261, S. 3 [i.e. the validity and licitness of obtaining acts of sacramental ministry from an excommunicated cleric when one is in danger of death]; otherwise, they are valid and, indeed, are even licit if they are sought by a member of the faithful in accordance with the norm of the mentioned Canon 2261, S. 2 [i.e. seeking sacramental ministry from an excommunicated cleric for any just cause, expecially if other ministers are lacking; no explanation of one's reasons is required]."
In other words, even if Francis is a raging heretic, his acts of jurisdiction would be VALID and LICIT, because he was never subject to condemnatory or declaratory sentence.
...and now Lad has his answer as to why nobody is signing on for the "impoundism" theory.
-
Actually, they're both wrong:
Juridical acts remain valid and licit unless a declaratory or condemnatory sentence is declared.
1917 Code of Canon Law, Canon 2264:
"Acts of jurisdiction, whether for the external forum or the internal forum, placed by one excommunicated are illicit; and if a condemnatory or declaratory sentence has been laid down, they are also invalid with due regard to prescription of Canon 2261, S. 3 [i.e. the validity and licitness of obtaining acts of sacramental ministry from an excommunicated cleric when one is in danger of death]; otherwise, they are valid and, indeed, are even licit if they are sought by a member of the faithful in accordance with the norm of the mentioned Canon 2261, S. 2 [i.e. seeking sacramental ministry from an excommunicated cleric for any just cause, expecially if other ministers are lacking; no explanation of one's reasons is required]."
In other words, even if Francis is a raging heretic, his acts of jurisdiction would be VALID and LICIT, because he was never subject to condemnatory or declaratory sentence.
Sorry. I did not distinguish between ordinary jurisdiction (habitual) and individual acts of jurisdiction. If Fr. Chazal accepts Francis as pope, then I assume he includes his ordinary jurisdiction to be illicit but valid.
Canon 2264 speaks about "acts" (i.e. individual acts) of jurisdiction. It cannot be speaking about ordinary jurisdiction because the canon deals with the excommunicated.
-
...and now Lad has his answer as to why nobody is signing on for the "impoundism" theory.
-
Actually, they're both wrong:
Juridical acts remain valid and licit unless a declaratory or condemnatory sentence is declared.
1917 Code of Canon Law, Canon 2264:
"Acts of jurisdiction, whether for the external forum or the internal forum, placed by one excommunicated are illicit; and if a condemnatory or declaratory sentence has been laid down, they are also invalid with due regard to prescription of Canon 2261, S. 3 [i.e. the validity and licitness of obtaining acts of sacramental ministry from an excommunicated cleric when one is in danger of death]; otherwise, they are valid and, indeed, are even licit if they are sought by a member of the faithful in accordance with the norm of the mentioned Canon 2261, S. 2 [i.e. seeking sacramental ministry from an excommunicated cleric for any just cause, expecially if other ministers are lacking; no explanation of one's reasons is required]."
In other words, even if Francis is a raging heretic, his acts of jurisdiction would be VALID and LICIT, because he was never subject to condemnatory or declaratory sentence.
Apologies myself: I thought this comment was deleted, but it seems Matthew simply posted Fr. Chazal's comment in a different thread.
-
I should have posted a message to that effect; it was my fault.
I don't really want the "Fr. Chazal newsletter download" thread to become bloated with pages and pages of discussion -- creating new threads is free ;)
-
And yet Fr. Chazal still refers to them as popes. Do you?
That is why it is Fr. Chazal's theory of 'sedeimpoundism' is hardly any different from sedeprivationism. Perhaps from the practical aspects he still commemorates the conciliar popes in the liturgy, while the sedeprivationists do not.
Father also mentioned about some sparks in France. Is there some problem in France?
-
And yet Fr. Chazal still refers to them as popes. Do you?
Heresy per se separates a public manifest formal heretic from the Church. One separated from the Church has no ordinary jurisdiction. I am assuming that Fr. Chazal holds that Francis has ordinary jurisdiction, but that his exercise of it is illicit.
-
Heresy per se separates a public manifest formal heretic from the Church. One separated from the Church has no ordinary jurisdiction. I am assuming that Fr. Chazal holds that Francis has ordinary jurisdiction, but that his exercise of it is illicit.
What do you think "manifest" means?
-
In Issue 24, Fr. Chazal states the following:
"Yet again, allow me to repeat that the jurisdiction of a public heretic is illicit ipso facto....."
The jurisdiction of a public heretic is not only illicit ipso facto, but it is also invalid ipso facto. A public heretic is not a member of the Church. Heresy per se separates the public heretic from the Church.
DELETED -- just saw Matthew's request. We can take it to another thread.
-
Actually, they're both wrong:
Juridical acts remain valid and licit unless a declaratory or condemnatory sentence is declared.
...
In other words, even if Francis is a raging heretic, his acts of jurisdiction would be VALID and LICIT, because he was never subject to condemnatory or declaratory sentence.
DELETED -- ditto.
-
...and now Lad has his answer as to why nobody is signing on for the "impoundism" theory.
DELETED ... ditto. Posted these before seeing Matthew's request.
-
What do you think "manifest" means?
Evident
-
Evident
You would be wrong.
"A pope who merely seems to have lost the Faith, or who has made statements that are erroneous or even heretical, yet who has not openly left the Church or been publicly warned, does not constitute a manifest heretic. And since no such warnings have been given to any of the post-Vatican II popes, either before or after their election, none of them qualify as a manifest heretic."
https://www.remnantnewspaper.com/Archives/2013-0315-siscoe-sedevacantism.htm
"Suarez: “in no case, even that of heresy, is the Pontiff deprived of his dignity and of his power immediately by God himself, before the judgment and sentence of men. This is the common opinion today”. (ibid.)
-
The term "public manifest formal heretic" means one who makes evident to a large number of people that his heresy is pertinacious.
-
You would be wrong.
"A pope who merely seems to have lost the Faith, or who has made statements that are erroneous or even heretical, yet who has not openly left the Church or been publicly warned, does not constitute a manifest heretic. And since no such warnings have been given to any of the post-Vatican II popes, either before or after their election, none of them qualify as a manifest heretic."
https://www.remnantnewspaper.com/Archives/2013-0315-siscoe-sedevacantism.htm
"Suarez: “in no case, even that of heresy, is the Pontiff deprived of his dignity and of his power immediately by God himself, before the judgment and sentence of men. This is the common opinion today”. (ibid.)
No warnings are needed for a "public manifest formal heretic" as defined above.
-
No warnings are needed for a "public manifest formal heretic" as defined above.
"...because for a limited time only, Glamour Shots by Deb are 75% off."
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qntlixQ9M7U
-
One who makes evident to a large number of people that his heresy is pertinacious separates himself from the Church by the very fact of that heresy because heresy per se (i.e., in itself) does the separating. This is a teaching of the Church.
-
One who makes evident to a large number of people that his heresy is pertinacious separates himself from the Church by the very fact of that heresy because heresy per se (i.e., in itself) does the separating. This is a teaching of the Church.
As much as I appreciate self-serving definitions, I think I'll stick with Suarez and "the common opinion."
-
I'll move this to a different thread later. Matthew requested that this debate not happen here.
-
As much as I appreciate self-serving definitions, I think I'll stick with Suarez and "the common opinion."
“For not every sin, however grave it may be, is such as of its own nature to sever a man from the Body of the Church, as does schism or heresy or apostasy.”
(Pope Pius XII, Mystici Corporis, 23)
“Public heretics (and a fortiori, apostates) are not members of the Church. They are not members because they separate themselves from the unity of Catholic faith and from the external profession of the faith. Obviously, therefore, they lack one of the three factors-baptism, profession of the same faith, union with the hierarchy-pointed out by Pius XII as requisite for membership in the Church (see above, p. 238). The same pontiff has explicitly pointed out that, unlike other sins, heresy, schism, and apostasy, automatically sever a man from the Church. ‘For not every sin, however grave and enormous it be, is such as to sever a man automatically from the Body of the Church, as does schism or heresy or apostasy‘ (MCC 30, italics ours).”
(Monsignor G. Van Noort, S.T.D., Dogmatic Theology, Volume II, Christ’s Church, 153)
-
“For not every sin, however grave it may be, is such as of its own nature to sever a man from the Body of the Church, as does schism or heresy or apostasy.”
(Pope Pius XII, Mystici Corporis, 23)
“Public heretics (and a fortiori, apostates) are not members of the Church. They are not members because they separate themselves from the unity of Catholic faith and from the external profession of the faith. Obviously, therefore, they lack one of the three factors-baptism, profession of the same faith, union with the hierarchy-pointed out by Pius XII as requisite for membership in the Church (see above, p. 238). The same pontiff has explicitly pointed out that, unlike other sins, heresy, schism, and apostasy, automatically sever a man from the Church. ‘For not every sin, however grave and enormous it be, is such as to sever a man automatically from the Body of the Church, as does schism or heresy or apostasy‘ (MCC 30, italics ours).”
(Monsignor G. Van Noort, S.T.D., Dogmatic Theology, Volume II, Christ’s Church, 153)
Blah, blah. You don't understand the meaning of the terms you use.
-
My definition of public manifest formal heretic (i.e., one who makes evident to a large number of people that his heresy is pertinacious) fits well within Canon 1325 of the 1917 Code of Canon Law:
"A heretic is one who, after having been baptized, and still claiming to be a Christian, denies or doubts pertinaciously a truth that must be believed by Divine and Catholic Faith."
-
My definition of public manifest formal heretic (i.e., one who makes evident to a large number of people that his heresy is pertinacious) fits well within Canon 1325 of the 1917 Code of Canon Law:
"A heretic is one who, after having been baptized, and still claiming to be a Christian, denies or doubts pertinaciously a truth that must be believed by Divine and Catholic Faith."
Sorry, but no:
A formal heretic is a DECLARED heretic (and hence the provisions of Can. 2264 making their juridical acts licit and valid in the absence of said declaration).
It seems you are intent upon imposing colloquial 😢 nag upon canonical and theological terms, to arrive at false conclusions.
For example, you think manifest means “evident,” but do not allow for pertinacity which must first be established.
You think formal or public simply means saying something heretical in front of lots of people, instead of establishing pertinacity, in order for something to be manifest, which in turn results in a declaration, all of which must transpire for a heresy to be formal.
You are not competent to discuss this subject matter.
-
Here's a pertinent explanation: https://www.remnantnewspaper.com/Archives/2013-0315-siscoe-sedevacantism.htm
Public Heretic
Some theologians have held that if a pope became a manifest heretic he would automatically lose his office, thereby rendering the Chair of Peter vacant. The great Doctor of the Church, St. Robert Bellarmine, was of this opinion. He wrote:
Bellarmine: “[T]the Pope who is manifestly a heretic ceases by himself to be Pope and head, in the same way as he ceases to be a Christian and a member of the body of the Church; and for this reason he can be judged and punished by the Church”. (13)
The question we must consider is what constitutes manifest heresy in the external or public forum? According to the late Canon Gregory Hesse, who held a Ph.D. in canon law and Thomistic theology, a formal heretic in the external forum is a declared heretic. He explained that a heretic can be declared in one of two ways: either he is declared a heretic by the proper authorities, or he declares himself a heretic. But how would a person declare themself to be a formal heretic?
Since formal heresy requires pertinacity, in order for a statement that is materially false to be considered formally heretical in the external forum, pertinacity would also have to be manifest. Without a formal declaration by the Church, and short of the man in question leaving the Church, or publicly admitting that he rejects a defined dogma, pertinacity would have to be demonstrated another way. The other way, according to St. Robert Bellarmine, would be for the man to remain manifestly obstinate after two warnings. Only then would pertinacity be demonstrated in the external form, thereby rendering him a manifest heretic.
Bellarmine: “The fourth opinion is that of Cajetan, for whom the manifestly heretical Pope is not “ipso facto” deposed, but can and must be deposed by the Church. To my judgment, this opinion cannot be defended. For, in the first place, it is proven with arguments from authority, and from reason, that the manifest heretic is “ipso facto” deposed. The argument from authority is based on Saint Paul, who orders that the heretic be avoided after two warnings, that is, after showing himself to be manifestly obstinate – which means before any excommunication or judicial sentence”. (14)
So according to St. Bellarmine, who bases his opinion on St. Paul, a heretic is considered to be manifestly obstinate after receiving two warnings. But who would be responsible for warning the Pope? The eminent eighteenth-century Italian theologian, Father Pietro Ballerini, discusses this very point.
Fr. Ballerini: “The Cardinals, who are his counselors, can do this; or the Roman Clergy, or the Roman Synod, if, being met, they judge this opportune. For any person, even a private person, the words of Saint Paul to Titus hold: ‘Avoid the heretic, after a first and second correction, knowing that such a man is perverted and sins, since he is condemned by his own judgment’ (Tit. 3, 10-11). For the person, who admonished once or twice, does not repent, but continues pertinacious in an opinion contrary to a manifest or public dogma - not being able, on account of this public pertinacity to be excused, by any means, of heresy properly so called, which requires pertinacity - this person declares himself openly a heretic. He reveals that by his own will he has turned away from the Catholic Faith and the Church, in such form that now no declaration or sentence of any one whatsoever is necessary to cut him from the body of the Church. (…) Therefore the Pontiff who after such a solemn and public warning by the Cardinals, by the Roman Clergy or even by the Synod, maintained himself hardened in heresy and openly turned himself away from the Church, would have to be avoided, according to the precept of Saint Paul. So that he might not cause damage to the rest, he would have to have his heresy and contumacy publicly proclaimed, so that all might be able to be equally on guard in relation to him. Thus, the sentence which he had pronounced against himself would be made known to all the Church, making clear that by his own will be had turned away and separated himself from the body of the Church, and that in a certain way he had abdicated the Pontificate, which no one holds or can hold if he does not belong to the Church”. (15)
In the next quote, the great Jesuit Suarez comments on this same point:
Suarez: “I affirm: if he were a heretic and incorrigible, the Pope would cease to be Pope just when a sentence was passed against him for his crime, by the legitimate jurisdiction of the Church. This is the common opinion among the doctors, and it is gathered from the first epistle of Saint Clement I, in which one reads that Saint Peter taught that a Pope heretic must be deposed. (…) In the first place, who ought to pronounce such a sentence? Some say that it would be the Cardinals; and the Church would be able undoubtedly to attribute to them this faculty, above all if it were thus established by the consent or determination of the Supreme Pontiffs, as was done in regard to the election. But up to today we do not read in any place that such a judgment has been confided to them. For this reason, one must affirm that, as such, it pertains to all the Bishops of the Church, for, being the ordinary pastors and the pillars of the Church, one must consider that such a case concerns them. And since by divine law there is no greater reason to affirm that the matter is of more interest to these bishops than to those, and since by human law nothing has been established in the matter, one must necessarily sustain that the case refers to all, and even to the general council. That is the common opinion among the doctors”. (16)
A pope who merely seems to have lost the Faith, or who has made statements that are erroneous or even heretical, yet who has not openly left the Church or been publicly warned, does not constitute a manifest heretic. And since no such warnings have been given to any of the post-Vatican II popes, either before or after their election, none of them qualify as a manifest heretic.
And it should also be noted that many theologians have held that a manifestly heretical pope does not automatically lose his office. According to Suarez, this was the common opinion in his day.
Suarez: “in no case, even that of heresy, is the Pontiff deprived of his dignity and of his power immediately by God himself, before the judgment and sentence of men. This is the common opinion today”. (ibid.)
If one reads sedevacantist materials (which are usually the same quotations transferred from one website to another), they are left with the impression that virtually all agree that a Pope who becomes a manifest heretic automatically loses his office. Yet as we just saw, it was the common opinion in Suarez’ day that a heretical pope could only be deprived of his office by the judgment and sentence of men.
Below, Suarez explains why a Pope would not lose his office without a judgment and declaration of men, and then list the effects that would result if a declaration was not necessary – “effects” that sound like prophecies today.
Suarez: “f the external but occult heretic (17) can still remain the true Pope, with equal right he can continue to be so in the event that the offense became known, as long as sentence were not passed on him. And this for two reasons: because no one suffers a penalty if it is not “ipso facto” or by sentence, and because in this way would arise even greater evils. In effect, there would arise doubt about the degree of infamy necessary for him to lose his charge; there would rise schisms because of this, and everything would become uncertain, above all if, after being known as a heretic, the Pope should have maintained himself in possession of his charge by force or by other”. (ibid.)
Do these prophetic words not reflect the situation today for those who reject what was, according to Suarez, the common opinion of his day? How many “popes” have been elected by the sedevacantists to date? Well over a dozen. And how many more schisms are there between the various sedevacantist groups who have not gone so far as to elect their own pope?
And it should be noted that others have argued that a Pope could not be deprived of his office, even due to public heresy, because of the harm it would do to the Church. While this is only a minority opinion, the following teaching of the French canonist Bouix is worth citing.
D. Bouix: “There is not sufficient reason to think that Christ had determined that an heretical Pope could be deposed. … We deny absolutely, however, that Christ could have established as a remedy the deposition of the Pope. For … such a remedy would be worse than the evil itself. Indeed, one either supposes that this deposition would be carried out by Christ himself, as soon as the Pope were declared a heretic by a general council according to the doctrine of Suarez, or one supposes that it would be realized by virtue of the authority of the general council itself. Now, in both cases the evil would be aggravated, and not remedied. For the doctrine according to which Christ himself would depose the Pope heretic, as soon as the General council declared him a heretic, is no more than an opinion, rejected by any, and with which it is licit, for anyone whatsoever, to disagree. … Such being the case, even after it were declared by a General Council that a certain Pope were a heretic, it would absolutely not become certain that that Pope would be deposed; and in such a doubt one must rather continue to respect his authority. If another Pope were elected not only would he be of uncertain legitimacy, but he would even have to be branded as an intruder. Therefore, the remedy of a deposition made by Christ in the moment of a conciliar declaration, not only would not remedy the evil, but would create an evil much more grave, that is, a most intricate schism. Consequently, by no means should one think that Christ established such a remedy. But neither should one think that He established as a remedy deposition by the authority of the council itself. For, the deposition of a Pope by a council, besides being impossible, as will be said further on, would be followed by a worse evil if it were possible”. (18)
Although the above citation represents a minority opinion, it shows that whether or not a pope would automatically lose his office through manifest heresy is an open question.
Footnotes
7) Essay on Heresy, by Arnaldo Vidigal Xavier da Silveira
8) ibid.
9) Heresy in History
10) “The very commission of any act which signifies heresy, e.g., the statement of some doctrine contrary or contradictory to a revealed and defined dogma, gives sufficient ground for juridical presumption of heretical depravity” McKenzie, The Delict of Heresy, CU Canon Law Studies 77
11) ibid.
12) Heresy in History
13) De Romano Pontifice, Bk. 2
14) ibid.
15) De Potestate Ecclesiastica, pgs.104-105
16) De Fide, disp. X, sect. VI, nn. 3-10, pg. 316-317
17) An external but occult heretic is one who has manifested his heresy to a small group, but not to the general public
18) Tract. de Papa, tom. II, pgs. 670-671
-
Sorry, but no:
A formal heretic is a DECLARED heretic (and hence the provisions of Can. 2264 making their juridical acts licit and valid in the absence of said declaration).
It seems you are intent upon imposing colloquial 😢 nag upon canonical and theological terms, to arrive at false conclusions.
For example, you think manifest means “evident,” but do not allow for pertinacity which must first be established.
You think formal or public simply means saying something heretical in front of lots of people, instead of establishing pertinacity, in order for something to be manifest, which in turn results in a declaration, all of which must transpire for a heresy to be formal.
You are not competent to discuss this subject matter.
Formal heretic does not mean he has to be "declared" as such. Read the definition in Canon 1325. Nowhere in that definition does it state that there needs to be a declaration before the quality "formal" can be applied. The "formal" part is contained in the term "pertinacity", which means that the person knows that the proposition he holds is against the Catholic Faith and still holds to it. If the "formal heretic" has to be declared as such before the quality "formal" can be applied, then there would not be Canon 188 that speaks about loss of office without a declaration due to heresy or the Canon that deals with automatic excommunication for heresy.
-
Formal heretic does not mean he has to be "declared" as such. Read the definition in Canon 1325. Nowhere in that definition does it state that there needs to be a declaration before the quality "formal" can be applied. The "formal" part is contained in the term "pertinacity", which means that the person knows that the proposition he holds is against the Catholic Faith and still holds to it. If the "formal heretic" has to be declared as such before the quality "formal" can be applied, then there would not be Canon 188 that speaks about loss of office without a declaration due to heresy or the Canon that deals with automatic excommunication for heresy.
You are outmaneuvering yourself.
Let me repeat:
"According to the late Canon Gregory Hesse, who held a Ph.D. in canon law and Thomistic theology, a formal heretic in the external forum is a declared heretic."
-
You are outmaneuvering yourself.
Let me repeat:
"According to the late Canon Gregory Hesse, who held a Ph.D. in canon law and Thomistic theology, a formal heretic in the external forum is a declared heretic."
"Salza & Co. fraudulently quote Fr. Gregor Hesse against me on the point of defection from the faith and the Church. In order to deceive their readers into believing that Fr. Hesse was of the same opinion as Salza/Siscoe, who maintain that heretics are not severed from the Church without a judgment from Church authority, they quote Dr. Hesse’s words which explain that 'there is no formal schism unless it is declared schism'. Salza & Siscoe oafishly interpret the theologian’s words to mean that there is no schism unless the Church authority declares it! Long before the days of YouTube, by which Salza & Siscoe access the words of Fr. Gregory, I lived in Rome and earned my degrees at the same Pontifical University where he earned his theological degrees. We spent many evenings together in Rome discussing Philosophy, Theology, and ecclesiastical issues. We met many times afterward in Canada, USA, Vienna, Rome, Los Angeles, Belize, etc. – we were the closest of friends from 1975 to 2006. (We first met on the assembly line at the Mercedes-Benz factory in Germany while working at our summer jobs in 1975) No one on earth knows the theological mind of Fr. Gregor Hesse as well as I do. It was I who suggested and convinced him to write his doctoral thesis on the Theology of Chesterton. What Fr. Gregor was saying (and any academically qualified theologian knows this), is that for someone to be a schismatic, that one must declare himself to be separated, either by words or actions, and not the other way around."
Kramer, Paul. To deceive the elect: The catholic doctrine on the question of a heretical Pope . Kindle Edition. Footnote 721.
-
"Salza & Co. fraudulently quote Fr. Gregor Hesse against me on the point of defection from the faith and the Church. In order to deceive their readers into believing that Fr. Hesse was of the same opinion as Salza/Siscoe, who maintain that heretics are not severed from the Church without a judgment from Church authority, they quote Dr. Hesse’s words which explain that 'there is no formal schism unless it is declared schism'. Salza & Siscoe oafishly interpret the theologian’s words to mean that there is no schism unless the Church authority declares it! Long before the days of YouTube, by which Salza & Siscoe access the words of Fr. Gregory, I lived in Rome and earned my degrees at the same Pontifical University where he earned his theological degrees. We spent many evenings together in Rome discussing Philosophy, Theology, and ecclesiastical issues. We met many times afterward in Canada, USA, Vienna, Rome, Los Angeles, Belize, etc. – we were the closest of friends from 1975 to 2006. (We first met on the assembly line at the Mercedes-Benz factory in Germany while working at our summer jobs in 1975) No one on earth knows the theological mind of Fr. Gregor Hesse as well as I do. It was I who suggested and convinced him to write his doctoral thesis on the Theology of Chesterton. What Fr. Gregor was saying (and any academically qualified theologian knows this), is that for someone to be a schismatic, that one must declare himself to be separated, either by words or actions, and not the other way around."
Kramer, Paul. To deceive the elect: The catholic doctrine on the question of a heretical Pope . Kindle Edition. Footnote 721.
The passage you quoted pertains to schism, not to heresy.
PS: But at least now I know who I am arguing with. ;)
-
The passage you quoted pertains to schism, not to heresy.
PS: But at least now I know who I am arguing with. ;)
Heresy or apostasy or schism incur automatic excommunication. Also, read the first part of Fr. Kramer's comment. He is speaking about heresy in that part. Regardless, are you sure that Salza and Siscoe quoted Fr. Hesse correctly?
My advice to you is to stop listening to Salza and Siscoe who, according to Fr. Kramer, have no formal learning in theology and do not read Latin. Rather, get Fr. Kramer's two volume set (so far). From those volumes, you will learn from someone who studied at the Pontifical University of St. Thomas Aquinas in the 1970s under the Dominicans, and has refuted Salza and Siscoe on many points. Salza is the same man who now says the SSPX is in schism.
-
Heresy or apostasy or schism incur automatic excommunication. Also, read the first part of Fr. Kramer's comment. He is speaking about heresy in that part. Regardless, are you sure that Salza and Siscoe quoted Fr. Hesse correctly?
My advice to you is to stop listening to Salza and Siscoe who, according to Fr. Kramer, have no formal learning in theology and do not read Latin. Rather, get Fr. Kramer's two volume set (so far). From those volumes, you will learn from someone who studied at the Pontifical University of St. Thomas Aquinas in the 1970s under the Dominicans, and has refuted Salza and Siscoe on many points. Salza is the same man who now says the SSPX is in schism.
God bless, Father.
-
“St. Robert Bellarmine, commenting on the fourth opinion in De Romano Pontifice liber ii cap. xxx, quotes St. Jerome (d. 420 AD), one of the four major Latin Fathers, who teaches with the unanimous consensus of the Fathers, ‘Jerome comments on the same place, saying that other sinners, through a judgment of excommunication are excluded from the Church; heretics, however, leave by themselves and are cut from the body of Christ‘. Bellarmine states explicitly that the heretic is cut off from the body of the Church before any sentence of excommunication comes into effect: ‘Yet heretics are outside the Church, even before excommunication, and deprived of all jurisdiction, for they are condemned by their own judgment, as the Apostle teaches to Titus; that is, they are cut from the body of the Church without excommunication, as Jerome expresses it.'”
Kramer, Paul. To deceive the elect: The catholic doctrine on the question of a heretical Pope . Kindle Edition. [Emphases in original]
-
“St. Robert Bellarmine, commenting on the fourth opinion in De Romano Pontifice liber ii cap. xxx, quotes St. Jerome (d. 420 AD), one of the four major Latin Fathers, who teaches with the unanimous consensus of the Fathers, ‘Jerome comments on the same place, saying that other sinners, through a judgment of excommunication are excluded from the Church; heretics, however, leave by themselves and are cut from the body of Christ‘. Bellarmine states explicitly that the heretic is cut off from the body of the Church before any sentence of excommunication comes into effect: ‘Yet heretics are outside the Church, even before excommunication, and deprived of all jurisdiction, for they are condemned by their own judgment, as the Apostle teaches to Titus; that is, they are cut from the body of the Church without excommunication, as Jerome expresses it.'”
Kramer, Paul. To deceive the elect: The catholic doctrine on the question of a heretical Pope . Kindle Edition. [Emphases in original]
S&S spent a lot of time trying to argue that St. Robert Bellarmine held the same opinion as Cajetan, despite the fact that Bellarmine explicitly rejected Cajetan's position.
St. Robert's example of Pope St. Celestine and Nestorius is conclusive.
That's why just a couple months ago Salza was on an interview with Dr. Robert Sungenis where he mentioned that he was studying the Pope St. Celestine situation. Why would he be studying it years after writing the book? It's because that example is fatal to his entire argument.
Anything else entails the Church passing judgment on and issuing a sentence against a Pope, and it's heretical to suggest that the rest of the Church could do that.
Another argument is that the Church can sever the link betwen the man and the office, but that's also unacceptabble. This dovetails with sedeprivtionism, which holds that the office is lost but this material link betwee the two remains until severed by the Church, the link being the Church's designation of who should hold the office, and then upon whom God confers the formal office. SPism makes the most sense to me.
-
S&S spent a lot of time trying to argue that St. Robert Bellarmine held the same opinion as Cajetan, despite the fact that Bellarmine explicitly rejected Cajetan's position.
St. Robert's example of Pope St. Celestine and Nestorius is conclusive.
That's why just a couple months ago Salza was on an interview with Dr. Robert Sungenis where he mentioned that he was studying the Pope St. Celestine situation. Why would he be studying it years after writing the book? It's because that example is fatal to his entire argument.
What was the gist of St. Bellarmine's example of Pope St. Celestine and Nestorius?
-
What was the gist of St. Bellarmine's example of Pope St. Celestine and Nestorius?
St. Robert cited the example of Pope St. Celestine, as (one piece of) evidence for his position. Pope St. Celestine had declared that Nestorius had lost the authority (to excommunicate at least) even before he was formally removed from office, from the moment he began "preaching" heresy. He said that one who "should be excommunicated" does not have power to excommunicate. This actually bolsters sedeprivationism, that there's an in-between state where someone becomes a "deponendus" without having been officially or legally "depositus". This is also consistent with Father Chazal's position that such a heretic pope would remain "impounded", i.e. in a state of suspension.
So in the case of a pope, the Church designates the candidate (material aspect), while God bestows the authority (formal aspect). Once this union between the man and the office occurs, it cannot be forcibly severed. But God removes the authority (formal aspect) after the man become incapable of exercising it (having ceased to be a member of the Church), and at that point the Church can un-designate (material aspect) the individual and then designate (elect) someone else.
-
St. Robert cited the example of Pope St. Celestine, as (one piece of) evidence for his position. Pope St. Celestine had declared that Nestorius had lost the authority (to excommunicate at least) even before he was formally removed from office, from the moment he began "preaching" heresy. He said that one who "should be excommunicated" does not have power to excommunicate. This actually bolsters sedeprivationism, that there's an in-between state where someone becomes a "deponendus" without having been officially or legally "depositus". This is also consistent with Father Chazal's position that such a heretic pope would remain "impounded", i.e. in a state of suspension.
So in the case of a pope, the Church designates the candidate (material aspect), while God bestows the authority (formal aspect). Once this union between the man and the office occurs, it cannot be forcibly severed. But God removes the authority (formal aspect) after the man become incapable of exercising it (having ceased to be a member of the Church), and at that point the Church can un-designate (material aspect) the individual and then designate (elect) someone else.
Thank you for the information.
-
“St. Robert Bellarmine, commenting on the fourth opinion in De Romano Pontifice liber ii cap. xxx, quotes St. Jerome (d. 420 AD), one of the four major Latin Fathers, who teaches with the unanimous consensus of the Fathers, ‘Jerome comments on the same place, saying that other sinners, through a judgment of excommunication are excluded from the Church; heretics, however, leave by themselves and are cut from the body of Christ‘. Bellarmine states explicitly that the heretic is cut off from the body of the Church before any sentence of excommunication comes into effect: ‘Yet heretics are outside the Church, even before excommunication, and deprived of all jurisdiction, for they are condemned by their own judgment, as the Apostle teaches to Titus; that is, they are cut from the body of the Church without excommunication, as Jerome expresses it.'”
Kramer, Paul. To deceive the elect: The catholic doctrine on the question of a heretical Pope . Kindle Edition. [Emphases in original]
Perhaps you have misunderstood, since St. Robert already said prior to that (commenting on the 2nd opinion of Torquemada):
"For jurisdiction is surely given by God to the Pontiff, but with the cooperation of human activity [i.e., the Cardinals who elected him], as is clear, because that man, who beforehand was not Pope, has acquired from men that he would begin to be Pope; therefore, it is not removed by God unless it is through men."
St. Robert Bellarmine (About the Roman Pontiff, Book 2, Chapter 30).
The explanation is simple (and has already been explained to you, vis-a-vis Can. 2264): The heretic's acts remain valid and licit until/unless a condemnatory/declaratory sentence is declared.
Of course this entire conversation is merely academic, since you have not (and cannot) establish the fact of Francis's heresy (i.e., vs other theological censures, such as "proximate to heresy," "erroneous," "next to error," etc.).
https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/03532a.htm
Before you cast Francis out of the Church, you'd better be sure you are up to speeed here first! Most aren't.
-
“Hence, if anyone shall dare — which God forbid! — to think otherwise than as has been defined by us, let him know and understand that he is condemned by his own judgment; that he has suffered shipwreck in the faith; that he has separated from the unity of the Church; and that, furthermore, by his own action he incurs the penalties established by law if he should are to express in words or writing or by any other outward means the errors he thinks in his heart.”
(Pope Pius IX, Ineffabilis Deus, 1854) [Emphases mine]
The heretic is condemned by his own judgement and separated from the Church. Any penalties established by the Church in her law (e.g., automatic excommunication) are in addition to the heretic’s self-condemnation.
-
“Hence, if anyone shall dare — which God forbid! — to think otherwise than as has been defined by us, let him know and understand that he is condemned by his own judgment; that he has suffered shipwreck in the faith; that he has separated from the unity of the Church; and that, furthermore, by his own action he incurs the penalties established by law if he should are to express in words or writing or by any other outward means the errors he thinks in his heart.”
(Pope Pius IX, Ineffabilis Deus, 1854) [Emphases mine]
The heretic is condemned by his own judgement and separated from the Church. Any penalties established by the Church in her law (e.g., automatic excommunication) are in addition to the heretic’s self-condemnation.
What kind of heretic would that be?
-
What kind of heretic would that be?
"After the reception of baptism, if anyone, retaining the name Christian, pertinaciously denies or doubts something to be believed from the truth of divine and Catholic faith, [such a one is] a heretic;"
(Canon 1325 § 2, 1917 Code of Canon Law)
-
"After the reception of baptism, if anyone, retaining the name Christian, pertinaciously denies or doubts something to be believed from the truth of divine and Catholic faith, [such a one is] a heretic;"
(Canon 1325 § 2, 1917 Code of Canon Law)
There’s that pesky word “pertinacious” again.
-
There’s that pesky word “pertinacious” again.
Pertinacity can be determined by one who does not have jurisdiction over the heretic in question.
-
Pertinacity can be determined by one who does not have jurisdiction over the heretic in question.
False:
”St. Robert Bellarmine affirms that the loss of office (consequence of the crime) is based upon the Church’s establishment of pertinacity (the crime) by virtue of ecclesiastical warnings. He says: “For in the first place, it is proven by authority and reason that a manifest heretic is ipso facto deposed [consequence under Divine law]. The authority is that of Blessed Paul, who in his Epistle to Titus, chapter 3, orders that the heretic be avoided after two warnings, that is after he clearly appears pertinacious [crime under Church law], and he understands (by this) before any excommunication and judicial sentence; as Jerome writes regarding this passage, where he states that other sinners are excluded from the Church through a sentence of excommunication, but heretics depart from and are cut off from the Body of Christ through themselves” [consequence under Divine law].
Note that Bellarmine affirms with Suarez and others under Divine law that “a manifest heretic is ipso facto deposed” as we have already seen. But he then says this conclusion is based on the “authority” of Titus 3:10, which requires warnings from ecclesiastical authority before the heresy is established and the heretic avoided (specifically, the authority that Titus, as a Bishop, had in his diocese). Then, “after two warnings” (when pertinacity is proved and the crime is established), Bellarmine refers again to consequence under Divine law (the heretic is “cut off from the Body”). Bellarmine’s language is clear, although sedevacantists attempt to deny what he actually said.
Suarez teaches the same regarding the crime (determined by the Church) and the consequence (dictated by Divine law): “I affirm: if he were a heretic and incorrigible, the Pope would cease to be Pope just when a sentence was passed against him for his crime, by the legitimate jurisdiction of the Church. This is the common opinion among the doctors.” Suarez also says: “Therefore on deposing a heretical Pope, the Church would not act as superior to him, but juridically, and by the consent of Christ, she would declare him a heretic [crime] and therefore unworthy of Pontifical honors; he would be then ipso facto and immediately be deposed by Christ [consequence], and once deposed he would become inferior and would be able to be punished” [human punishment].”1
http://trueorfalsepope.com/articles/salza/John%20Salza%20Responds%20to%20Another%20Sedevacantist.pdf
-
The determination of pertinacity that I am writing about is in regards to the availability of sufficient evidence followed by a private judgment. I am not writing about a a juridical judgment. A private judgement can be made in regards to heresy just like in regards to any other sin.
Catechism 101 (http://www.intratext.com/ixt/ENG0104/_P2F.HTM):
Question: What is rash judgment?
Answer: Rash judgment is believing a person guilty of sin without a sufficient cause.
What can be extracted from the question and answer above is that if there is a sufficient cause, then the judgment is not rash.
If there is sufficient evidence that one is guilty of the sin of heresy, then a judgment of imputing the guilt can be reached with moral certitude.
-
The determination of pertinacity that I am writing about is in regards to the availability of sufficient evidence followed by a private judgment. I am not writing about a a juridical judgment. A private judgement can be made in regards to heresy just like in regards to any other sin.
Catechism 101 (http://www.intratext.com/ixt/ENG0104/_P2F.HTM):
Question: What is rash judgment?
Answer: Rash judgment is believing a person guilty of sin without a sufficient cause.
What can be extracted from the question and answer above is that if there is a sufficient cause, then the judgment is not rash.
If there is sufficient evidence that one is guilty of the sin of heresy, then a judgment of imputing the guilt can be reached with moral certitude.
In other words, you are taking a canonical term, redefining it to facilitate your desired conclusion, and consequently (and admittedly) misapplying it for that purpose.
You should not have said that out loud.
-
False:
”St. Robert Bellarmine affirms that the loss of office (consequence of the crime) is based upon the Church’s establishment of pertinacity (the crime) by virtue of ecclesiastical warnings. He says: “For in the first place, it is proven by authority and reason that a manifest heretic is ipso facto deposed [consequence under Divine law]. The authority is that of Blessed Paul, who in his Epistle to Titus, chapter 3, orders that the heretic be avoided after two warnings, that is after he clearly appears pertinacious [crime under Church law], and he understands (by this) before any excommunication and judicial sentence; as Jerome writes regarding this passage, where he states that other sinners are excluded from the Church through a sentence of excommunication, but heretics depart from and are cut off from the Body of Christ through themselves” [consequence under Divine law].
Note that Bellarmine affirms with Suarez and others under Divine law that “a manifest heretic is ipso facto deposed” as we have already seen. But he then says this conclusion is based on the “authority” of Titus 3:10, which requires warnings from ecclesiastical authority before the heresy is established and the heretic avoided (specifically, the authority that Titus, as a Bishop, had in his diocese). Then, “after two warnings” (when pertinacity is proved and the crime is established), Bellarmine refers again to consequence under Divine law (the heretic is “cut off from the Body”). Bellarmine’s language is clear, although sedevacantists attempt to deny what he actually said.
Suarez teaches the same regarding the crime (determined by the Church) and the consequence (dictated by Divine law): “I affirm: if he were a heretic and incorrigible, the Pope would cease to be Pope just when a sentence was passed against him for his crime, by the legitimate jurisdiction of the Church. This is the common opinion among the doctors.” Suarez also says: “Therefore on deposing a heretical Pope, the Church would not act as superior to him, but juridically, and by the consent of Christ, she would declare him a heretic [crime] and therefore unworthy of Pontifical honors; he would be then ipso facto and immediately be deposed by Christ [consequence], and once deposed he would become inferior and would be able to be punished” [human punishment].”1
http://trueorfalsepope.com/articles/salza/John%20Salza%20Responds%20to%20Another%20Sedevacantist.pdf
Of course there must be some formal process of removal, or at least a declaration, before there's a new election to the office. But that doesn't answer the question of whether the office holder, who has been "ipso facto deposed" as a result of any manifest heresy, has any authority to act after that "ipso facto" deposition, or whether a subordinate must acknowledge any acts of the heretic.
From the Nestorius case we know that from that point - the manifest heresy and "ipso facto deposition" - the acts of the "ipso facto" deposed are void and lack authority.
Suppose Nestorius repented before removal (after a warning or two) and ultimately was not removed. His prior actions before he repented of his manifest heresy, e.g. the excommunications of others, while in an office he never was deposed from would have been nonetheless void if issued when he was a notorious and manifest heretic, would they not? As happened, a pope like Celestine would have simply said those actions were void when made and never had legal effect.
-
Of course there must be some formal process of removal, or at least a declaration, before there's a new election to the office. But that doesn't answer the question of whether the office holder, who has been "ipso facto deposed" as a result of any manifest heresy, has any authority to act after that "ipso facto" deposition, or whether a subordinate must acknowledge any acts of the heretic.
From the Nestorius case we know that from that point - the manifest heresy and "ipso facto deposition" - the acts of the "ipso facto" deposed are void and lack authority.
Suppose Nestorius repented before removal (after a warning or two) and ultimately was not removed. His prior actions before he repented of his manifest heresy, e.g. the excommunications of others, while in an office he never was deposed from would have been nonetheless void if issued when he was a notorious and manifest heretic, would they not? As happened, a pope like Celestine would have simply said those actions were void when made and never had legal effect.
You’ll like this article:
http://www.trueorfalsepope.com/p/the-true-meaning-of-bellarmines-ipso.html?m=1
Basically, a heretic’s juridical acts remain valid unless a declaratory or condemnatory sentence has been issued (which finds its way into the Code in Can. 2264.).
The Church does not place the burden of determination when or whether a prelate or pope has lost jurisdiction upon the faithful, and therefore, in order that doubts not arise to disturb souls, has determined that if he possesses the office, he possesses the jurisdiction which comes with it, until/unless the Church says otherwise.
The fact is that ipso facto loss of office as commonly understood is almost a myth, given the established canonical processes in place. The only real exception I can think of would be a pope openly joining another sect (but this would be formal apostasy, not formal heresy).
-
In other words, you are taking a canonical term, redefining it to facilitate your desired conclusion, and consequently (and admittedly) misapplying it for that purpose.
You should not have said that out loud.
Where is the term "pertinacity" defined in the Code?
-
In Fr. Paul Kramer’s quote below, he references the work of Fr. Francesco Bordoni (https://www.encyclopedia.com/religion/encyclopedias-almanacs-transcripts-and-maps/bordoni-francesco) titled “SACRUM TRIBUNAL IUDUcuм IN CAUSIS SANCTÆ FIDEI CONTRA HÆRETICOS ET HÆRESI SUSPECTOS (https://archive.org/details/bub_gb_BTgSfA23wE4C/page/n9/mode/2up)“.
“Pertinacity consists in this, that one firmly consents in something or doubts, what he knows to be against faith, and determined by the Church. Thus, pertinacity is the voluntary consent of something, consciously or dubitatively against what one actually knows to be against faith. Thus it is deduced that heresy does not involve perseverance and permanence in the false assertion, since with the error being known the judgment can be made in an instant, such as one who knowingly wills something without a duration of time, therefore the will and the intellect can produce their acts in an instant, be they true and good, or false and evil – therefore also heresy.”
(Kramer, Paul. To deceive the elect: The catholic doctrine on the question of a heretical Pope . Kindle Edition.)
-
«Pertinacia autem in eo consistit, quod quis consentiat firmiter in aliquid, quod scit vel dubitat esse contra fidem, & determinationem Ecclesiæ, pertinacia igitur est voluntarius consensus in aliquid, quod cognoscitur actu, & advertenter, vel dubitative esse contra fidem.»
[Bordoni, SACRUM TRIBUNAL IUDUcuм IN CAUSIS SANCTÆ FIDEI CONTRA HÆRETICOS ET HÆRESI SUSPECTOS, p. 193]
(Quoted by Kramer, Paul. To deceive the elect: The catholic doctrine on the question of a heretical Pope . Kindle Edition. Footnote #294)
-
Where is the term "pertinacity" defined in the Code?
Revs. Bouscaren-Ellis define pertinacity under Can. 1325 §2 as follows: “[In the definition of a heretic] pertinaciter does not imply duration, nor violence; it simply means setting up one’s mind against the known mind of the Church.”
It follow that the Church has established pertinacity, only if the heretic has been made aware of his error by authority, as St. Bellarmine states:
“The authority is that of Blessed Paul, who in his Epistle to Titus, chapter 3, orders that the heretic be avoided after two warnings, that is after he clearly appears pertinacious [crime under Church law], and he understands (by this) before any excommunication and judicial sentence; as Jerome writes regarding this passage, where he states that other sinners are excluded from the Church through a sentence of excommunication, but heretics depart from and are cut off from the Body of Christ through themselves” [consequence under Divine law].
-
«Pertinacia autem in eo consistit, quod quis consentiat firmiter in aliquid, quod scit vel dubitat esse contra fidem, & determinationem Ecclesiæ, pertinacia igitur est voluntarius consensus in aliquid, quod cognoscitur actu, & advertenter, vel dubitative esse contra fidem.»
[Bordoni, SACRUM TRIBUNAL IUDUcuм IN CAUSIS SANCTÆ FIDEI CONTRA HÆRETICOS ET HÆRESI SUSPECTOS, p. 193]
(Quoted by Kramer, Paul. To deceive the elect: The catholic doctrine on the question of a heretical Pope . Kindle Edition. Footnote #294)
Since you keep citing yourself: http://www.trueorfalsepope.com/p/the-following-is-taken-from-recente.html
The Meaning of "Ipso Facto": A Response to Fr. KramerNote: The following is taken from a recent e-mail exchange between Fr. Kramer and the authors of True or False Pope.
Kramer, to John Salza: “How many times must I explain, "ipso facto", "ipso jure", "per se", i.e. (in Cardinal Burke's words), "it's automatic". It doesn't depend on some other person's judgment. Are you really too stupid to grasp this simple point?”
Robert Siscoe replies: Before commenting, let me rephrase your position. According to you, when theologians teach that an heretical pope is ipso facto and immediately/automatically deposed by Christ, they mean before the “fact” of his heresy has been legally established by the Church’s judgment; and anyone who holds that an antecedent judgment of the Church is necessary before the ipso facto loss of office takes place, is “too stupid to grasp this simple point”.
In response, I will cite two renowned theologians who explicitly teach that the ipso facto deposition by Christ takes place AFTER the Church establishes the “fact” of papal heresy – not before. And these citations are not brief, off the cuff comments given during an interview, nor are they isolated statements about a heretical pope contained in a theological book. No, the works from which these citations are taken are very lengthy treatise, written specifically to address how and when a heretical pope falls from the Pontificate. Both of these theologians studied the matter thoroughly, addressed and commented on various theological opinions, cited the relevant canon law, and discussed applicable historical cases. They knew what they were talking about, and, needless to say, they knew what the phrase “ipso facto” means.
The first citation is from one of the most respected Dominican theologians that the Church has ever produced, John of St. Thomas. And lest you’re tempted to disparage him, as Sedevacantists always do with theologians who serve as an obstacle to their opinion, here is what the entry in the Catholic Encyclopedia has to say about him:
“As professor of philosophy and theology in a monastery at Alcalá, he soon took rank among the most learned men of the time, and was placed successively (1630 and 1640) in charge of the two principal chairs of theology in the university of that city. His renown drew the largest number of scholars that had ever attended its theological faculties. No man enjoyed a greater reputation in Spain, or was more frequently consulted on points of doctrine and ecclesiastical matters. His theological and philosophical writings, which have gone through many editions, are among the best expositions of St. Thomas's doctrine, of which he is acknowledged to be one of the foremost interpreters.”
Let us see what this brilliant theologian, one of “the most foremost interpreters” of St. Thomas’ doctrine,” who “was more frequently consulted on points of doctrine and ecclesiastical matters” that anyone else in Spain during his day, had to say about when the “ipso facto” deposition by Christ. Also be sure to note what opinion he says “cannot be held,” since this forbidden opinion is exactly you and your Sedevacantist comrades adhere to as if it were a dogma.
John of St. Thomas: “It cannot be held that the pope, by the very fact of being a heretic, would cease to be pope antecedently [prior] to a declaration of the Church. It is true that some seem to hold this position [I’ll comment on this below]; but we will discuss this in the next article. What is truly a matter of debate, is whether the pope, after he is declared by the Church to be a heretic, is deposed ipso facto by Christ the Lord, or if the Church ought to depose him. In any case, as long as the Church has not issued a juridical declaration, he must always be considered the pope, as we will make more clear in the next article.”
Notice when the ipso facto loss of office occurs: it takes place after the Church has legally established the fact of papal heresy and declared it. This is because, as Cardinal Cajetan explains:
“The power of jurisdiction is by man’s appointment: both giving it and taking it away belong to human judgment. … more is required to incur deprivation ipso facto than to incur excommunication, since incurring the censure does not require a declaration, whereas incurring deprivation does, according to the jurists.” (Cajetan, De Comparatione Auctoritatis Papae et Concilii, ch. XIX).
Are you going to accuse John of St. Thomas and Cardinal Cajetan of being “too stupid” to know the meaning of the phrase ipso facto? Implicitly, you already have.
And in anticipation of an objection, it should be noted that the declaratory sentence of the crime does not cause the loss of office, according to either of the two opinions mentioned above. It only precedes the deposition, which occurs by a direct act of Christ.
According to the first opinion mentioned by JST (the ipso facto loss of office), it is the act of the heretical Pope himself that causes the loss of office dispositively; according to the second opinion, it is an act of the Church that produces the dispositive cause in the person of the Pope. According to both opinions, Christ is the efficient cause of the loss of office (i.e., it is He who formally and authoritatively deposes the Pope by severing the bond that unites the man to the office), but Christ does not act until the Church has legally established and declared the crime (first opinion), or declared the crime and then performed the additional ministerial act of issuing a vitandus declaration (second opinion).
Another way to explain the two opinions is this: according to the first opinion, the Pope separates himself from the Church by his own act (his own act is the dispositive cause); according to the second opinion, the Church legally separates from the heretic Pope by virtue of a vitandus declaration (in this case, the vitandus declaration produces the dispositive cause). But, again, according to both opinions the crime must be legally established before Christ will act by authoritatively deposing a sitting Pope, as John of St. Thomas explained above.
Here is the sequence of events, according to each opinion respectively:
First Opinion
1) The Pope falls notoriously into heresy (dispositive cause).
2) The Church legally establishes the crime and declares it.
3) Christ authoritatively deposes the pope ipso facto (efficient cause).
Second Opinion
1) Pope falls notoriously into heresy.
2) Church legally establishes the crime.
3) In accord with Divine Law (Titus 3:10), the Church issues a vitandus “to be avoided” declaration to the faithful (which produces the dispositive cause). This act of the Church legally obliges the faithful to avoid the heretical Pope (thereby rendering him incapable of governing the Church).
4) Christ then acts by authoritatively deposing the heretical Pope (efficient cause).
The next authority I will cite to show that the “ipso facto” deposition by Christ occurs after the Church declares the crime is Francisco Suarez. And once again, lest you attempt to denigrate the Doctor Eximius et Pius, here’s what the Catholic Encyclopedia has to say about him:
“Doctor Eximius, a pious and eminent theologian, as Paul V called him, born at Granada, 5 January, 1548; died at Lisbon, 25 September, 1617. He entered the Society of Jesus at Salamanca, 16 June, 1564; in that city he studied philosophy and theology from 1565 to 1570, and was ordained in 1572. He taught philosophy at Avila and at Segovia (1571), and later, theology at Avila and Segovia (1575), Valladolid (1576), Rome (1580-85); Alcalá (1585-92), Salamanca (1592-97), and Coimbra (1597-1616). All his biographers say that he was an excellent religious, practicing mortification, laborious, modest, and given to prayer. He enjoyed such fame for wisdom that Gregory XIII attended his first lecture in Rome; Paul V invited him to refute the errors of King James of England, and wished to retain him near his person, to profit by his knowledge; Philip II sent him to the University of Coimbra to give prestige to that institution, and when Francisco Suárez visited the University of Barcelona, the doctors of the university went out to meet him, with the insignia of their faculties. His writings are characterized by depth, penetration and clearness of expression, and they bear witness to their author's exceptional knowledge of the Fathers, and of heretical as well as of ecclesiastical writers. Bossuet said that the writings of Francisco Suárez contained the whole of Scholastic philosophy; Werner (Franz Francisco Suárez, p. 90) affirms that if Francisco Suárez be not the first theologian of his age, he is, beyond all doubt, among the first; Grotius (Ep. 154, J. Cordesio) recognizes in him one of the greatest of theologians and a profound philosopher…”.
Suarez did not live during a time of apostasy (like today), but at a time when the faith was flourishing, yet he is acknowledged as one of the greatest theologians of his day.
Now, Suarez himself held to the ipso facto deposition opinion (the first opinion), and he explicitly states that the it occurs AFTER the Church has legally established and declared the crime, not before, as you claim. Here is how Suarez explained his own position.
Francisco Suarez: “Therefore, others [e.g., Azorius] affirm the Church is superior to the Pope in the case of heresy, but this is difficult to say. For Christ the Lord constituted the Pope as supreme judge absolutely; even the canons indifferently and generally affirm this; and at length the Church does not validly exercise any act of jurisdiction against the Pope; nor is the power conferred to him by election, rather [the Church] merely designates a person upon whom Christ confers the power by himself. Therefore on deposing a heretical Pope, the Church would not act as superior to him, but juridically and bythe consent of Christ she would declare him a heretic and therefore unworthy of Pontifical honors; he would then ipso facto and immediately be deposed by Christ…”
Are you going to accuse Suarez of not understanding his own opinion, and being “too stupid” to grasp the meaning of the term “ipso facto”? If not, why?
Now, in case you plan to argue that modern theologians have not required a declaratory sentence, I will provide a citation from the very end of the 19th century, taken from Elements of Ecclesiastical Law, which confirms that “both opinions agree” that the heretical pope must at least be declared guilty of heresy by the Church.
“Question: Is a Pope who falls into heresy deprived, ipso jure, of the Pontificate? Answer: There are two opinions: one holds that he is by virtue of divine appointment, divested ipso facto, of the Pontificate; the other, that he is, jure divino, only removable. Both opinions agree that he must at least be declared guilty of heresy by the church, i.e., by an ecuмenical council or the College of Cardinals.”
Any theologian who teaches that the loss of office occurs prior to the declaratory sentence must be understood as meaning it occurs dispositively, not formally. This distinction clarifies what would appear to be a direct contraction in the writing of some theologians, such as Billuart.
For example, in his work Cursus Theologiœ, Billuart begins by saying a heretical pope loses his office before any declaration from the Church. Then, in the very next sentence, he states that he must continue to be obeyed as Pope until he is declared a heretic by the Church. The reason, he explains, is because he retains the papal jurisdiction (i.e., he retains the pontificate formally), up until the time of the declaration, not by right, he says, but by fact, due to the Will of God for the common good of the Church.
The apparent contradiction between losing the pontificate before the declaratory sentence is issued, while at the same time retaining papal jurisdiction until it is issued, is reconciled by distinguishing between the dispositive cause of the loss of office (resulting from an act of the pope himself), and the formal deposition by Christ (the divine act of severing the man from the Pontificate and thereby stripping him of his authority), which occurs after the crime has been declared. This apparent contradiction also explains why JST said that some theologians “seem” to hold that the loss of office occurs before the crime is declared by the Church.
Before ending, let’s consider the reason Suarez gives for why Christ will not authoritatively depose a heretical pope before he is legally declared a heretic by the Church, and then see if his reasoning has any relevance to our day.
Suarez: “f the external but occult heretic can still remain the true Pope, with equal right he can continue to be so in the event that the offense became known, as long as sentence were not passed on him. (…) because in this way would arise even greater evils. In effect, there would arise doubt about the degree of infamy necessary for him to lose his charge; there would rise schisms because of this, and everything would become uncertain…”.
Doubt about the degree of infamy necessary for him to lose his charge and schism is exactly what we see today as a result of you and your Sedevacantist comrades publicly declaring which pope has lost his office, and which has not, all based on your own private judgment.
You say the post Vatican II popes prior to Francis did not meet the “degree of infamy necessary” to lose their office, yet Cekada and his sect say they did. “Our Lady’s Resistance” claims all the Pope after Pius X were heretical Antipopes, yet Fr. Cekada’s sect disagrees with them, while Richard Ibranyi claims to have “definitive proof” that all the Popes for the last 9 centuries (from Innocent II forward) have been “heretical antipopes”. This is where private judgment concerning who is and who is not a true Pope leads.
According to your private judgment, Francis is a heretical antipope, yet according to the judgment of Cardinal Burke (who you quote as an authority for your position), and the entire Magisterium of the Church, he is the legitimate Pope. You publicly hold that Benedict is the true Pope, since his resignation was supposedly forced and hence invalid, yet Benedict himself publicly stated that “there isn’t the slightest doubt about the validity,” of his resignation, and that any “speculation about its invalidity is simply absurd.” All of these schisms that you and your Sedevacantists associates have created – the “greater evils” Suarez mentioned - only make the situation in the Church far worse and discredit the traditional movement.
I will conclude with this question: since you claim ipso facto can only mean “before any human judgment”, and since you have declared John Salza “too stupid” to grasp that point, is it also you position that both John of St. Thomas and Suarez - the latchet of whose sandals you are not worthy to lose - of were too stupid do understand the meaning of the phrase, since they both explicitly taught that the ipso facto deposition by Christ follows an antecedent (prior) judgment of the Church? If not, explain the reason for your double standard? We will see if you answer this question or resort to your usual diversionary tactic of name-calling and ad hominem attacks.
COMMENT: In Fr. Kramer's his follow up e-mail, he completely ignored the citations from JST, Suarez and Cajetan (as well as all the theological arguments presented above) and resorted to his customary ad hominem attacks and juvenile name calling.
-
Since you keep citing yourself:
I doubt very much "CatholicKnight" is Fr. Kramer, he is most likely Tony La Rossa.
-
I doubt very much "CatholicKnight" is Fr. Kramer, he is most likely Tony La Rossa.
One or the other. I was waiting for a declaration from CK that he was not Fr. Kramer. We'll see if that is forthcoming or not. Fr. Kramer has showed up here before under a different alius.
-
Revs. Bouscaren-Ellis define pertinacity under Can. 1325 §2 as follows: “[In the definition of a heretic] pertinaciter does not imply duration, nor violence; it simply means setting up one’s mind against the known mind of the Church.”
It follow that the Church has established pertinacity, only if the heretic has been made aware of his error by authority, as St. Bellarmine states:
“The authority is that of Blessed Paul, who in his Epistle to Titus, chapter 3, orders that the heretic be avoided after two warnings, that is after he clearly appears pertinacious [crime under Church law], and he understands (by this) before any excommunication and judicial sentence; as Jerome writes regarding this passage, where he states that other sinners are excluded from the Church through a sentence of excommunication, but heretics depart from and are cut off from the Body of Christ through themselves” [consequence under Divine law].
First of all, setting up one's mind against the known mind of the Church simply means to oppose a doctrine divinely revealed and as the Church defines and understands that doctrine. Hence, it does NOT follow from Fr. Bouscaren-Ellis' definition that the Church is the one that must establish pertinacity before a judgment of pertinacity can be reached by the simple layman, for example.
Secondly, St. Robert Bellarmine in your quote is distinguishing between those who are only suspect of heresy, which would require canonical warnings, vs. those whose pertinacity in heresy is plainly evident (i.e., cut off from the Body of Christ themselves). The consequence of the latter falls under Divine Law. That's why I wrote earlier that heresy per se separates the public manifest formal heretic from the Church. The consequence of the former falls under Church Law (i.e., establishing the crime).
-
First of all, setting up one's mind against the known mind of the Church simply means to oppose a doctrine divinely revealed and as the Church defines and understands that doctrine. Hence, it does NOT follow from Fr. Bouscaren-Ellis' definition that the Church is the one that must establish pertinacity before a judgment of pertinacity can be reached by the simple layman, for example.
Secondly, St. Robert Bellarmine in your quote is distinguishing between those who are only suspect of heresy, which would require canonical warnings, vs. those whose pertinacity in heresy is plainly evident (i.e., cut off from the Body of Christ themselves). The consequence of the latter falls under Divine Law. That's why I wrote earlier that heresy per se separates the public manifest formal heretic from the Church. The consequence of the former falls under Church Law (i.e., establishing the crime).
Nope.
One whose pertinacity is clearly established is not under mere suspicion, and for the Church to have established it, means they have already declared it.
How this is all so is contained in the SS article I posted subsequently.
-
Nope.
One whose pertinacity is clearly established is not under mere suspicion, and for the Church to have established it, means they have already declared it.
How this is all so is contained in the SS article I posted subsequently.
No where did you prove that pertinacity must be established by the Church and only by the Church before a heretic is separated from the Church. Instead, you directly oppose Pope Pius XII in Mystici Corporis where he states the sin of heresy by its nature separates one from the Church. Here is the quote again:
“For not every sin, however grave it may be, is such as of its own nature to sever a man from the Body of the Church, as does schism or heresy or apostasy.”
(Pope Pius XII, Mystici Corporis, 23) [Emphases mine]
-
You also oppose Pope Vigilius:
“The heretic, even though he has not been condemned formally by any individual, in reality brings anathema on himself, having cut himself off from the way of truth by his heresy.”
(Second Council of Constantinople, 553) [Emphasis mine]
-
No where did you prove that pertinacity must be established by the Church and only by the Church before a heretic is separated from the Church. Instead, you directly oppose Pope Pius XII in Mystici Corporis where he states the sin of heresy by its nature separates one from the Church. Here is the quote again:
“For not every sin, however grave it may be, is such as of its own nature to sever a man from the Body of the Church, as does schism or heresy or apostasy.”
(Pope Pius XII, Mystici Corporis, 23) [Emphases mine]
Complete refutation: Your blunder here is in not distinguishing between the crime of heresy, and the sin of heresy.
SS explain:
Later on, we will discuss the question of how a heretical prelate loses his jurisdiction/office, which is not the same question as how heresy severs a person from the Church (these are two distinct issues). This will include important material that we have never published before, as well as recently translated material from St. Bellarmine that refutes Fr. Kramer’s and the Sedevacantists’ interpretation and application of his opinion concerning a heretical Pope, and confirms precisely what we have been arguing for years.
Full explanation here:
http://www.trueorfalsepope.com/p/exposing-theerrors-of-fr.html?m=1
-
You also oppose Pope Vigilius:
“The heretic, even though he has not been condemned formally by any individual, in reality brings anathema on himself, having cut himself off from the way of truth by his heresy.”
(Second Council of Constantinople, 553) [Emphasis mine]
"The first thing to note is that Pius XII [or Vigilius in the quote provided] is not addressing how, or what is required, for a Pope who falls into heresy to lose his office/jurisdiction. That is not what is being discussed, nor is the subject touched upon anywhere in the encyclical. How a heretical bishop or Pope loses his office, and how heresy separates a Catholic from the Church, are two separates questions, and each question has different distinctions that apply (the loss of office due to heresy will be addressed in Part III). Pius XII is simply repeating the centuries-old teaching that heresy, schism and apostasy sever a person from the Church of their nature, whereas other sins do not."
Complete refutation here: http://www.trueorfalsepope.com/p/formal-reply-to-fr-framer-part-ii.html
-
What is most interesting to me is that, in all the aforesaid arguments of Catholic Knight (and his mentor, Fr. Kramer), they are 100% relying upon the arguments of sedevacantists (mostly Speray) to make their argument.
The only real difference between them is their argument over who was the first antipope, John XXIII or Francis.
Yet the continual rejection of being called a sedevacantist, despite the fact that:
1) They reject the claim of Francis to the See;
2) They do not believe anyone else has a legitimate claim to the See;
3) They will not accept whomever else is elected in the future for all perpetuity;
4) And Kramer and Co. rely 100% upon Speray/sedevacantist polemics to defend their position.
But they are certainly not sedevacantists.
;)
-
CK: Proving that you have not understood the meaning of Popes Pius XII and Vigilius (for the reasons previously mentioned, namely, confounding the sin of heresy with the crime of heresy, and stemming from this, conflating the loss of membership in the Church with loss of jurisdiction and office), I'm hoping you will be receptive to the words of the eminent Cardinal Billuart and Pope Martin V:
Pope Martin V would be quite surprised to learn he stands condemned by Vigilius (Billuart as well)!
Summa S. Thomae of Charles Rene Billuart, O.P. (1685-1757)
Secunda Secundae, 4th Dissertation: On the Vices Opposed to Faith.
~ Article 3 ~
"I say that manifest heretics, unless they are denounced by name, or themselves depart from the Church, retain their jurisdiction and validly absolve. This is proved by the Bull of Martin V, Ad evitanda scandala, [which reads thus]:
Quote 'To avoid the scandals and the many perils that can befall timorous consciences, we mercifully grant to the faithful of Christ, by the force of this decree (tenore praesentium), that henceforth no one will be obliged, under the pretext of any sentence or ecclesiastical censure generally promulgated by law or by man, to avoid the communion of any person, in the administration or reception of the Sacraments, or in any other matters sacred or profane, or to eschew the person, or to observe any ecclesiastical interdict, unless a sentence or censure of this kind shall have been published by a judge, and denounced specially and expressly, whether against a person, or a college, or university, or church, or a certain place or territory. Neither the Apostolic Constitutions, nor any other laws remain in force to the contrary.'
"Then [the Bull] lists, as the only exception, those who are notorious for having inflicted violence on the clergy. From these lines, we argue that the Church is granting permission to the faithful to receive the sacraments from heretics who have not yet been expressly denounced by name; and, therefore, that she allows the latter to retain their jurisdiction for the valid administration of the sacraments, since otherwise the concession granted to the faithful would mean nothing.
"Our argument is confirmed by the current praxis of the entire Church; for no one today ... avoids his pastor, even for the reception of the sacraments, as long as he is allowed to remain in his benefice, even if the man is, in the judgment of all or at least of the majority, a manifest Jansenist, and rebellious against the definitions of the Church; and so on with the rest.
"I have said in my thesis, 'unless they depart from the Church of their own accord'; for, by the fact that they depart from the Church, they renounce her jurisdiction, and as a result we infer that the Church does not continue to give it to them. ... If manifest heretics had to be avoided before their denunciation, this would endanger souls and generate anxiety of conscience, since there would be uncertainty as to who are manifest heretics, some persons affirming, and others denying, as actually happened in the case of Jansenism. It is very difficult for lay people to know with certainty if someone is a manifest heretic or not, since in most cases the subject-matter of the heresy surpasses their understanding. For all these reasons, the Council prudently decided that only those who have been denounced would have to be avoided. These reasons, however, do not apply anymore once the heretic leaves the Church of his own accord.
"Nor does it follow from this—as if there were parity—that no one should be considered a public sinner unless denounced; or that, consequently, the Eucharist cannot be denied to any sinners except those who have been denounced. The difference is, first of all, that the law and praxis of the Church require that a heretic be denounced before he loses his jurisdiction, not for his own benefit, but for the benefit and tranquility of the faithful. But the Church does not require a denunciation for someone to be considered a public sinner, or to be repelled from Communion, because the welfare and tranquility of the faithful do not require that. Also, it is not the business of the faithful to pass judgment on the jurisdiction of their ministers, and often it is impossible for them to do so; but this pertains to the superiors who grant the ministers their jurisdiction. It pertains to the ministers, however, to pass judgment on those who receive the sacraments. ...
"The pope… does not have his jurisdiction from the Church, but from Christ. Nowhere has it been declared that Christ would continue to give jurisdiction to a manifestly heretical Pope, since his heresy could become known to the Church, and the Church could provide another pastor for herself. Nevertheless, the more common opinion (sententia communior) holds that Christ, by a special dispensation, for the common good and tranquility of the Church, will continue to give jurisdiction even to a manifestly heretical pope, until he has been declared a manifest heretic by the Church."
http://www.trueorfalsepope.com/p/thefollowing-excerpt-from-charles-rene.html
-
CK: Proving that you have not understood the meaning of Popes Pius XII and Vigilius (for the reasons previously mentioned, namely, confounding the sin of heresy with the crime of heresy, and stemming from this, conflating the loss of membership in the Church with loss of jurisdiction and office), I'm hoping you will be receptive to the words of the eminent Cardinal Billuart and Pope Martin V:
Pope Martin V would be quite surprised to learn he stands condemned by Vigilius (Billuart as well)!
Summa S. Thomae of Charles Rene Billuart, O.P. (1685-1757)
Secunda Secundae, 4th Dissertation: On the Vices Opposed to Faith.
~ Article 3 ~
"I say that manifest heretics, unless they are denounced by name, or themselves depart from the Church, retain their jurisdiction and validly absolve. This is proved by the Bull of Martin V, Ad evitanda scandala, [which reads thus]:
"Then [the Bull] lists, as the only exception, those who are notorious for having inflicted violence on the clergy. From these lines, we argue that the Church is granting permission to the faithful to receive the sacraments from heretics who have not yet been expressly denounced by name; and, therefore, that she allows the latter to retain their jurisdiction for the valid administration of the sacraments, since otherwise the concession granted to the faithful would mean nothing.
"Our argument is confirmed by the current praxis of the entire Church; for no one today ... avoids his pastor, even for the reception of the sacraments, as long as he is allowed to remain in his benefice, even if the man is, in the judgment of all or at least of the majority, a manifest Jansenist, and rebellious against the definitions of the Church; and so on with the rest.
"I have said in my thesis, 'unless they depart from the Church of their own accord'; for, by the fact that they depart from the Church, they renounce her jurisdiction, and as a result we infer that the Church does not continue to give it to them. ... If manifest heretics had to be avoided before their denunciation, this would endanger souls and generate anxiety of conscience, since there would be uncertainty as to who are manifest heretics, some persons affirming, and others denying, as actually happened in the case of Jansenism. It is very difficult for lay people to know with certainty if someone is a manifest heretic or not, since in most cases the subject-matter of the heresy surpasses their understanding. For all these reasons, the Council prudently decided that only those who have been denounced would have to be avoided. These reasons, however, do not apply anymore once the heretic leaves the Church of his own accord.
"Nor does it follow from this—as if there were parity—that no one should be considered a public sinner unless denounced; or that, consequently, the Eucharist cannot be denied to any sinners except those who have been denounced. The difference is, first of all, that the law and praxis of the Church require that a heretic be denounced before he loses his jurisdiction, not for his own benefit, but for the benefit and tranquility of the faithful. But the Church does not require a denunciation for someone to be considered a public sinner, or to be repelled from Communion, because the welfare and tranquility of the faithful do not require that. Also, it is not the business of the faithful to pass judgment on the jurisdiction of their ministers, and often it is impossible for them to do so; but this pertains to the superiors who grant the ministers their jurisdiction. It pertains to the ministers, however, to pass judgment on those who receive the sacraments. ...
"The pope… does not have his jurisdiction from the Church, but from Christ. Nowhere has it been declared that Christ would continue to give jurisdiction to a manifestly heretical Pope, since his heresy could become known to the Church, and the Church could provide another pastor for herself. Nevertheless, the more common opinion (sententia communior) holds that Christ, by a special dispensation, for the common good and tranquility of the Church, will continue to give jurisdiction even to a manifestly heretical pope, until he has been declared a manifest heretic by the Church."
http://www.trueorfalsepope.com/p/thefollowing-excerpt-from-charles-rene.html
Sounds a lot like what a bit later was codified as Can. 2264, eh (you know, like what I said way back on p. 1)?
:popcorn:
-
Complete refutation: Your blunder here is in not distinguishing between the crime of heresy, and the sin of heresy.
Sin is essential to crime, but crime is not essential to sin. Crime needs sin, but sin does not need crime. Therefore, every crime is a sin, but not every sin is a crime. It follows, then, that the crime of heresy is contingent on the sin of heresy, but the sin of heresy is not contingent on the crime of heresy. The crime of heresy exists only because it is defined as such by the Church in her Canon Law. If the Church did not define heresy as a crime it would not exist as a crime, but the sin of heresy exists regardless. Pertinacity in heresy is what is required to make the sin of heresy "formal" (i.e., a real offence against God). Otherwise, the sin of heresy would only be “material” and hence not a real offence against God. So what we have is that pertinacity is required for the sin of heresy and the sin of heresy is required for the crime of heresy. Now since the sin of heresy exists with or without the crime of heresy and the crime of heresy need not exist at all, pertinacity essentially belongs, then, only to the sin of heresy. But in her Canon Law, the Church does not judge pertinacity for the end of the sin of heresy but for the end of the crime of heresy. The individual, however, may judge pertinacity, with the existence of sufficient evidence, for end of the sin of heresy. And it is this sin of heresy that Pope Pius XII states in Mystici Corporis that, of its own nature, separates one from the Church. And this is true regardless of the crime of heresy.
-
Sin is essential to crime, but crime is not essential to sin. Crime needs sin, but sin does not need crime. Therefore, every crime is a sin, but not every sin is a crime. It follows, then, that the crime of heresy is contingent on the sin of heresy, but the sin of heresy is not contingent on the crime of heresy. The crime of heresy exists only because it is defined as such by the Church in her Canon Law. If the Church did not define heresy as a crime it would not exist as a crime, but the sin of heresy exists regardless. Pertinacity in heresy is what is required to make the sin of heresy "formal" (i.e., a real offence against God). Otherwise, the sin of heresy would only be “material” and hence not a real offence against God. So what we have is that pertinacity is required for the sin of heresy and the sin of heresy is required for the crime of heresy. Now since the sin of heresy exists with or without the crime of heresy and the crime of heresy need not exist at all, pertinacity essentially belongs, then, only to the sin of heresy. But in her Canon Law, the Church does not judge pertinacity for the end of the sin of heresy but for the end of the crime of heresy. The individual, however, may judge pertinacity, with the existence of sufficient evidence, for end of the sin of heresy. And it is this sin of heresy that Pope Pius XII states in Mystici Corporis that, of its own nature, separates one from the Church. And this is true regardless of the crime of heresy.
I think you are outmaneuvering yourself again.
-
I think you are outmaneuvering yourself again.
Earlier I wrote, «Salza & Siscoe now claim: “The external act of heresy is, by its nature, a crime.” This proposition is patently false: The nature of a crime in ecclesiastical law is of an external and morally imputable violation of a law or precept. It does not pertain to the nature of heresy that it is ”an external and morally imputable violation of a law [an ecclesiastical law] or precept”; and therefore, the proposition is false. The external act of heresy is a sin, and not a crime.»
The fallacious Salza/Siscoe argument that external heresy is in its nature an ecclesiastical crime, is that since, according to Canon Law the external act of heresy conforms to the specifications required for an act to qualify as a crime, external heresy is therefore, in its nature a crime. The nonsensical fallacy of their thinking is exposed in the consideration that what pertains to the definition of a crime, does not intrinsically pertain to the nature of exernal heresy (whether considered formally in its specific nature as heresy or materially in its generic nature as an external act); and therefore, the external act of heresy is not in its nature a crime. Heresy in its nature is directly and per se opposed to faith, but it is not in its nature intrinsically opposed to ecclesiastical law, since the penal sanction added to it in ecclesiastical law is an accidental circuмstance extrinsic to its nature. Salza & Siscoe fallaciously argue that since external heresy falls within the parameters of the definition of a crime in canon law (i.e. an external violation of a law or precept, etc.), external heresy is consequently by definition a crime, and therefore it is in its intrinsic nature a crime. The false conclusion is based on an elementary error of logic: External heresy is indeed a crime because it falls within the parameters of the canonical definition of a delict; but that only accidently qualifies external heresy as a crime, because the specifications of the nature of a crime which fall within the canonical definition of a crime do not fall within the canonical or theological definition of heresy. Being a crime is an accidental quality of external heresy due to the circuмstance that external heresy is a delict according to ecclesiastical law; but that quality does not pertain per se to the essential nature of external heresy, because its being an external violation of a penal law does not pertain to the definition of external heresy as it is defined in canon law and moral theology. Furthermore, to be a crime, the external act must be morally imputable; and hence, the merely material and therefore inculpable external act of heresy is not a crime; and therefore, it follows necessarily that the act of external heresy is manifestly not in its nature a crime. Additionally (as is explained below), to be a crime, it does not suffice that it violate a precept of divine law, but it must also violate an ecclesiastical law or precept; and therefore, without a law or precept of ecclesiastical law, or at least a divine law to which is added a penal censure, the external act is not a delict, nor is it punishable in the external forum by the Church. Thus, it is patent, that the external act of heresy per se, is not in its nature a crime.
All text above is from the following:
Kramer, Paul. To deceive the elect: The catholic doctrine on the question of a heretical Pope . Kindle Edition.
-
CK: Proving that you have not understood the meaning of Popes Pius XII and Vigilius (for the reasons previously mentioned, namely, confounding the sin of heresy with the crime of heresy, and stemming from this, conflating the loss of membership in the Church with loss of jurisdiction and office), I'm hoping you will be receptive to the words of the eminent Cardinal Billuart and Pope Martin V:
Pope Martin V would be quite surprised to learn he stands condemned by Vigilius (Billuart as well)!
Summa S. Thomae of Charles Rene Billuart, O.P. (1685-1757)
Secunda Secundae, 4th Dissertation: On the Vices Opposed to Faith.
~ Article 3 ~
"I say that manifest heretics, unless they are denounced by name, or themselves depart from the Church, retain their jurisdiction and validly absolve. This is proved by the Bull of Martin V, Ad evitanda scandala, [which reads thus]:
"Then [the Bull] lists, as the only exception, those who are notorious for having inflicted violence on the clergy. From these lines, we argue that the Church is granting permission to the faithful to receive the sacraments from heretics who have not yet been expressly denounced by name; and, therefore, that she allows the latter to retain their jurisdiction for the valid administration of the sacraments, since otherwise the concession granted to the faithful would mean nothing.
"Our argument is confirmed by the current praxis of the entire Church; for no one today ... avoids his pastor, even for the reception of the sacraments, as long as he is allowed to remain in his benefice, even if the man is, in the judgment of all or at least of the majority, a manifest Jansenist, and rebellious against the definitions of the Church; and so on with the rest.
"I have said in my thesis, 'unless they depart from the Church of their own accord'; for, by the fact that they depart from the Church, they renounce her jurisdiction, and as a result we infer that the Church does not continue to give it to them. ... If manifest heretics had to be avoided before their denunciation, this would endanger souls and generate anxiety of conscience, since there would be uncertainty as to who are manifest heretics, some persons affirming, and others denying, as actually happened in the case of Jansenism. It is very difficult for lay people to know with certainty if someone is a manifest heretic or not, since in most cases the subject-matter of the heresy surpasses their understanding. For all these reasons, the Council prudently decided that only those who have been denounced would have to be avoided. These reasons, however, do not apply anymore once the heretic leaves the Church of his own accord.
"Nor does it follow from this—as if there were parity—that no one should be considered a public sinner unless denounced; or that, consequently, the Eucharist cannot be denied to any sinners except those who have been denounced. The difference is, first of all, that the law and praxis of the Church require that a heretic be denounced before he loses his jurisdiction, not for his own benefit, but for the benefit and tranquility of the faithful. But the Church does not require a denunciation for someone to be considered a public sinner, or to be repelled from Communion, because the welfare and tranquility of the faithful do not require that. Also, it is not the business of the faithful to pass judgment on the jurisdiction of their ministers, and often it is impossible for them to do so; but this pertains to the superiors who grant the ministers their jurisdiction. It pertains to the ministers, however, to pass judgment on those who receive the sacraments. ...
"The pope… does not have his jurisdiction from the Church, but from Christ. Nowhere has it been declared that Christ would continue to give jurisdiction to a manifestly heretical Pope, since his heresy could become known to the Church, and the Church could provide another pastor for herself. Nevertheless, the more common opinion (sententia communior) holds that Christ, by a special dispensation, for the common good and tranquility of the Church, will continue to give jurisdiction even to a manifestly heretical pope, until he has been declared a manifest heretic by the Church."
http://www.trueorfalsepope.com/p/thefollowing-excerpt-from-charles-rene.html
Still awaiting your response.
As you can see, the Church soon adopted the position of Billuart, which found its way into Can. 2264 (as I said all the way back on p.1).
Checkmate.
-
Sounds a lot like what a bit later was codified as Can. 2264, eh (you know, like what I said way back on p. 1)?
:popcorn:
This quote deals with the jurisdiction necessary for valid administration of the Sacraments, which the Church regularly grants to non-Catholics ... not with ordinary or habitual jurisdiction. So, for instance, the Church grants Orthodox priests ad hoc (I forget the Canon Law term at the moment) jurisdiction to validly administer the Sacrament of Confession to a dying Catholic, and at one point St. Pius X permitted Catholics living in Orthodox territories to receive the Sacraments for the Orthodox, thus again providing the necessary ad hoc (vs. habitual jurisdiction), granted only for the specific purpose of validly absolving the penitent. Similarly, Bergoglio (assuming he were capable of it) granted the SSPX jurisdiction to validly absolve penitents.
Thus, for instance, if Bergoglio were a valid priest, even if he's a manifest heretic, he would be able to validly absolve penitents.
Did you miss this part? Or did you just ignore it because it undermines your argument?
[The Church] allows the latter to retain their jurisdiction for the valid administration of the sacraments
This passage clearly indicates that it's a case of the Church ALLOWING jurisdiction only for the purpose of valid administration of the Sacraments that require jurisdiction for the good of the faithful.
:popcorn:
-
Thus, for instance, Cardinal Cushing was clearly a manifest heretic. Nevertheless, since he was not removed from office by Rome, the priests in his diocese retained the jurisdiction to validly absolve in the Sacrament of Confession.
-
This quote deals with the jurisdiction necessary for valid administration of the Sacraments, which the Church regularly grants to non-Catholics ... not with ordinary or habitual jurisdiction. So, for instance, the Church grants Orthodox priests ad hoc (I forget the Canon Law term at the moment) jurisdiction to validly administer the Sacrament of Confession to a dying Catholic, and at one point St. Pius X permitted Catholics living in Orthodox territories to receive the Sacraments for the Orthodox, thus again providing the necessary ad hoc (vs. habitual jurisdiction), granted only for the specific purpose of validly absolving the penitent. Similarly, Bergoglio (assuming he were capable of it) granted the SSPX jurisdiction to validly absolve penitents.
Thus, for instance, if Bergoglio were a valid priest, even if he's a manifest heretic, he would be able to validly absolve penitents.
Did you miss this part? Or did you just ignore it because it undermines your argument?
This passage clearly indicates that it's a case of the Church ALLOWING jurisdiction only for the purpose of valid administration of the Sacraments that require jurisdiction for the good of the faithful.
:popcorn:
I prefer to believe the quote means exactly what it says it means (ie., exactly what LaRosa and other sedes deny):
That unless a declaratory or condemnatory declaration is made, the heretic retains his jurisdiction, and consequently the faithful may licitly and validly approach them.
This is precisely what Fr. Chazal denies, and what LaRosa/Kramer (now that they are sedes) oppose, each a bit differently:
Chazal: The pope retains jurisdiction, but because he is a heretic, it is not licit to use it (error).
LaRosa/Kramer: The pope has no jurisdiction at all, because his heresy has placed himself outside the Church (error).
Martin V/Billuart and most other classical theologians: Even an heretical pope retains his jurisdiction unless a declaratory….
-
This quote deals with the jurisdiction necessary for valid administration of the Sacraments, which the Church regularly grants to non-Catholics ... not with ordinary or habitual jurisdiction.
Exactly. A public manifest formal heretic does not have ordinary (habitual) jurisdiction. I made that distinction (after not making it) to Mr. Johnson in a previous post.
-
Exactly. A public manifest formal heretic does not have ordinary (habitual) jurisdiction. I made that distinction (after not making it) to Mr. Johnson in a previous post.
False.
Billuart:
"Nevertheless, the more common opinion (sententia communior) holds that Christ, by a special dispensation, for the common good and tranquility of the Church, will continue to give jurisdiction even to a manifestly heretical pope, until he has been declared a manifest heretic by the Church."
If Christ is CONTINUING to give the jurisdiction He has already been giving (i.e., ordinary), then what is discussed is clearly ordinary jurisdiction.
It is only after the heretic is declared that his jurisdiction becomes illicit (though still valid via ecclesia supplet), which is the whole argument of the Billuart/Martin V quote.
-
This quote deals with the jurisdiction necessary for valid administration of the Sacraments,
Pope Martin V (cited by Billuart says the opposite):
"no one will be obliged, under the pretext of any sentence or ecclesiastical censure generally promulgated by law or by man, to avoid the communion of any person, in the administration or reception of the Sacraments, or in any other matters sacred or profane, or to eschew the person, or to observe any ecclesiastical interdict..."
Clearly, Martin V is not limiting his statement on the retention of jurisdiction to the administration of the sacraments.
If he is therefore retaining his jurisdiction in all other matters besides sacramental administration, as the pope says, we are clearly talking about ordinary jurisdiction.
-
False.
Billuart:
"Nevertheless, the more common opinion (sententia communior) holds that Christ, by a special dispensation, for the common good and tranquility of the Church, will continue to give jurisdiction even to a manifestly heretical pope, until he has been declared a manifest heretic by the Church."
If Christ is CONTINUING to give the jurisdiction He has already been giving (i.e., ordinary), then what is discussed is clearly ordinary jurisdiction.
It is only after the heretic is declared that his jurisdiction becomes illicit (though still valid via ecclesia supplet), which is the whole argument of the Billuart/Martin V quote.
"All variations of Opinion No. 4, whether of Cajetan, Suárez, John of St. Thomas, Billuart, Laymann, etc., are no longer admissible, because they offend against the doctrine of Mystici Corporis on the nature of heresy severing one suapte natura from the Church; and offend against the injudicability of the pope defined in Pastor Æternus."
Kramer, Paul. To deceive the elect: The catholic doctrine on the question of a heretical Pope . Kindle Edition.
-
Again:
“For not every sin, however grave it may be, is such as of its own nature to sever a man from the Body of the Church, as does schism or heresy or apostasy.”
(Pope Pius XII, Mystici Corporis, 23) [Emphases mine]
-
"All variations of Opinion No. 4, whether of Cajetan, Suárez, John of St. Thomas, Billuart, Laymann, etc., are no longer admissible, because they offend against the doctrine of Mystici Corporis on the nature of heresy severing one suapte natura from the Church; and offend against the injudicability of the pope defined in Pastor Æternus."
Kramer, Paul. To deceive the elect: The catholic doctrine on the question of a heretical Pope . Kindle Edition.
Fr. Kramer's errors regarding his failure to distinguish between discretionary judgments and coercive judgments have already been discussed above, and are at the core of his error regarding Vatican I.
As regards his errors on Mystici Corporis, please see here: http://www.trueorfalsepope.com/p/formal-reply-to-fr-framer-part-ii.html
-
Again:
“For not every sin, however grave it may be, is such as of its own nature to sever a man from the Body of the Church, as does schism or heresy or apostasy.”
(Pope Pius XII, Mystici Corporis, 23) [Emphases mine]
Does the above quote intentionally and specifically pertain to the Pope?
-
Fr. Kramer's errors regarding his failure to distinguish between discretionary judgments and coercive judgments have already been discussed above, and are at the core of his error regarding Vatican I.
As regards his errors on Mystici Corporis, please see here: http://www.trueorfalsepope.com/p/formal-reply-to-fr-framer-part-ii.html
Discretionary or coercive judgment, it does not matter because the teaching of Pope Pius XII is speaking about the "sin" of heresy and not the "crime" of heresy. Even if the Code of Canon Law did not exist (and thereby no "crime" of heresy would exist), the "sin" of heresy still exists. It is the "sin" of heresy that by its very nature cuts the heretic from the Church.
-
Does the above quote intentionally and specifically pertain to the Pope?
It pertains to all Catholics.
-
It pertains to all Catholics.
The pope isn't "all Catholics." The same rules don't apply to the Papacy.
-
The pope isn't "all Catholics." The same rules don't apply to the Papacy.
No matter, because Mr. LaRosa's fantasies don't apply to Catholics either.
http://www.trueorfalsepope.com/p/formal-reply-to-fr-framer-part-ii.html (http://www.trueorfalsepope.com/p/formal-reply-to-fr-framer-part-ii.html)
-
The pope isn't "all Catholics." The same rules don't apply to the Papacy.
You, like Mr. Johnson, seem to miss the distinction between the "sin" of heresy vs. the "crime" of heresy. The "sin" of heresy applies to all Catholics. The "crime" of heresy is nuanced when it comes to a putative pope. Pope Pius XII in Mystici Corporis is speaking about the "sin" of heresy. Pope Pius XII's teaching stands regardless of whether heresy is defined as a crime or not.
-
“Public heretics (and a fortiori, apostates) are not members of the Church. They are not members because they separate themselves from the unity of Catholic faith and from the external profession of the faith. Obviously, therefore, they lack one of the three factors-baptism, profession of the same faith, union with the hierarchy-pointed out by Pius XII as requisite for membership in the Church (see above, p. 238). The same pontiff has explicitly pointed out that, unlike other sins, heresy, schism, and apostasy, automatically sever a man from the Church. ‘For not every sin, however grave and enormous it be, is such as to sever a man automatically from the Body of the Church, as does schism or heresy or apostasy‘ (MCC 30, italics ours).”
(Monsignor G. Van Noort, S.T.D., Dogmatic Theology, Volume II, Christ’s Church, 153)
-
Every crime is a sin, but not every sin is a crime. The key difference between a sin and a crime is that for a crime the Church attaches a penalty (e.g., excommunication).
-
You, like Mr. Johnson, seem to miss the distinction between the "sin" of heresy vs. the "crime" of heresy. The "sin" of heresy applies to all Catholics. The "crime" of heresy is nuanced when it comes to a putative pope. Pope Pius XII in Mystici Corporis is speaking about the "sin" of heresy. Pope Pius XII's teaching stands regardless of whether heresy is defined as a crime or not.
Au contraire:
I most certainly am aware of the distinction, but it cannot save Fr. Kramer’s position, for the reasons which follow:
”
PART II: FORMAL REPLY TO FR. FRAMER.
Part II
Exposing the Errors of Fr. Paul Kramer
on Mystici Corporis Christi
One of the most common errors among Sedevacantists is the belief that the sin of heresy causes the loss of papal office/jurisdiction. This error is based, in part, on a misunderstanding of a quotation from Pope Pius XII’s encyclical Mystici Corporis Christi. Those who embrace this error quickly take it upon themselves to judge whether or not the Pope has committed the sin of heresy (while at the same time declaring “no one can judge the Pope”), and if they personally judge that he has, they immediately conclude that he is no longer Pope. The really “courageous” ones will then publicly declare him to be an antipope, formally separate from him, and accuse those who see through their errors of being too cowardly to call a spade a spade.
And to be clear, for those who embrace “the sin of heresy causes the loss of office” theory, it isn’t necessary for the Pope to publicly admit that he denies a dogma. All that is required is that he seems to be a heretic to them. They take the Douglas Adams approach to reach their verdict – namely, if he walks like a heretic and quacks like a heretic, he must be a heretic; and if he’s a heretic, he’s not the Pope.[1] (http://file:///C:/Users/user/Desktop/The Errors of Fr Paul Kramer Part II long version 2-21.docx#_ftn1) The following is an example of this, taken from a letter to the Editor of the popular Traditional Catholic website, Tradition in Action:
“I am a sede-vacantist that attends an SSPX chapel here in the Detroit area. I have no degree in theology or canon law, so I try to keep it quite simple: if it looks like a duck, walks like a duck, and quacks like a duck; guess what, I bet it's a duck.”[2] (http://file:///C:/Users/user/Desktop/The Errors of Fr Paul Kramer Part II long version 2-21.docx#_ftn2)
Pretty simple, isn’t it? You see, when you embrace the “sin of heresy causes the loss of office” theory, if you personally think the man recognized as Pope by the Church is a heretic, your judgment of the “fact” suffices for you to reject his legitimacy and publicly declare him an antipope, provided, that is, that you have the courage to do so. And the award for the most “courageous” of all Sedevacantists has to go to Richard Ibranyi, who now publicly declares that every Pope and Cardinal since Pope Innocent II (A.D.1130) and every theologian and canon lawyer since the year 1250, have been antipopes and apostates. He writes:
“As of January 2014 I have discovered conclusive evidence that all the so-called popes and cardinals from Innocent II (1130-1143) onward have been idolaters or formal heretics and thus were apostate antipopes and apostate anticardinals. Also all of the theologians and canon lawyers from 1250 onward have been apostates. … Hence all their teachings, laws, judgments, and other acts are null and void. Therefore, all of the ecuмenical councils, canon laws, and other acts from Apostate Antipope Innocent II onward are null and void.”[3] (http://file:///C:/Users/user/Desktop/The Errors of Fr Paul Kramer Part II long version 2-21.docx#_ftn3)
While Mr. Ibranyi is an extreme example, those who reject the Popes from John XXIII forward, or only Pope Francis,[4] (http://file:///C:/Users/user/Desktop/The Errors of Fr Paul Kramer Part II long version 2-21.docx#_ftn4) arrive at their conclusion using the same exact reasoning: the sin of heresy, manifested by public words and acts they personally deem sufficient for them to reach their verdict, severs one from the Body of the Church and causes the loss of office.[5] (http://file:///C:/Users/user/Desktop/The Errors of Fr Paul Kramer Part II long version 2-21.docx#_ftn5)Their only basis for disagreement among themselves concerning which of the Popes during the last nine centuries have been true Popes, and which have not, is that their private judgment is correct and that of their fellow Sedevacantists is not. And not surprisingly, an ever-increasing number of Sedevacantists are now rejecting Popes prior to Vatican II, due to this erroneous doctrine.[6] (http://file:///C:/Users/user/Desktop/The Errors of Fr Paul Kramer Part II long version 2-21.docx#_ftn6)
To be fair, however, we should note that not all Sedevacantists believe the sin of heresy causes the loss of papal office. This particular error was popularized by Fr. Anthony Cekada, and is fervently defended by his band of lay “internet warriors,” but is rejected by the more knowledgeable Sedes. One Catholic author recently described those who hold Fr. Cekada’s error as being “the lowest rung of sedevacantism. The better ones” he noted, “avoid such a ridiculous error that leads to so many absurdities.” His statement is certainly true, even if “the better ones” are few and far between.
Now, because Fr. Paul Kramer has begun promoting Fr. Cekada’s error, and is now using the same interpretation Pius XII’s encyclical Mystici Corporis Christi to justify his rejection of Pope Francis, that Fr. Cekada and his followers use to reject all the Popes from John XXIII forward, we will address the quotation from Pius XII at length. We will see how embracing this “ridiculous error” has caused Fr. Kramer to change his own positionrepeatedly over the past 18 months, condemning the authors of True of False Pope? today for holding the same theological position he did less than two years ago. We will also address his accusation that our interpretation of Mystici Corporis Christi “is not shared by any academically qualified theologian in the world.”
We will begin by briefly summarizing three sets of classical theological distinctions that are used to explain how the sin of heresy does, and does not, sever a person from the Church. We will then employ each of these distinctions to interpret the teaching of Pope Pius XII in accord with Tradition, exactly as we do in our book.
The Three Key Theological Distinctions
I: Body and Soul of the Church: If we employ the Body and Soul distinction discussed in Part I,[7] (http://file:///C:/Users/user/Desktop/The Errors of Fr Paul Kramer Part II long version 2-21.docx#_ftn7) the sin of heresy, of its nature, severs a person from the Soul of the Church, since it destroys supernatural faith, while the crime of notorious heresy severs a person from the Body of the Church, since it formally severs the juridical bond of “profession of the true faith.”[8] (http://file:///C:/Users/user/Desktop/The Errors of Fr Paul Kramer Part II long version 2-21.docx#_ftn8)If the culprit’s heresy is not deemed to be notorious by fact, however, he must be formally judged and declared a heretic by the Church (rendering him notorious by law) before he is legally separated from the Body of the Church.
II: Dispositive vs. Formal Separation: This distinction explains different ways of understanding how heresy severs a person from the Body of the Church, without considering a separate unity with the Soul of the Church. According to this explanation, the sin of heresy, of its nature, severs a person from the Body of the Church dispositively, but not formally. The formalseparation from the Body of the Church occurs when the juridical bond is severed by the public act (crime) of notorious heresy (notorious by fact), or when the crime has been judged and declared by the Church (notorious by law).
III: Quoad Se and Quoad Nos: A third way to explain the same truth is by employing the classical Thomistic distinction between quoad se (of itself) and quoad nos (in relation to us). According to this explanation, a Catholic who commits the sin of heresy, even if it is only internal, ceases to be a Catholic quoad se (of himself), while the crime of notorious heresy causes the culprit to cease being a member of the Church quoad nos (in relation to us). Another way to think of it is that a Catholic who commits the sin of heresy (and loses the Faith) is severed from the Church in God’s eyes, yet remains a legal member of the Church “according to us,” as long as the juridical bond has not been formally severed.
With the foregoing distinctions in mind, we will now address the quotation from Pius XII that Fr. Kramer and his Sedevacantist friends use to justify the “sin of heresy causes the loss of office” theory:
Fr. Kramer: “The doctrine that the sin of Heresy per se, like apostasy and schism, has the intrinsic effect of separating the heretic from the Church by itself … is taught plainly and explicitly in Mystici Corporis [which says]:
‘Actually only those are to be included as members of the Church who have been baptized and profess the true faith, and who have not been so unfortunate as to separate themselves from the unity of the Body, or been excluded by legitimate authority for grave faults committed.” and “For not every sin (admissum) however grave it may be, is such as of its own nature to sever a man from the Body of the Church, as does schism or heresy or apostasy’.”[9] (http://file:///C:/Users/user/Desktop/The Errors of Fr Paul Kramer Part II long version 2-21.docx#_ftn9)
The first thing to note is that Pius XII is not addressing how, or what is required, for a Pope who falls into heresy to lose his office/jurisdiction. That is not what is being discussed, nor is the subject touched upon anywhere in the encyclical. How a heretical bishop or Pope loses his office, and how heresy separates a Catholic from the Church, are two separates questions, and each question has different distinctions that apply (the loss of office due to heresy will be addressed in Part III). Pius XII is simply repeating the centuries-old teaching that heresy, schism and apostasy sever a person from the Church of their nature, whereas other sins do not. The sin of murder, for example, deprives a Catholic of sanctifying grace and supernatural charity, but it does not sever the culprit from the Body of the Church (even if the he is found to be guilty of the crime), since the act, as bad as it is, does not sever a juridical bond. On the other hand, if a Catholic leaves the Church and becomes a professed atheist, or publicly joins a Protestant or Sedevacantist sect, he thereby ceases to be a member of the Body of the Church by his own act, since public apostasy, heresy and schism do sever juridical bonds which are necessary for a Catholic to retain visible union with the Church.
Now, to address Fr. Kramer’s interpretation directly, the first thing to note is that Pius XII did not use the Latin word for sin (peccatum), when explaining what, of its nature, severs a person from the Body of the Church. Instead, he chose the word “admissum” which (as we point out in our book), is defined as: “a wrong done, a trespass, fault, crime.”[10] (http://file:///C:/Users/user/Desktop/The Errors of Fr Paul Kramer Part II long version 2-21.docx#_ftn10) Admissum can be translated as sin, but it can just as easily be translated as crime.[11] (http://file:///C:/Users/user/Desktop/The Errors of Fr Paul Kramer Part II long version 2-21.docx#_ftn11) But in truth, it doesn’t matter which translation of admissum is used, as long as the proper distinctions are employed when interpreting it.
For example, if we translate admissum as “sin,” we can employ the dispositive/formal distinction and interpret the passage as meaning sin of heresy, of its nature, severs a person from the Body of the Church dispositively, while at the same time affirming that only notorious heresysevers one from the Body of the Church formally. If we employ the quoad se/quoad nos distinction, we can interpret the passage in accord with Tradition by maintaining that a Catholic who commits the sin of heresy is severed from the Body of the Church quoad se (of himself), while simultaneously affirming, along with Cardinal Billot, that “only notorious heretics are excluded from the body of the Church” quoad nos (in relation to us).
Finally, if we seek to interpret the teaching of Pius XII in light of the Body/Soul distinction, we can easily do so by translating admissum as “crime,” in which case the passage would read: “For not every crime, however grave it may be, is such as of its own nature to sever a man from the Body of the Church, as does schism or heresy or apostasy.”
So, it doesn’t matter which translation is used, provided the proper distinctions are made when interpreting it. We should also note that Pius XII himself did not use the Body/Soul distinction in the encyclical, and therefore it is more fitting to interpret the passage using one of the other two sets distinctions, [12] (http://file:///C:/Users/user/Desktop/The Errors of Fr Paul Kramer Part II long version 2-21.docx#_ftn12) most especially the dispositive/formal distinction.[13] (http://file:///C:/Users/user/Desktop/The Errors of Fr Paul Kramer Part II long version 2-21.docx#_ftn13)
Addressing Fr. Kramer’s False Accusation Concerning
Our Interpretation of “Admissum”
We begin by briefly addressing Fr. Kramer’s false accusations concerning our interpretation of “admissum,” which he repeats multiple times in his book. The following is yet another example of how Fr. Kramer recklessly, if not intentionally, misrepresents our position:
Fr. Kramer: Salza & Siscoe go to great lengths to insist that the words ‘admissa’ and ‘admissum’ mean, ‘crime(s)’, and not ‘sin(s)’.”
Fr. Kramer’s statement is completely false. The following is all we said about admissum in the entire 700-page book:
True or False Pope?: “It is also worth noting that the word admissumused by Pope Pius XII, which is sometimes translated as ‘sin’ or ‘offense,’ also means ‘crime.’ A crime is a public offense, not merely a sin.”
That’s it. A grand total of two sentences in over 700 pages. Never do we “insist” that admissum means crime, but only state that “crime” is another permissible meaning of the word. In fact, when we quote this passage of Mystici Corporis in True or False Pope?, we translate admissum as “offense,” not as “crime.” Again, this is one of countless examples of how Fr. Kramer completely misrepresents our position. He repeats a version of this same false accusation over and over again in his book, and always using it as the basis for a barrage of insults, while employing the most derogatory and inflammatory rhetoric possible.
Fr. Kramer Again Relies Upon “Excerpts”
From Sedevacantist Websites
So, where did Fr. Kramer get the idea that we “insist” admissum must be translated as crime? You guessed it. He got it from a Sedevacantist website, and he even admits the same. In fact, it came from the same article that caused him to entirely misunderstand what we meant by the word “alone” (as in “the sin of heresy alone does not sever a person from the Church”), which then resulted in the two false accusation of heresy/straw man arguments that were discussed in Part I.
Here is Fr. Kramer summarizing the article in question (written by a Sedevacantist layman) that he mistakenly relied on to discover our “heresies.” Notice also how he sets up the false accusation concerning “admissum” with three insults in one sentence:
Fr. Kramer: “Speray mentions that Salza/Siscoe simply repeat an older Salza error on this point: ‘The sin of heresy alone does NOT sever the person from the Body of the Church because sin is a matter of the internal forum’; and, ‘Again, Pope Pius XII is referring to the “offense” or CRIME (not SIN) of heresy’ (…) The quotation Salza refers to is Pope Pius XII, Mystici Corporis Christi (…) Salza’s nearly gnostic distortion [1] and falsification [2] of Pius XII's teaching resorts to anesoteric understanding [3] of a plainly expressed and universally taught doctrine, that the act of heresy by its very nature separates one from the Church. He [Salza] does this by uncritically and falsely interpreting the word ‘admissum’ to strictly mean ‘crime’ as opposed to ‘sin’.”
By relying on what “Speray mentioned” on his Sedevacantist website, instead of actually reading our book for himself as any prudent person would do, Fr. Kramer ended by entirely misunderstanding our position – not only in minor points, such as our translation of admissum, but in more fundamental matters as well (i.e., the errors mentioned in Part I). We wonder if Fr. Kramer is aware that the Sedevacantist layman he relied upon rejects the new rite of ordination, and believes Kramer himself is a layman.
Fr. Kramer’s authority (Mr. Speray) is also amongst the ever-increasing number of Sedevacantists who reject pre-Vatican II Popes. Where Mr. Speray differs from his fellow Sedes, however, is that he doesn’t only reject the Popes whom he personally judges to have been “manifest heretics” (e.g., Popes Honorius and Alexander VI), but also rejects the legitimacy of those he believes to have been unfit for the Papacy for other reasons. He rejects the papacy of Pope Stephen VI, for example, because he personally judges that his “mental capacity was unstable.” In Mr. Speray’s own words:
“There is no question that Stephen’s mental capacity was unstable. Because of his insanity, Stephen should be considered an antipope. One theologian says this isn’t a novel understanding among canonists: ‘…the pontifical dignity can also be lost by falling into certain insanity’ (Introductio in Codicem, 1946 .D. Udalricus Beste). Who would not think Stephen was mad after the cadaver synod? … Stephen VI’s case shows that either the Church has failed to view him as insane, or that She recognized an insane pope given that he is viewed as a true pope by his successors and placed on the official papal list.”[14] (http://file:///C:/Users/user/Desktop/The Errors of Fr Paul Kramer Part II long version 2-21.docx#_ftn14)
You see, if Steven Speray thinks a Pope who lived over a thousand years ago was “unstable” (which he equates with being “insane”), his judgment of the “fact” suffices for him to declare that the man “should be considered an antipope” – even the Pope in question has always been “viewed as a true pope by his successors” and is “placed on the official papal list”! And if Mr. Speray were correct, it would not be “either” (as he wrote above) but “both”, since he believes the Church has failed to view Stephen as insane, and has recognized an insane pope as a true Pope.
Furthermore, the consequences of Mr. Speray’s position are far graver than he realizes, since, as the great Cardinal Billot and others teach, if the entire Church were to recognize an antipope as the true Pope, the gates of hell would have prevailed. Hence, Mr. Speray’s position is not simply that “the Church has failed” to recognize that Stephen was an antipope, but that Christ himself failed to keep His Promises.
What’s more, the legitimacy of an undoubted Pope falls into the category of a dogmatic fact. This particular dogmatic fact[15] (http://file:///C:/Users/user/Desktop/The Errors of Fr Paul Kramer Part II long version 2-21.docx#_ftn15) is qualified as theologically certain (one opinion) or de fide (second opinion), the denial of which is a mortal sin against the faith,[16] (http://file:///C:/Users/user/Desktop/The Errors of Fr Paul Kramer Part II long version 2-21.docx#_ftn16) or heresy.[17] (http://file:///C:/Users/user/Desktop/The Errors of Fr Paul Kramer Part II long version 2-21.docx#_ftn17) This, however, does not hinder Mr. Speray from publicly denying the legitimacy of an undoubted Pope and declaring that other Catholics should do the same. This is the person Fr. Kramer relied upon to accurately present our position, and who he quotes throughout his book! Incredible.
Let us now return to Mystici Corporis Christi.
Does Msgr. Van Noort Contradict Our Position?
Next, Fr. Kramer makes the bold assertion that our interpretation of Mystici Corporis is not shared by any reputable theologian in the world, and quotes Msgr. Van Noort as his supporting evidence:
Fr. Kramer: “The Salza/Siscoe interpretation of Mystici Corporis is not shared by any academically qualified theologian in the world. Mons. Van Noort wrote:
‘b. Public heretics (and a fortiori, apostates) are not members of the Church. They are not members because they separate themselves from the unity of Catholic faith and from the external profession of that faith. Obviously, therefore, they lack one of three factors — baptism, profession of the same faith, union with the hierarchy — pointed out by Pius XII as requisite for membership in the Church. The same pontiff has explicitly pointed out that, unlike other sins, heresy, schism, and apostasy automatically sever a man from the Church. 'For not every sin[admissum], however grave and enormous it be, is such as to sever a man automatically from the Body of the Church, as does schism or heresy or apostasy'. (Dogmatic Theology, Volume II, Christ’s Church, p. 241 - 242.)”
Contrary to what Fr. Kramer was led to believe by reading Sedevacantist websites, what Van Noort wrote reflects our interpretation of Mystici Corporis Christi perfectly. The context of the quotation from Van Noort concerns what is necessary for a person to be a member of the Church (which is a point that is debated by theologians). Notice, Van Noort explicitly states that the reason public heretics are not members of the Church, is because “they separate themselves from the unity of Catholic faith and from the external profession of that faith,” (i.e., they sever the juridical bond of “profession of the same faith”). That is precisely what we argue at length in Chapter Three of our book when treating of who can properly be considered a member of the Church!
And the fact that Van Noort translated admissum as sin (which is likely what Fr. Kramer was referring to) in no way implies that he disagrees with our interpretation of the passage. As we have noted, we have no objection to this translation, as long as it is understood that the internal sin of heresy alone only separates a person from the Body of the Church dispositively, but not formally (or quoad se, but not quoad nos). And we can be absolutely certain that Van Noort agrees with us concerning this point, since he himself taught the exact same doctrine – and he did so the very next page!
Here is what Msgr. Van Noort wrote one page after the quotation Fr. Kramer cited as “proof” that no theologian agrees with our interpretation of Mystici Corporis Christi:
Van Noort: “Internal heresy, since it destroys that interior unity of faith from which unity of profession is born, separates from the bodyof the Church dispositively, but not yet formally.” (Dogmatic Theology, Volume II, Christ’s Church, p. 242.)
Van Noort’s interpretation of Mystici Corporis Christi, as well as his theology concerning how the internal sin of heresy severs a person from the Body of the Church (i.e., dispositively) reflects our position perfectly! In fact, Van Noort’s three-volume set of dogmatic manuals was one of the primary theological sources we consulted when writing our chapters on ecclesiology in True or False Pope?
Does Fr. Fenton Contradict Our Position?
Fr. Kramer then noted that Msgr. Joseph Clifford Fenton likewise translated admissum as sin, and then follows up with this false accusation: “yet Salza [and Siscoe] blindly and obstinately insists that such an interpretation is a sedevacantist ‘abuse’ of a faulty translation of Mystici Corporis…” This is yet another false statement. Not only have we neverclaimed that “sin” is a faulty translation of admissum, or a “Sedevacantist abuse,” as Fr. Kramer claims, but we actually quote the very teaching of Msgr. Fenton that Fr. Kramer is referring to, in which admissum is translated as sin (see: True or False Pope? p. 158).
We can be certain that Msgr. Fenton did not have the Body/Soul distinction in mind when he translated the passage, since he was opposed to this distinction, due to how it was being misused in his day.[18] (http://file:///C:/Users/user/Desktop/The Errors of Fr Paul Kramer Part II long version 2-21.docx#_ftn18) We can also be certain that Msgr. Fenton did not interpret the passage in question as meaning the internal sin of heresy alone causes a loss of membership in the Body of the Church (which is the interpretation we reject in True or False Pope?), since he wrote an entire article for the American Ecclesiastical Review[19] (http://file:///C:/Users/user/Desktop/The Errors of Fr Paul Kramer Part II long version 2-21.docx#_ftn19) to explain why such an interpretation is not tenable.[20] (http://file:///C:/Users/user/Desktop/The Errors of Fr Paul Kramer Part II long version 2-21.docx#_ftn20) We quote portions of this article in True or False Pope? to defend our interpretation of Mystici Corporis Christi, which, needless to say, is the same as that of Msgr. Fenton (see p. 158-159). In fact, the quotation Fr. Kramer is referring to, in which Msgr. Fenton translated admissum is translated as “sin,” is taken from that very article!
Suffice it to say that neither Msgr. Van Noort, nor Msgr. Fenton, disagree with our interpretation of Mystic Corporis Christi in the slightest. On the contrary, their ecclesiology is identical to our own.
Fr. Kramer’s Old Teaching (in 2016):
The External Act of Heresy is a Crime,
and the Crime Severs A Person From The Body Of The Church
Something that became apparent soon after Fr. Kramer launched his public campaign against True or False Pope?, is that he repeatedly changes his position, and condemns us today for saying precisely what he himself said yesterday (we have saved the many “drafts” he has emailed to his followers during this time). The sin of heresy vs. the crime of heresy is a case in point, as we will now see.
In one of his early attempted refutations of our position, Fr. Kramer correctly noted that the only difference between the sin of heresy and the crime of heresy is that the latter requires an external act, whereas the former does not. This is correct, and exactly what we say in our book, since even external occult heresy is a canonical crime punishable by an ipso factoexcommunication (which does not have a juridical effect in the external forum). Based on his own correct explanation of the sin vs. the crime, Fr. Kramer went on to rightly say the internal sin of heresy only severs a person from the Soul of the Church, while the public crime severs one from the Body of the Church. Here is Fr. Kramer in his own words:
Fr. Kramer: “The sin of heresy can be distinguished from the crimesolely according to the circuмstances or whether or not the sin was committed internally, i.e., in thought [sin], or by an external act[crime]. The internal sin severs one from the soul of the Church, because it is by the internal act of faith that one is united to the soul of the Church; but the internal act of infidelity does not sever one from the body of the Church … until the act of severing communion by an external act has been committed. The public heretic ceases to be in communion with the Church by the very fact of his crime.”
Now, after Fr. Kramer embraced Fr. Cekada’s “sin of heresy causes the loss of office” he reversed his position. He now rejects what he wrote above, and even claims that the external act of heresy is a sin, and not a crime. We will address his new position in a moment, but before doing so let us compare what Fr. Kramer wrote above to the following quotations from our book that he now declares to be sententia hæretica (“close to heresy”):
Fr. Kramer: “Sententia hæretica [close to heresy]: ‘The sin of heresy alone does NOT sever the person from the Body of the Church because sin is a matter of the internal forum’; and ‘the sin of heresy alone does not automatically expel one from the body of the Church’; (…) ‘The correct interpretation of Pope Pius XII’s teaching is not that he was referring to the internal sin of heresy alone, but to the public offense (the crime) of heresy, which, of its nature, severs a person from the Body of the Church with no further censure attached to the offense.’ … Salza & Siscoe manifest a profound ignorance of Fundamental Moral Theology.”
So, in the earlier quotation, Fr. Kramer himself said “the internal sin severs one from the soul of the Church” but “does not sever one from the body of the Church,” yet one year later he declares that the above propositions from our book (which express the exact same teaching) are “close to heresy,” and reflect “a profound ignorance of Fundamental Moral Theology” on our part! For clarity, let’s compare the two teachings this way:
Fr. Kramer holds (in 2016): “The internal sin severs one from the soul of the Church, because it is by the internal act of faith that one is united to the soul of the Church; but the internal act of infidelity does not sever one from the body of the Church.”
Fr. Kramer condemns (in 2017): “The sin of heresy alone does NOT ‘sever the person from the Body of the Church’ because sin is a matter of the internal forum”; and “the sin of heresy alone does not ‘automatically expel’ one from the body of the Church” (Salza/Siscoe).
As you can see, Fr. Kramer previously said “the internal act of infidelity does not sever one from the body of the Church” (meaning the internal act is insufficient to do so, and hence an external act is also required). Now he contradicts himself by condemning the very same proposition, that “the sin of heresy alone [meaning without an external act] does not sever a person from the Body of the Church.”
This reversal in his position brings up another point worth commenting on. Fr. Kramer always boasts about the training he received in the Roman seminaries of the 1970s (which Traditional priests at the time declared to be “hotbeds of heresy and Modernism”[21] (http://file:///C:/Users/user/Desktop/The Errors of Fr Paul Kramer Part II long version 2-21.docx#_ftn21)). For example, he recently wrote the following to John Salza:
Fr. Kramer: “You did not study Philosophy and Theology in Rome in a pontifical university as I did, under the last generation of Angelicuм Thomists, who were the luminaries of the Dominican order before Vatican II … You think Fr. ___ [a priest who is one of the most brilliant minds we know RS/JS], an SSPX graduate of the Ecône seminary is more competent than the renowned Dominican scholars, all with doctorates and some with multiple doctorates, who were my mentors at the Pontifical University of St. Thomas Aquinas! You manifest yourself to be an arrogant and clownish buffoon ...”
But if Fr. Kramer received such rigorous training from the “luminaries of the Dominican Order” in the 1970s, why has he repeatedly changed his position over the past 18 months, after embracing Sedevacantist errors? Also, why has Fr. Kramer failed to employ any of the Thomistic theological distinctions noted above that he would have surely learned from his Dominican professors in Rome? And did those Dominican luminaries teach Fr. Kramer to publicly refute theological works without first reading them, based on excerpts (the context of which is unknown), taken from the writings of Sedevacantist laymen, as he has done in our case? And, further, did those luminaries from the Dominican order teach Fr. Kramer that it is permissible for a Catholic to publicly declare the man recognized as Pope by the Church is an antipope and separate from him, if he personally believes the Pope committed the sin of heresy? Just what kind of seminary education did Fr. Kramer receive from those Dominican luminaries?
Fr. Kramer’s Two New Arguments
Fr. Kramer has come up with two brand new arguments in an attempt to refute his former position. 1) He now claims that external heresy is a sin, and not a crime. He uses this to insists that it is the sin of heresy severs a person from the Body of the Church, not the crime of heresy, as he previously taught. 2) And it is not just the word “crime” that he objects to, since he also declares that it is forbidden for one to hold that the internal act of heresy severs a person from the Soul of the Church, while the external act of notorious heresy severs a person from the Body. Again, both of these new teachings are directly contrary to what he taught a mere 18 months ago. We will address both these new arguments now.
New Position #1:
Fr. Kramer Now Says the External Act of Heresy
is a Sin and Not a Crime
In order to defend his new position that the sin of heresy, not the crime, severs a person from external union with the Body of the Church, Fr. Kramer now insists that the external act of heresy does not meet the canonical definition for the nature of a crime. As evidence for this, he cites a canon from the 1917 code (he only provided the Latin), which defines the nature of a crime as “an external and morally imputable transgression of a law to which is attached a canonical sanction.” He then quotes a canon from the 1983 Code that says “no one is punished unless the external violation of a law or precept… is gravely imputable by reason of malice or negligence.” He then gratuitously asserts, without explaining why, that “it does not pertain to the nature of heresy that it is ‘an external and morally imputable violation of a law or precept’,” and concludes by saying “the external act of heresy is a sin, and not a crime.”
Here is the argument in Fr. Kramer’s own words. He sent the following out via e-mail, after the publication of Part I of this series of articles, and then posted it online, as his official “refutation” of our statement that “external heresy is, by its nature, a crime.” We are including the English translation of the entire canons that Fr. Kramer only partially quoted in Latin:
“CIC 1917, Book V Part I defines "the nature of a crime": De naturadelicti eiusque divisione. Can. 2195. §1. Nomine delicti, iure ecclesiastico, intelligitur externa et moraliter imputabilis legis violatio cui addita sit sanctio canonica saltem indeterminata. [A crime is an external and morally imputable transgression of a law to which is attached a canonical sanction].
Likewise, in the 1983 Code, Canon 1321 § 1: “externa legis vel praecepti violatio”, which is “graviter imputabilis ex dolo vel ex culpa”. [No one is punished unless the external violation of a law or precept, committed by the person, is gravely imputable by reason of malice or negligence.]
“Salza & Siscoe now claim: ‘The external act of heresy is, by its nature, a crime.’ This is patently false: The nature of a crime in ecclesiastical law is of an external and morally imputable violation of a law or precept. It does not pertain to the nature of heresy that it is ‘an external and morally imputable violation of a law or precept’; and therefore, the proposition is false. The external act of heresy is a sin, and not a crime.”
Now, it should be obvious that there is a problem somewhere in Fr. Kramer’s reasoning, since external heresy is a crime punishable by Canon Law (Canon 2314, 1917 Code; Canon 1364.1, 1983 Code), which would not be the case if it did not meet the canonical definition for the nature of a crime. We should also note that a crime (delictum) is not limited to an offense against “merely ecclesiastical laws” (human positive law), but also includes offenses against divine law.[22] (http://file:///C:/Users/user/Desktop/The Errors of Fr Paul Kramer Part II long version 2-21.docx#_ftn22) External heresy is a violation of both ecclesiastical law and divine law.
In his celebrated commentary on the 1917 Code, Fr. Augustine begins by explaining that “a crime in ecclesiastical law is an external and morally imputable transgression of a law to which is attached a canonical sanction,”[23] (http://file:///C:/Users/user/Desktop/The Errors of Fr Paul Kramer Part II long version 2-21.docx#_ftn23) and then, eight pages later, writes: “The Decretals enumerate quite a list of crimes subject to ecclesiastical judicature: apostasy, heresy, usury, simony, sacrilege, incest, adultery, bigamy, usurpation of ecclesiastical power, and so forth.” Thus, Fr. Augustine says the “external” (and morally imputable) act of heresy is a “crime,” while Fr. Kramer says “the external act of heresy is a sin, and not a crime.”[24] (http://file:///C:/Users/user/Desktop/The Errors of Fr Paul Kramer Part II long version 2-21.docx#_ftn24)
In fact, the very canon that Fr. Kramer cited as “proof” for his assertion that the external act of heresy does not meet the definition for the nature of a crime (canon 2195, §1) is referenced by the canonists when explaining that the external act of heresy is a crime, and that internal heresy is not. For example, in his commentary on Canon 2314, which pertains to the penalties for the crime of heresy, Fr. Augustine writes:
“The crime of apostasy, heresy, or schism must be exteriorly manifest… according to canon 2195.1; because merely internal apostasy, heresy, or schism do not belong to the external forum and therefore are not intended here.”[25] (http://file:///C:/Users/user/Desktop/The Errors of Fr Paul Kramer Part II long version 2-21.docx#_ftn25)
So, Fr. Augustine says heresy must be external to meet the definition given for a crime provided in Canon 2195, while Fr. Kramer cites the very same Canon (in Latin only) to defend his new position that “the external act of heresy is a sin, and not a crime.” Fr. Kramer would do well to return to the teaching he learned from the luminaries of the Dominican order, and abandon his new position which is certainly “not shared by any academically qualified theologian (or canonist) in the world.”
Before concluding this section, and to respond to the accusation of some of Fr. Kramer’s followers who insist that “Siscoe and Salza made up the distinction between a sin and a crime,”[26] (http://file:///C:/Users/user/Desktop/The Errors of Fr Paul Kramer Part II long version 2-21.docx#_ftn26) we will provide the following brief explanation of the difference between a sin and a crime, given by Father Jaime B. Achacoso, J.C.D. of the Theological Centrum Manila. He writes: “A sin belongs to the internal forum (the forum of conscience) and refers to the relationship between a man and God,” whereas “a crime belongs to the external forum and refers to the relationship between a faithful and the ecclesial society....” He went on to repeat the well-known saying that “all crimes are sins, but not all sins are crimes.” This is what Fr. Kramer himself held a mere 18 months ago, before embracing Fr. Cekada’s “ridiculous error,” and abandoning what he was taught by the “Dominican luminaries” in the seminary.
Also worth noting is how the sin of heresy and the crime of heresy are defined in the Filial Correction, which was signed by 62 clerics and theologians. In short, the docuмent affirms, as we have, that the judgment of the sin of heresy pertains to the internal forum, and that the external act of heresy (the pertinacious public denial or doubt of revealed truth) is a canonical crime:
“The sin of heresy is committed by a person who possesses the theological virtue of faith, but then freely and knowingly chooses to disbelieve or doubt a truth of the Catholic faith. Such a person sins mortally and loses eternal life. The judgment of the Church upon the personal sin of heresy is exercised only by a priest in the sacrament of penance.” (Cf. Mk. 16:16; Jn. 3:18; Jn. 20:23; Rom. 14:4; Gal. 1:9; 1 Tim. 1:18-20; Jude 3-6; Council of Florence, Cantate Domino, DH 1351; Council of Trent, Session 14, can. 9.)
“The canonical crime of heresy is committed when a Catholic a) publicly doubts or denies one or more truths of the Catholic faith, or publicly refuses to give assent to one or more truths of the Catholic faith, but does not doubt or deny all these truths or deny the existence of Christian revelation, and b) is pertinacious in this denial. Pertinacity consists in the person in question continuing to publicly doubt or deny one or more truths of the Catholic faith after having been warned by competent ecclesiastical authority that his doubt or denial is a rejection of a truth of the faith, and that this doubt or denial must be renounced and the truth in question must be publicly affirmed as divinely revealed by the person being warned.” (Cf. Matt. 18:17; Tit. 3:10-11; Pius X, Lamentabili sane, 7; John Paul II, Code of Canon Law, 751, 1364; Code of Canons of Oriental Churches, 1436)
We will discuss the role of ecclesiastical warnings in Part III.
Fr. Kramer Explicitly Condemns
His Very Own Words!
-
“Public heretics (and a fortiori, apostates) are not members of the Church. They are not members because they separate themselves from the unity of Catholic faith and from the external profession of the faith. Obviously, therefore, they lack one of the three factors-baptism, profession of the same faith, union with the hierarchy-pointed out by Pius XII as requisite for membership in the Church (see above, p. 238). The same pontiff has explicitly pointed out that, unlike other sins, heresy, schism, and apostasy, automatically sever a man from the Church. ‘For not every sin, however grave and enormous it be, is such as to sever a man automatically from the Body of the Church, as does schism or heresy or apostasy‘ (MCC 30, italics ours).”
(Monsignor G. Van Noort, S.T.D., Dogmatic Theology, Volume II, Christ’s Church, 153)
The refutation of Fr. Kramer’s misapplication of this quote is also contained in the previous quote.
-
The refutation of Fr. Kramer’s misapplication of this quote is also contained in the previous quote.
No, it's not.
-
Quote from: Ladislaus (https://www.cathinfo.com/index.php?topic=69788.msg867189#msg867189)
No, it's not.
Does Msgr. Van Noort Contradict Our Position?
Next, Fr. Kramer makes the bold assertion that our interpretation of Mystici Corporis is not shared by any reputable theologian in the world, and quotes Msgr. Van Noort as his supporting evidence:
Fr. Kramer: “The Salza/Siscoe interpretation of Mystici Corporis is not shared by any academically qualified theologian in the world. Mons. Van Noort wrote:
‘b. Public heretics (and a fortiori, apostates) are not members of the Church. They are not members because they separate themselves from the unity of Catholic faith and from the external profession of that faith. Obviously, therefore, they lack one of three factors — baptism, profession of the same faith, union with the hierarchy — pointed out by Pius XII as requisite for membership in the Church. The same pontiff has explicitly pointed out that, unlike other sins, heresy, schism, and apostasy automatically sever a man from the Church. 'For not every sin[admissum], however grave and enormous it be, is such as to sever a man automatically from the Body of the Church, as does schism or heresy or apostasy'. (Dogmatic Theology, Volume II, Christ’s Church, p. 241 - 242.)”
Contrary to what Fr. Kramer was led to believe by reading Sedevacantist websites, what Van Noort wrote reflects our interpretation of Mystici Corporis Christi perfectly. The context of the quotation from Van Noort concerns what is necessary for a person to be a member of the Church (which is a point that is debated by theologians). Notice, Van Noort explicitly states that the reason public heretics are not members of the Church, is because “they separate themselves from the unity of Catholic faith and from the external profession of that faith,” (i.e., they sever the juridical bond of “profession of the same faith”). That is precisely what we argue at length in Chapter Three of our book when treating of who can properly be considered a member of the Church!
And the fact that Van Noort translated admissum as sin (which is likely what Fr. Kramer was referring to) in no way implies that he disagrees with our interpretation of the passage. As we have noted, we have no objection to this translation, as long as it is understood that the internal sin of heresy alone only separates a person from the Body of the Church dispositively, but not formally (or quoad se, but not quoad nos). And we can be absolutely certain that Van Noort agrees with us concerning this point, since he himself taught the exact same doctrine – and he did so the very next page!
Here is what Msgr. Van Noort wrote one page after the quotation Fr. Kramer cited as “proof” that no theologian agrees with our interpretation of Mystici Corporis Christi:
Van Noort: “Internal heresy, since it destroys that interior unity of faith from which unity of profession is born, separates from the bodyof the Church dispositively, but not yet formally.” (Dogmatic Theology, Volume II, Christ’s Church, p. 242.)
Van Noort’s interpretation of Mystici Corporis Christi, as well as his theology concerning how the internal sin of heresy severs a person from the Body of the Church (i.e., dispositively) reflects our position perfectly! In fact, Van Noort’s three-volume set of dogmatic manuals was one of the primary theological sources we consulted when writing our chapters on ecclesiology in True or False Pope?
http://www.trueorfalsepope.com/p/formal-reply-to-fr-framer-part-ii.html?m=1
-
Part II
Exposing the Errors of Fr. Paul Kramer
on Mystici Corporis Christi
One of the most common errors among Sedevacantists is the belief that the sin of heresy causes the loss of papal office/jurisdiction.
Nonsense. This entire section is an absurd and dishonest strawman. No sedevacantist believes that the "sin of heresy" causes the loss of papal office (10:28 - 20:40 in the link below):
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Dmjb5xw72C0
-
Does Msgr. Van Noort Contradict Our Position?
Next, Fr. Kramer makes the bold assertion that our interpretation of Mystici Corporis is not shared by any reputable theologian in the world, and quotes Msgr. Van Noort as his supporting evidence:
Fr. Kramer: “The Salza/Siscoe interpretation of Mystici Corporis is not shared by any academically qualified theologian in the world. Mons. Van Noort wrote:
‘b. Public heretics (and a fortiori, apostates) are not members of the Church. They are not members because they separate themselves from the unity of Catholic faith and from the external profession of that faith. Obviously, therefore, they lack one of three factors — baptism, profession of the same faith, union with the hierarchy — pointed out by Pius XII as requisite for membership in the Church. The same pontiff has explicitly pointed out that, unlike other sins, heresy, schism, and apostasy automatically sever a man from the Church. 'For not every sin[admissum], however grave and enormous it be, is such as to sever a man automatically from the Body of the Church, as does schism or heresy or apostasy'. (Dogmatic Theology, Volume II, Christ’s Church, p. 241 - 242.)”
Contrary to what Fr. Kramer was led to believe by reading Sedevacantist websites, what Van Noort wrote reflects our interpretation of Mystici Corporis Christi perfectly. The context of the quotation from Van Noort concerns what is necessary for a person to be a member of the Church (which is a point that is debated by theologians). Notice, Van Noort explicitly states that the reason public heretics are not members of the Church, is because “they separate themselves from the unity of Catholic faith and from the external profession of that faith,” (i.e., they sever the juridical bond of “profession of the same faith”). That is precisely what we argue at length in Chapter Three of our book when treating of who can properly be considered a member of the Church!
And the fact that Van Noort translated admissum as sin (which is likely what Fr. Kramer was referring to) in no way implies that he disagrees with our interpretation of the passage. As we have noted, we have no objection to this translation, as long as it is understood that the internal sin of heresy alone only separates a person from the Body of the Church dispositively, but not formally (or quoad se, but not quoad nos). And we can be absolutely certain that Van Noort agrees with us concerning this point, since he himself taught the exact same doctrine – and he did so the very next page!
Here is what Msgr. Van Noort wrote one page after the quotation Fr. Kramer cited as “proof” that no theologian agrees with our interpretation of Mystici Corporis Christi:
Van Noort: “Internal heresy, since it destroys that interior unity of faith from which unity of profession is born, separates from the bodyof the Church dispositively, but not yet formally.” (Dogmatic Theology, Volume II, Christ’s Church, p. 242.)
Van Noort’s interpretation of Mystici Corporis Christi, as well as his theology concerning how the internal sin of heresy severs a person from the Body of the Church (i.e., dispositively) reflects our position perfectly! In fact, Van Noort’s three-volume set of dogmatic manuals was one of the primary theological sources we consulted when writing our chapters on ecclesiology in True or False Pope?
http://www.trueorfalsepope.com/p/formal-reply-to-fr-framer-part-ii.html?m=1
But Van Noort makes a distinction for public, manifest heresy, and it's not an irrelevant distinction . . . or does Sisco think it's irrelevant? If it was, why bother making the distinction?
**** I mean the distinction between internal, occult heresy and public, manifest heresy. For example, why does Van Noort not say that the internal heretic is not a member of the Church?
-
But Van Noort makes a distinction for public, manifest heresy, and it's not an irrelevant distinction . . . or does Sisco think it's irrelevant? If it was, why bother making the distinction?
**** I mean the distinction between internal, occult heresy and public, manifest heresy. For example, why does Van Noort not say that the internal heretic is not a member of the Church?
Good point. Van Noort is following Saint Robert and the vast majority of theologians.
-
Nonsense. This entire section is an absurd and dishonest strawman. No sedevacantist believes that the "sin of heresy" causes the loss of papal office (10:28 - 20:40 in the link below):
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Dmjb5xw72C0
Except for the inconvenient problem that Fr. Kramer has appropriated this entire argument from Speray's website (i.e., Fr. Kramer anticipated his sedevacantism was inevitable, so might as well begin making sedevacantist arguments).
-
But Van Noort makes a distinction for public, manifest heresy, and it's not an irrelevant distinction . . . or does Sisco think it's irrelevant? If it was, why bother making the distinction?
**** I mean the distinction between internal, occult heresy and public, manifest heresy. For example, why does Van Noort not say that the internal heretic is not a member of the Church?
I could not tell you why Van Noort doesn't say what he doesn't say.
Could you please rearticulate precisely what your argument is, and how it opposes the position of SS, or whomever you are directing it to?
As SS say (and contrary to whatever Fr. Kramer says), Van Noort is on the side of SS:
"Van Noort: “Internal heresy, since it destroys that interior unity of faith from which unity of profession is born, separates from the body of the Church dispositively, but not yet formally.” (Dogmatic Theology, Volume II, Christ’s Church, p. 242.)
Van Noort’s interpretation of Mystici Corporis Christi, as well as his theology concerning how the internal sin of heresy severs a person from the Body of the Church (i.e., dispositively) reflects our position perfectly! In fact, Van Noort’s three-volume set of dogmatic manuals was one of the primary theological sources we consulted when writing our chapters on ecclesiology in True or False Pope?"
-
I could not tell you why Van Noort doesn't say what he doesn't say.
Could you please rearticulate precisely what your argument is, and how it opposes the position of whomever you are directing it to?
As SS say, and contrary to whatever Fr. Kramer says, Van Noort is on the side of SS:
"Van Noort: “Internal heresy, since it destroys that interior unity of faith from which unity of profession is born, separates from the body of the Church dispositively, but not yet formally.” (Dogmatic Theology, Volume II, Christ’s Church, p. 242.)
Van Noort’s interpretation of Mystici Corporis Christi, as well as his theology concerning how the internal sin of heresy severs a person from the Body of the Church (i.e., dispositively) reflects our position perfectly! In fact, Van Noort’s three-volume set of dogmatic manuals was one of the primary theological sources we consulted when writing our chapters on ecclesiology in True or False Pope?"
Siscoe mentions a body/soul distinction regarding links to the Church. An internal heretic lacks the spiritual bond with Christ: he is not spiritually joined to the soul of the Church. He, as Quo noted in accordance with the thinking of St. Robert and most theologians, remains a member of the body of the Church, the external communion.
The public, material heretic, however, is not joined to the body and hence not a member: he is alien to the external communion. He is joined neither to the soul or the body of the Church.
This is why Van Noort does not say the internal heretic is not a member of the Church, but does say that the public, manifest heretic is not a member.
-
Siscoe mentions a body/soul distinction regarding links to the Church. An internal heretic lacks the spiritual bond with Christ: he is not spiritually joined to the soul of the Church. He, as Quo noted in accordance with the thinking of St. Robert and most theologians, remains a member of the body of the Church, the external communion.
The public, material heretic, however, is not joined to the body and hence not a member: he is alien to the external communion. He is joined neither to the soul or the body of the Church.
This is why Van Noort does not say the internal heretic is not a member of the Church, but does say that the public, manifest heretic is not a member.
I'm not sure what this has to do with LaRosa's argument.
His position is that since Francis is (allegedly) a public manifest heretic, he is outside the Church, and cannot therefore be its pope (i.e., a reformulation of the classical sedevacantist maxim, "He who is not part of the body cannot be its head").
The problem -as I've been showing since p.1- is that Mr. LaRosa has no idea what a public manifest heretic is. He thinks its just someone who says something heretical in front of a bunch of people (i.e., He's imputing colloquial definitions to canonical and theological terms to arrive at false conclusions).
Suarez: “in no case, even that of heresy, is the Pontiff deprived of his dignity and of his power immediately by God himself, before the judgment and sentence of men. This is the common opinion today”.
-
I'm not sure what this has to do with LaRosa's argument.
His position is that since Francis is (allegedly) a public manifest heretic, he is outside the Church, and cannot therefore be its pope (i.e., a reformulation of the classical sedevacantist maxim, "He who is not part of the body cannot be its head").
The problem -as I've been showing since p.1- is that Mr. LaRosa has no idea what a public manifest heretic is. He thinks its just someone who says something heretical in front of a bunch of people (i.e., He's imputing colloquial definitions to canonical and theological terms to arrive at false conclusions).
Suarez: “in no case, even that of heresy, is the Pontiff deprived of his dignity and of his power immediately by God himself, before the judgment and sentence of men. This is the common opinion today”.
Sean,
You posted a Siscoe article where he claimed that Van Noort supported his position; he doesn't, and that's why I responded. All Van Noort does, which Siscoe does, is refer to "internal heresy" and a "dispositive" separation from the Church for it. So what? A theologian uses two terms you use doesn't mean he supports you on the critical issue, which is whether some Church action is necessary for removal or rejection of a heretical pope.
Of course "internal heresy" separates someone from the Church "dispositively." No one's arguing that. But "internal heresy" does not separate one from the body of the Church, i.e. the external communion. The issue is whether public, manifest heresy, not "internal heresy," separates one from the body of the Church, i.e. the external communion. Siscoe's quotes from Van Noort do not support his position on that. That is the point of my posting. So Siscoe's quoting of Van Noort to show that a theologian agrees with him simply by referring to the separation "dispositively" of an "internal heretic" is irrelevant to the ultimate issue and it is false and deceptive for Siscoe to quote that theologian when he doesn't agree with him on the point of contention.
So, I wasn't responding to the "LaRosa argument" but to a specific post and what it claimed to indicate, which it didn't.
I'll go back and look at the "LaRosa" issue and perhaps comment on that.
DR
-
Sean,
In looking over the thread, in my recent engagement I was responding to post #90. Again, Van Noort does not support Sicscoe's argument.
DR
-
Sean,
In looking over the thread, in my recent engagement I was responding to post #90. Again, Van Noort does not support Sicscoe's argument.
DR
ok, I and they say otherwise
-
Sean,
So, I wasn't responding to the "LaRosa argument" but to a specific post and what it claimed to indicate, which it didn't.
I'll go back and look at the "LaRosa" issue and perhaps comment on that.
DR
It’s the only pertinent subject of this thread.
-
I'm not sure what this has to do with LaRosa's argument.
His position is that since Francis is (allegedly) a public manifest heretic, he is outside the Church, and cannot therefore be its pope (i.e., a reformulation of the classical sedevacantist maxim, "He who is not part of the body cannot be its head").
The problem -as I've been showing since p.1- is that Mr. LaRosa has no idea what a public manifest heretic is. He thinks its just someone who says something heretical in front of a bunch of people (i.e., He's imputing colloquial definitions to canonical and theological terms to arrive at false conclusions).
Suarez: “in no case, even that of heresy, is the Pontiff deprived of his dignity and of his power immediately by God himself, before the judgment and sentence of men. This is the common opinion today”.
As to the "LaRosa argument," look at the quote from Pius IX (from post #40) regarding the dogma of the Immaculate Conception:
“Hence, if anyone shall dare — which God forbid! — to think otherwise than as has been defined by us, let him know and understand that he is condemned by his own judgment; that he has suffered shipwreck in the faith; that he has separated from the unity of the Church; and that, furthermore, by his own action he incurs the penalties established by law if he should are to express in words or writing or by any other outward means the errors he thinks in his heart.”
(Pope Pius IX, Ineffabilis Deus, 1854) [Emphases mine]
Look at the quote from Pope Vigilius (post #60):
“The heretic, even though he has not been condemned formally by any individual, in reality brings anathema on himself, having cut himself off from the way of truth by his heresy.”
(Second Council of Constantinople, 553) [Emphasis
If I'm standing next to my bishop and he says, "the Virgin Mary was not immaculately conceived, she was conceived in sin," I could consider him outside the Church since he separated himself from our communion by his external actions, and I could tell him to pound sand as a heretic who has separated himself from the Church, as could every Catholic who was standing there and heard it.
If my bishop took action against me and tried to excommunicate me, what do you think the Church would do if I testified before a tribunal that I rejected the bishop because of his heresy, and not only that, but my fellow Catholics who were there and heard it testified as to the same? Or, perhaps it would be better to say, what would Pius IX do?
The "public, manifest" part does not depend on a Church declaration of the publication or manifestation, and neither does the "heresy" part depend upon a Church declaration after the fact of an external expression or rejection of a dogma of the Church.
Now, in a close case, prudence would dictate against rashness, but that's a different question entirely, one not related to the principles that would apply in a clear case. But arguing from a "case not clear" doesn't change the principles involved, which would be applicable to a clear case.
-
In his book, Contra Cekadam, Fr. Chazal provides several quotes from Van Noort that indirectly might have something to do with this subject, as it regards the Papacy and visible form of the Church:
Van Noort: "It is a fact beyond question that the Church can never fail to have a successor to Peter. [...] Since Christ decreed that Peter should have a never ending line of successors in the primacy, there must always have been and there must still be someone in the Church who wields the primacy"
~ Christ's Church, 1961, p.153
Van Noort: "The visible form of the Church [...] must not be confused with what is strictly is knowability. It is one thing to ask whether the Church which Christ founded is a public society, and quite another to ask whether that society can be recognized as the true Church of Christ by certain distinguishing marks. [...] All the promises which Christ made to His Church refer to a visible Church." (ibid.pp.12,13).
Van Noort: "The present question as to do with the perpetuity of that Church which alone was founded by Christ, the visible Church. Any society can fail in either of teo ways: it can cease to be, or it can become unfit for the carrying out of its avowed aim through substantial corruption. The Church cannot fail in either way." (ibid. p.30).
-
As to the "LaRosa argument," look at the quote from Pius IX (from post #40) regarding the dogma of the Immaculate Conception:
Look at the quote from Pope Vigilius (post #60):
If I'm standing next to my bishop and he says, "the Virgin Mary was not immaculately conceived, she was conceived in sin," I could consider him outside the Church since he separated himself from our communion by his external actions, and I could tell him to pound sand as a heretic who has separated himself from the Church, as could every Catholic who was standing there and heard it.
If my bishop took action against me and tried to excommunicate me, what do you think the Church would do if I testified before a tribunal that I rejected the bishop because of his heresy, and not only that, but my fellow Catholics who were there and heard it testified as to the same? Or, perhaps it would be better to say, what would Pius IX do?
The "public, manifest" part does not depend on a Church declaration of the publication or manifestation, and neither does the "heresy" part depend upon a Church declaration after the fact of an external expression or rejection of a dogma of the Church.
Now, in a close case, prudence would dictate against rashness, but that's a different question entirely, one not related to the principles that would apply in a clear case. But arguing from a "case not clear" doesn't change the principles involved, which would be applicable to a clear case.
I don’t intend to retread 7 pages of arguments again.
Whatever you post next, scroll up and see if I’ve already responded to it (like this one).
If you believe LaRosa is correct, more power to you.
For me, the case was closed by p.2.
-
What is lacking in this thread is discussion of what "public, manifest" heresy is.
Dogmatic Theology
volume II
Christ’s Church
Msgr. G. Van Noort
Chapter II
The Members of the Church
Scholion 1. Who are not members of the Church?
“The following classes of men are definitely not members of the Church:
The non baptized; (b) public heretics;* (c) public schismatics; total excommunicates.
A heretic is one who denies a truth of divine and Catholic faith: i.e.k, a truth which has been revealed by God and proposed by the Church for our belief. Heretics are classified as “public” or “occult,” “formal” or “material”. A public (notorious) heretic is one whose heresy is known to a large number of people, even if he has not formally joined the ranks of a heretical church; an occult heretic is one whose errors in faith are either totally unknown, or known only to a few. A formal heretic is one who stubbornly and guiltily adheres to heresy; a material heretic is one who innocently and in good faith subscribes to some heretical doctrine. [ 152 pg. 239]
The Church of Christ
An Apologetic and Dogmatic Treatise
E. Sylvester Berry, STD
Chapter VI
Members of the Church
Article III. Persons Excluded From Membership
Manifest Heretics and Schismatics [pg. 128]
A heretic is usually defined as a Christian, i.e. a baptized person, who holds a doctrine contrary to revealed truth; but this definition is inaccurate, since it would make heretics of the large portion of the faithful…A person who submits to the authority of the Church and wishes to accept all her teachings, is not a heretic, even if he professes heretical doctrines through ignorance of what the Church really teaches; he implicitly accepts the true doctrine in his general intention to accept all that the Church teaches…
Excluded from Membership. Manifest heretics…are excluded from membership in the Church….So far as exclusion from the Church is concerned, it matters not whether the heresy or schism is formal or material.
Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma
Dr. Ludwig Ott
Chapter 5
The Necessity of the Church
[Section 19] Membership of the Church
3. Inference
b) Open apostates and heretics. Public heretics, even those who err in good faith (material heretics), do not belong to the body of the Church, that is to the legal commonwealth of the Church….[pg. 311]
The American Ecclesiastical Review
Vol. CXII. No. 4 April, 1945
Theological Evaluation of the Congar-White Theory
Despite the manifest learning and ability of some of the writers who teach that material heretics are members of the Church, the consensus of Scholastic theology is definitely opposed to this position….the great theologian, Emil Dorsch, writes that “you can take it as certain that these manifest material heretics do not belong to the Catholic Church…the famous Fr. Van Noort holds that public heretics, whether in good faith or in bad faith, are not members of the Church. The Jesuit, Jean Vincent Bainvel, teaches that manifest heretics and schismatics, even those who are only materially such, are outside the true Church…The same teaching is found in the manuals of Brunsman-Preuss and Cardinal Louis Billot. The distinguished American theologian, Dr. E. Sylvester Berry, states explicitly that manifest heretics are not members of the Church. This holds true whether their heresy is formal or only material. [pg. 300: Msgr. Fenton cites the manuals and page numbers from which each theologian is quoted.]
"But They are Material Heretics!" Theological Stun Gun: Are Material Heretics IN the Catholic Church Anyways? No, They Are Not. Lest the Church become one of heretics and not of believers! Read the Theological Proof Here. (chojnowski.me) (http://radtradthomist.chojnowski.me/2018/03/but-they-are-material-heretics.html#:~:text=A public (notorious) heretic is one whose heresy,totally unknown%2C or known only to a few.)
-
What is lacking in this thread is discussion of what "public, manifest" heresy is.
You’ll find it addressed several times in my previous posts
-
Au contraire:
I most certainly am aware of the distinction, but it cannot save Fr. Kramer’s position, for the reasons which follow:
”
PART II: FORMAL REPLY TO FR. FRAMER.
Part II
Exposing the Errors of Fr. Paul Kramer
on Mystici Corporis Christi
What precisely are you disputing about what I wrote by you posting the above article?
-
What precisely are you disputing about what I wrote by you posting the above article?
You had pretended that I was missing the distinction between the sin of heresy and the crime of heresy. The article discusses it.
-
You had pretended that I was missing the distinction between the sin of heresy and the crime of heresy. The article discusses it.
Please point out that distinction yourself.
-
Please point out that distinction yourself.
Like in the quote?
-
You, like Mr. Johnson, seem to miss the distinction between the "sin" of heresy vs. the "crime" of heresy. The "sin" of heresy applies to all Catholics. The "crime" of heresy is nuanced when it comes to a putative pope. Pope Pius XII in Mystici Corporis is speaking about the "sin" of heresy. Pope Pius XII's teaching stands regardless of whether heresy is defined as a crime or not.
Tony has a short memory:
I'd already noted him overlooking this distinction back at post #61.
Like I said, he's outmaneuvering himself.
-
Like in the quote?
Yes.
-
Yes.
Done.
-
"The controversy between myself and Salza began when I wrote, 'With or without the law, the heretic by the very nature of the sin of heresy ceases to be a Catholic and is incapable of holding office. Bellarmine explains this in De Romano Pontifice.'"
(Kramer, Paul. To deceive the elect: The catholic doctrine on the question of a heretical Pope. Kindle Edition)
"With or without the law", paraphrasing what I wrote in a previous post(s). Positive ecclesiastical laws are not required for one to cease being a Catholic because it is of the very nature of the "sin" of heresy that separates one from the Church. The "crime" of heresy belongs to positive ecclesiastical law. Therefore, we don't need to bring up at all the "crime" of heresy and the corresponding canonical process in order to judge that one has fallen into heresy and thereby separated himself from the Church.
Let us listen again to Pope Vigilius:
“The heretic, even though he has not been condemned formally by any individual, in reality brings anathema on himself, having cut himself off from the way of truth by his heresy.”
(Second Council of Constantinople, 553) [Emphasis mine]
And Pope Pius IX:
“Hence, if anyone shall dare — which God forbid! — to think otherwise than as has been defined by us, let him know and understand that he is condemned by his own judgment; that he has suffered shipwreck in the faith; that he has separated from the unity of the Church....."
(Ineffabilis Deus, 1854) [Emphases mine]
And Pope Pius XII:
“For not every sin, however grave it may be, is such as of its own nature to sever a man from the Body of the Church, as does schism or heresy or apostasy.”
(Mystici Corporis, 23) [Emphases mine]
-
"The controversy between myself and Salza began when I wrote, 'With or without the law, the heretic by the very nature of the sin of heresy ceases to be a Catholic and is incapable of holding office. Bellarmine explains this in De Romano Pontifice.'"
(Kramer, Paul. To deceive the elect: The catholic doctrine on the question of a heretical Pope. Kindle Edition)
"With or without the law", paraphrasing what I wrote in a previous post(s). Positive ecclesiastical laws are not required for one to cease being a Catholic because it is of the very nature of the "sin" of heresy that separates one from the Church. The "crime" of heresy belongs to positive ecclesiastical law. Therefore, we don't need to bring up at all the "crime" of heresy and the corresponding canonical process in order to judge that one has fallen into heresy and thereby separated himself from the Church.
Let us listen again to Pope Vigilius:
“The heretic, even though he has not been condemned formally by any individual, in reality brings anathema on himself, having cut himself off from the way of truth by his heresy.”
(Second Council of Constantinople, 553) [Emphasis mine]
And Pope Pius IX:
“Hence, if anyone shall dare — which God forbid! — to think otherwise than as has been defined by us, let him know and understand that he is condemned by his own judgment; that he has suffered shipwreck in the faith; that he has separated from the unity of the Church....."
(Ineffabilis Deus, 1854) [Emphases mine]
And Pope Pius XII:
“For not every sin, however grave it may be, is such as of its own nature to sever a man from the Body of the Church, as does schism or heresy or apostasy.”
(Mystici Corporis, 23) [Emphases mine]
Eh, except that Martin V came well after Vigilius.
As for Mystici Corporis, Fr. Kramer's error has been addressed 4-5 times above.
And of course, the quote from Pius IX has nothing to do with popes suspected of heresy losing jurisdiction.
-
Mr. Johnson, there is no point in arguing about a heretical pope (even if such a thing were possible) if we cannot even agree that the "sin" of heresy per se separate anyone from the Church.
-
Mr. Johnson, there is no point in arguing about a heretical pope (even if such a thing were possible) if we cannot even agree that the "sin" of heresy per se separate anyone from the Church.
Mr. LaRosa-
The distinction between the sin of heresy, and the crime of heresy, has been pointed out to you (along with the further distinction that the jurisdiction of the former is not arrested unless a censure for the latter has been declared).
PS: No hard feelings. PM me your mailing address, and I’ll send you a free copy of my forthcoming book (which you will actually like).
-
Mr. LaRosa-
The distinction between the sin of heresy, and the crime of heresy, has been pointed out to you (along with the further distinction that the jurisdiction of the former is not arrested unless a censure for the latter has been declared).
PS: No hard feelings. PM me your mailing address, and I’ll send you a free copy of my forthcoming book (which you will actually like).
Mr. Johnson, you are not correct. The public sin of manifest formal heresy per se separates the heretic from the Church. As a consequence, the heretic loses any office he may have held and the ordinary jurisdiction that comes with it. This is true regardless of whether he is condemned by the Church for the crime of heresy.
-
Mr. Johnson, you are not correct. The public sin of manifest formal heresy per se separates the heretic from the Church. As a consequence, the heretic loses any office he may have held and the ordinary jurisdiction that comes with it. This is true regardless of whether he is condemned by the Church for the crime of heresy.
Mr. LaRosa-
I understand your position, and consider that I have amply refuted it. Not sure what else to say.
-
Mr. LaRosa-
The distinction between the sin of heresy, and the crime of heresy, has been pointed out to you (along with the further distinction that the jurisdiction of the former is not arrested unless a censure for the latter has been declared).
PS: No hard feelings. PM me your mailing address, and I’ll send you a free copy of my forthcoming book (which you will actually like).
.
Wow, Sean, you have really changed a lot since your break from here. I don't understand how the boorish, belligerent Sean Johnson we used to have on here has turned into the civilized, patient, kind gentleman who wrote the above. It's like being in a bar and seeing some big bruiser wielding broken bottle necks get the worst of some brawl and get 86ed out of there, and then to see the same guy come back to the same bar five months later in a top hat, a monocle, a pipe and an English accent quoting Shakespeare. :laugh1:
When XavierSem disappeared for a while and came back with a radically changed personality like this (changed in a very different way from how you have, though), everyone except me thought the new XavierSem was some sort of imposter, including Matthew, who banned him as a result.
:jester:
-
Mr. Johnson, you are not correct. The public sin of manifest formal heresy per se separates the heretic from the Church. As a consequence, the heretic loses any office he may have held and the ordinary jurisdiction that comes with it. This is true regardless of whether he is condemned by the Church for the crime of heresy.
Catholic Knight,
I agree with you that manifest formal heresy separates the heretic from the Church. I think Sean agrees with you on this point also.
Formal heresy requires demonstration of pertinacity, as has been adequately discussed. This requires demonstration that the culprit understands that he is contradicting a dogma of the Faith and in spite of this knowledge remains obstinate in his heresy.
Where is the evidence that this Pope or any of his predecessors are formal heretics?
Unless the Pope clearly states that he knows the Church teaches xyz, but that he doesn't believe xyz, how can you make a private judgement of a sin of formal heresy without judging the internal forum?
This audio of Canon Hesse posted by some good soul on another thread explains the matter well. Listen particularly from about the 44.30 minute mark to about 50.30:
Fr. Hesse: Freemasonic infiltration in the Vatican, Secretary of State, Opus Dei (Remastered Audio) (bitchute.com) (https://www.bitchute.com/video/jRez5Eqw7x7s/)
-
Catholic Knight,
I agree with you that manifest formal heresy separates the heretic from the Church. I think Sean agrees with you on this point also.
Formal heresy requires demonstration of pertinacity, as has been adequately discussed. This requires demonstration that the culprit understands that he is contradicting a dogma of the Faith and in spite of this knowledge remains obstinate in his heresy.
Where is the evidence that this Pope or any of his predecessors are formal heretics?
Unless the Pope clearly states that he knows the Church teaches xyz, but that he doesn't believe xyz, how can you make a private judgement of a sin of formal heresy without judging the internal forum?
This audio of Canon Hesse posted by some good soul on another thread explains the matter well. Listen particularly from about the 44.30 minute mark to about 50.30:
Fr. Hesse: Freemasonic infiltration in the Vatican, Secretary of State, Opus Dei (Remastered Audio) (bitchute.com) (https://www.bitchute.com/video/jRez5Eqw7x7s/)
I certainly *don’t* agree with your criteria for establishing how a putative pope is removed through “formal” hersey, but here is something that Mr. Bergoglio said that matches your requirements:
Dear brothers and sisters, division is a wound in the body of the Church of Christ. And we do not want this wound to remain open. Division is the work of the Father of Lies, the Father of Discord, who does everything possible to keep us divided.
Together today, I here in Rome and you over there, we will ask our Father to send the Spirit of Jesus, the Holy Spirit, and to give us the grace to be one, “so that the world may believe”. I feel like saying something that may sound controversial, or even heretical, perhaps.
But there is someone who “knows” that, despite our differences, we are one. It is he who is persecuting us. It is he who is persecuting Christians today, he who is anointing us with (the blood of) martyrdom. He knows that Christians are disciples of Christ: that they are one, that they are brothers! He doesn’t care if they are Evangelicals, or Orthodox, Lutherans, Catholics or Apostolic…he doesn’t care!
-
Where is the evidence that this Pope or any of his predecessors are formal heretics?
.
:jester::jester::jester::facepalm::trollface:
-
Where is the evidence that this Pope or any of his predecessors are formal heretics?
Paul VI:
I thought this was a Catholic symbol. You mean it isn't??
(https://i.imgur.com/wGfC6Or.png)
Bene:
I'm not a learned man. I haven't studied very much.
I thought this was a Catholic blessing. You mean it isn't??
(https://i.imgur.com/hSzLDTD.png)
I thought this was a Catholic hat. You mean it isn't??
(https://i.imgur.com/UIqZYX0.png)
Frank:
I thought this was a Catholic god. You mean it isn't??
(https://i.imgur.com/t82Jeu1.png)
If only somebody had told me. ::shrug::
and it goes on and on and on....
clown show
:clown::clown::clown::clown::clown::clown::clown::clown::clown::clown::clown::clown::clown::clown::clown::clown::clown:
-
Benedict (the great Trad)
(the Katechon---according to Vigano)
says: No need to convert the Jєωs!
in his book, written while the "acting" pope
and in interviews
and he makes sure the press gets his statement right!
That's a neat idea,
sounds loving
except it would have been nice if somebody had sent a memo
to poor Jesus and let him know
that he didn't have to go through all of that torture and suffering and death! smh
14min 16sec
https://www.bitchute.com/video/by2wJfpX0MjG/
Like the rest of these "popes" he is not just a formal heretic but
an antichrist!
[3] (https://www.drbo.org/cgi-bin/d?b=drb&bk=69&ch=4&l=3-#x) And every spirit that dissolveth Jesus, is not of God: and this is Antichrist, of whom you have heard that he cometh, and he is now already in the world.
1 John 4:3
Let us make reparation in prayer:
O Jesus, my Saviour and Redeemer, Son of the living God, behold, we kneel before Thee and offer Thee our reparation; we would make amends for all the blasphemies uttered against Thy holy name, for all the injuries done to Thee in the Blessed Sacrament, for all the irreverence shown toward Thine Immaculate Virgin Mother, for all the calumnies and slanders spoken against Thy spouse, the holy Catholic and Roman Church. O Jesus, who hast said: "If you ask the Father anything in My name, He will give it to you", we pray and beseech Thee for all our brethren who are in danger of sin; shield them from every temptation to fall away from the true faith; save those who are even now standing on the brink of the abyss; to all of them give light and knowledge of the truth, courage and strength for the conflict with evil, perseverance in faith and active charity! For this do we pray, most merciful Jesus, in Thy name, unto God the Father, with whom Thou livest and reignest in the unity of the Holy Spirit world without end. Amen
-
Catholic Knight,
I agree with you that manifest formal heresy separates the heretic from the Church. I think Sean agrees with you on this point also.
Formal heresy requires demonstration of pertinacity, as has been adequately discussed. This requires demonstration that the culprit understands that he is contradicting a dogma of the Faith and in spite of this knowledge remains obstinate in his heresy.
Where is the evidence that this Pope or any of his predecessors are formal heretics?
"Formality" is a tricky term because it's morphed somewhat over the years into a subjective meaning. But what it simply means is that it entails a rejection of the rule of faith, which then entails an undermining of the formal motive of faith. It's become way too subjective, though, to the point that it could never be discerned in the external forum, where it means that the heretic needs to know something is revealed by God and reject it anyway. It's like that absurd definition of EENS, where you can't be saved if you know that the Catholic Church is the True Church of God and refuse to join it anyway ... therefore making all but the most obdurate Satanist capable of being saved. Which heretic isn't convinced he's right and that he's the one being faithful to God's revealed truth? Even after being rebuked by the Church and condemned, they continue insisting that they're right. Arius and Nestorius were both convinced they were right, and so were Luther and Calvin.
But one can lack the formal motive of faith by simply being a Modernist, which these men all have been. Why? Because they don't believe that there IS an objective rule of faith that must be adhered to, since for them dogma progresses and changes, and people come to a "fuller understanding" that invalidates previous doctrinal "expressions". So they have a different rule of faith, which is a blend of objective and subjective, and, like the Protestants, make themselves the ultimate rule of faith. That is why Modernism is the synthesis of all heresy, because just as with the other heresies, they replace the objective rule of faith, the Deposit of Revelation, as determined by the Church's Magisterium, with their own subjective interpretation thereof, and their current interpretation leads to the evolution of doctrine. As a result, they lack the formal rule of faith, and the mere absence of the formal motive/rule of faith suffices to make one be a non-Catholic.
For these Modernists, there is no such thing as, "Church taught this dogmatic proposition, so I assent to this proposition." For them a proposition is just an imperfect window into the fuller truth that becomes clearer over time. They don't consider themselves bound by prior "formulations" of the truth, and so they have no objective rule as a set of dogmatic propositions that they feel they must adhere to as they were defined.
They pay lip service to "Tradition", but for them this does not mean adhering to the past doctrinal definitions, but as Bergoglio recently re-defined it, Tradition means the "progress" of doctrine.
Bergoglio:
A church that does not develop its thinking in an ecclesial sense is a church that is going backward. This is today’s problem, and of many who call themselves traditional. No, no, they are not traditional, they are people looking to the past, going backward.
So adhering to Church dogma as once defined is not "Traditionalism" but "backwardism" (a term he used later in the same interview). For him, to be Traditional means to constantly have dogma evolving. So they REDEFINE Tradition. Bergoglio actually cited St. Vincent of Lerins, whom Traditionalists cite in support of their position.
Bergoglio and the other Modernists don't believe in a "static" set of propositions to which they must assent as defined, and so they lack the formal motive of faith, and they have manifested this.
Here is +Vigano's very recent anti-Modernist definition of Tradition:
Let me point out this important aspect: just as the human body develops antibodies when disease arises, so that it can be defeated when it is infected; so too the ecclesial body defends itself from the contagion of error when it occurs, affirming with greater incisiveness those aspects of dogma threatened by heresy. For this reason, with great wisdom, the Church proclaimed Truths of the Faith at certain times and not before, since those Truths were hitherto believed by the faithful in a less explicit and articulated form and it was not yet necessary to specify them.
Nevertheless, demonstrating pertinacious manifest heresy can be problematic. And that's why for years I have argued that it is the wrong question.
We see a new religion established, a new Modernistic theological system taught by the Conciliar "Magisterium," a new Public Worship that displeases God and harms souls, and corruption of the Church's moral teaching. We see a religion that lacks the marks of the One True Church founded by Christ, and would not be reconizable to a St. Pius X or St. Pius V ... were these saints to have been time-warped forward to our day. It is incompatible with the promises of Our Lord, and with the protection of the Holy Spirit over the Papacy, that the free exercise of legitimate papal authority could yield such corruption. This is something that Archbishop Lefebvre also believed. But as to HOW and WHY and WHO and WHAT, as to the details of how this could have come about, we do not have dogmatic certainty. Could these men have been blackmailed and were therefore not acting freely? I personally believe that the See was impeded by Cardinal Siri (Pope Gregory XVII) until his death in 1989, and thus the elections of Roncalli, Montini, Luciani, and Wojtyla were not legitimate. After that, Ratzinger and Bergoglio haven't been valid bishops, and thus they cannot fully exercise the papal office, especially the teaching authority, as only bishops are part of the Ecclesia Docens, and the Pope must be "Bishop of Rome". Others argue that there have been doubles, or that the V2 popes were drugged. Or they're just plain heretics. Really, the WHY doesn't matter so much as upholding the principle that this destruction could not have bee wrought by the legitimate Papal Authority freely exercised. Period.
Archbishop Lefebvre prescinded from making the determination about the how and the why, but he repeatedly affirmed that it is not possible for this to happen given the protection of the Holy Spirit over the Papacy, something which subsequent generations of R&R have rejected.
+Lefebvre:
…a grave problem confronts the conscience and the faith of all Catholics since the beginning of Paul VI’s pontificate: how can a pope who is truly successor of Peter, to whom the assistance of the Holy Ghost has been promised, preside over the most radical and far-reaching destruction of the Church ever known, in so short a time, beyond what any heresiarch has ever achieved? This question must one day be answered…
This is a rhetorical question, which he answered elsewhere by agreeing with the sedevacantists that it's not possible, given the assistance of the Holy Ghost, and said that SVism is a possible solution. But he never had enough certainty regarding the details to definitively declare the See vacant. I have elsewhere on CI posted the Youtube audio of his talk, which Father Ringrose posted upon becoming a sedevacantist.
-
Benedict (the great Trad)
(the Katechon---according to Vigano)
Do you really have to spam up every thread with this same nonsense? We're not talking about this here.
So the other day, according to you and your ilk, THE Katechon was Trump. Except that if you look at what +Vigano wrote, he clearly believed in multiple katcha (plural and lower case) as in the sense of "dominos that had to fall" before the NWO was fully entrenched. It's the same way that people can distinguish between The Antichrist and multiple antichrists, forerunnners of the Antichrist. And, as been pointed out, there have been numerous interpretations of the term, including one where the Katechon referred to by St. Paul was actually the Antichrist, who was holiding back Our Lord's Second Coming (so the opposite sense). But, of course, this has been pointed out to you, but you persist in your nonsense.
-
Do you really have to spam up every thread with this same nonsense? We're not talking about this here.
So the other day, according to you and your ilk, THE Katechon was Trump. Except that if you look at what +Vigano wrote, he clearly believed in multiple katcha (plural and lower case) as in the sense of "dominos that had to fall" before the NWO was fully entrenched. It's the same way that people can distinguish between The Antichrist and multiple antichrists, forerunnners of the Antichrist. And, as been pointed out, there have been numerous interpretations of the term, including one where the Katechon referred to by St. Paul was actually the Antichrist, who was holiding back Our Lord's Second Coming (so the opposite sense). But, of course, this has been pointed out to you, but you persist in your nonsense.
Lad, you abhor slander so I don't know why you would say these things about me.
Can you provide evidence that I've ever said that Trump is the Katechon? No.
It's been a task keeping up with Vigano's various Katechons...
as far as I have been able to tally
he recognizes three:
1. Trump
2. Benedict
3. Moscow --the Third Rome
What do they all hold in common?
None of them hold to the Catholic Faith.
Trump is the greatest promoter of the NWO by overseeing the pandemic farce (even though Vigano lied and said it would never happen under Trump when everyone knows it did)
and he oversaw Operation Warpspeed to bring the gene editing death shot to the world. How can he be a Katechon? smh
Benedict proclaimed "as pope" that all religions lead to Heaven and prayed at the wailing wall and in ѕуηαgσgυєs (where they pray to USHER IN the Antichrist). How can he be a Katechon??
Moscow sees itself as the THIRD ROME built on the ashes of the Catholic Church. Um....that's not a Catholic idea much less some kind of Katechon.
The Roman Catholic (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roman_Catholic) and Eastern Orthodox (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eastern_Orthodox) traditions consider that the Antichrist will come at the End of the World (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eschatology). The katechon - what restrains his coming - was someone or something that was known to the Thessalonians and active in their time: "You know what is restraining" (2:6). As the Catholic New American Bible (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_American_Bible) states: "Traditionally, 2 Thes 2:6 has been applied to the Roman empire (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roman_empire) and 2 Thes 2:7 to the Roman emperor (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roman_emperor) [...] as bulwarks holding back chaos (cf Romans 13:1-7)"[1]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Katechon#:~:text=The%20Roman%20Catholic%20and%20Eastern,%22%20(2%3A6).
(https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Katechon#cite_note-1)
Now you want to play games and tell everyone that Katechon actually means the Antichrist himself?
The Antichrist is restraining the Antichrist??
-
Lad, you abhor slander so I don't know why you would say these things about me.
Can you provide evidence that I've ever said that Trump is the Katechon? No.
It's been a task keeping up with Vigano's various Katechons...
as far as I have been able to tally
he recognizes three:
1. Trump
2. Benedict
3. Moscow --the Third Rome
I never asserted that YOU called Trump a katechon, but rather that you asserted that +Vigano called him a katechon, which you repeat a few sentences down in your own post.
You should realize from the 3 listed, that +Vigano is using the term not in the sense of THE Katechon, but rather of multiple katechons, i.e. dominos to fall before the full blossoming of the nєω ωσrℓ∂ σr∂єr. Nor does one have to be an active restrainer (i.e. a Catholic) but merely a passive obstacle ... in the sense that +Vigano uses it.
Please stop slandering +Vigano by attributing to him things he's never said.
I would view Pius XII as a katechon, even though I fully realize that he did a lot to usher in the Vatican II era, rather than having actively restrained it.
-
Nor does one have to be an active restrainer (i.e. a Catholic) but merely a passive obstacle ... in the sense that +Vigano uses it.
So the Katechon is a restrainer from the ushering in of the Antichrist?
He is either actively or passively holding back the Antichrist, right?
Vigano has named three Katechons:
1. Trump
(https://i.imgur.com/gYGQpoX.png)
Does this look like Trump is restraining the ushering in of the NWO/Antichrist?
Either actively or passively,
is this restraining the nєω ωσrℓ∂ σr∂єr?
Or is this USHERING it in?
Even if Trump is biggest idiot who ever lived and had no idea what was going on,
he is still passively ushering in the NWO here.
Why does Vigano, who hates the shots, STILL hail Trump as some kind of obstacle to the NWO?
Why did he lie and say that the pandemic farce would have never taken place under Trump when we all know it did?
The pandemic farce and clot shot rollout was initiated and overseen by Trump.
Vigano thinks Trump was somehow holding back the NWO/Antichrist?
Trump was some kind of obstacle?
Is he blind?
Vigano's second Katechon:
2. Benedict
(https://i.imgur.com/ceFnu5X.png)
Do Vigano and Benedict think praying at this wall holds back the Antichrist?
That's where they pray for the Antichrist (Moshiach) to come. Right?
The rabbis all pray there in defiance of the rebuilt Temple of the Body of Our Lord Jesus Christ
and pray for the rebuilding of the Third Temple
and the coming of the Antichrist (Moshiach).
Both Trump and Putin have been slated to
rebuild the Third Temple in Jerusalem.
Rebuilding the Third Temple means USHERING in the ANTICHRIST.
Why would Vigano think this guy is somehow
actively or passively holding back the Antichrist?
He's USHERING it in!
Is Vigano blind?
And Vigano's third Katechon:
3. Moscow--The Third Rome
Vigano named Moscow as the Third Rome and Katechon.
He often repeats the talking points of Satanist/Kabbalist Dugin (Putin's brain) regarding this vision of a Third Rome.
Here are Vigano and Dugin at the Great Awakening meeting in 2021 planning a post covid era:
https://twitter.com/2022moshiachnow/status/1608972005466046468
(https://i.imgur.com/zs3aC0j.png)
Here an article titled "Putin's Geopolitical Brain" explains Dugin's vision of Russia as the Katechon and the Third Rome:
[color=var(--blue)]A mystical imperative[/color]
The mystical imperative informing this vision of Eurasianism reflects the important role the concept of the katechon plays in Dugin’s, and, by extension, Putin’s geopolitical thought and the decision to invade Ukraine. In his Second Letter to the Thessalonians, St Paul wrote that a katechon would be necessary to ‘restrain’ the ‘lawless one’, namely the Antichrist, during the last days prior to Christ’s Second Coming. The pluralistic ideal of multiple Grossraum, therefore, was not only geopolitical, but also apocalyptic. Multipolarity, Dugin believes, following Carl Schmitt who first elaborated the notion, is necessary to restrain the more destructive features of liberal universalism through the mutual recognition of friends and enemies against the Antichrist of world unity.
Dugin’s 1997 article, ‘Katechon and Revolution’ introduced Schmitt’s notion to a Russian audience. It was well received. Indeed, it revived a long-standing tradition of invoking the katechon in the Russian Orthodox Church. Imperial Russian Orthodox faith had long assumed the concept of Moscow as a Third Rome.
The divinely ordained imperial mandate had passed from Byzantium to the Russian Caesar or Tsar after the fall of Constantinople in the fifteenth century.
https://www.cieo.org.uk/research/putins-geopolitical-brain/
Yeah, too bad that whole One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church thing didn't work out.
Oh well, out with the old and in with the NEW and IMPROVED
THIRD ROME!
(Some kind of fake Fatima event would really help usher this in wouldn't it?)
Vigano is no Sedevacantist. He's not even Catholic. He doesn't state belief in the indefectiblity of the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Catholic Church.
He trashes the Catholic hierarchy and disparages the office of the papacy.
He's already "prophesized" of a "Peace deal" that Trump can negotiate with Russia
and envisions a "peaceful coexistence of equal nations" which is the political doctrine of Lenin and Kruschev
and the zionist/communist plan of the UN laid out by Ben Gurion.
I have not slandered Vigano.
There is no need to slander Vigano.
His own words suffice.
Applying the word "Katechon" to these three
is the exact opposite
of their cause and purpose.
They are not holding back the Antichrist.
They are USHERING IN the ANTICHRIST
and his nєω ωσrℓ∂ σr∂єr.
-
Catholic Knight,
I agree with you that manifest formal heresy separates the heretic from the Church. I think Sean agrees with you on this point also.
Formal heresy requires demonstration of pertinacity, as has been adequately discussed. This requires demonstration that the culprit understands that he is contradicting a dogma of the Faith and in spite of this knowledge remains obstinate in his heresy.
Where is the evidence that this Pope or any of his predecessors are formal heretics?
Unless the Pope clearly states that he knows the Church teaches xyz, but that he doesn't believe xyz, how can you make a private judgement of a sin of formal heresy without judging the internal forum?
This audio of Canon Hesse posted by some good soul on another thread explains the matter well. Listen particularly from about the 44.30 minute mark to about 50.30:
Fr. Hesse: Freemasonic infiltration in the Vatican, Secretary of State, Opus Dei (Remastered Audio) (bitchute.com) (https://www.bitchute.com/video/jRez5Eqw7x7s/)
Actually I am not sure whether Mr. Johnson agrees with me on the following proposition. Perhaps Mr. Johnson could clarify,
The public sin of manifest formal heresy per se separates the heretic from the Church..
-
Unless the Pope clearly states that he knows the Church teaches xyz, but that he doesn't believe xyz, how can you make a private judgement of a sin of formal heresy without judging the internal forum?
Does every heretic admit he is a heretic? If we have to go to what is explicitly said, then the heretics that deny they are heretics but are in reality heretics would never be able to be prosecuted for the "crime" of heresy either.
-
Mr. LaRosa-
I understand your position, and consider that I have amply refuted it. Not sure what else to say.
You have not refuted my position.
May I assume that you adhere to Opinion No. 4 of St. Robert Bellarmine's exposition of the Five Opinions?
-
Actually I am not sure whether Mr. Johnson agrees with me on the following proposition. Perhaps Mr. Johnson could clarify,
The public sin of manifest formal heresy per se separates the heretic from the Church..
Fr. Hesse:
Objective (or Material) heresy is: "According to the Church, salvation is attainable outside the Church".
Formal (or Manifest) heresy is: "I don't care what the Church teaches, the Church is wrong, I say salvation is attainable outside the Church".
The accusation that the conciliar popes are manifest heretics has never been proven.
-
Fr. Hesse:
Objective (or Material) heresy is: "According to the Church, salvation is attainable outside the Church".
Formal (or Manifest) heresy is: "I don't care what the Church teaches, the Church is wrong, I say salvation is attainable outside the Church".
The accusation that the conciliar popes are manifest heretics has never been proven.
I doubt that he distinguished it this way. No, the first proposition is formally heretical because it's a simple negation of a Catholic dogma. To say that Christ did not rise from the dead is also formally heretical. Only gross ignorance can accuse from public formal manifest heresy in the case of a direct verbatim negation of a defined dogmatic proposition, and ... guess what ... ignorance cannot accuse a "Pope" from denying a defined dogma directly because he is culpable for the ignorance due to the requirements of his duty of state.
MAYBE a fresh convert might be excused for not knowing about the Immaculate Conception, but there can be no such excuse for a "Pope". And we're not talking in your first example about a bevy of distinctions being applied to circuмvent a dogma, but a simple negation.
What is "proven" is that the Papal Magisterium cannot ever become substantially corrupt, and that the Pope cannot promulgate a harmful Rite of Public Worship that displeases God. To say otherwise is heretical. You can come up with with whatever explanation you want for how it wasn't legitimate Papal Authority exercised freely that gave us the evils of V2 and the NOM, but to deny the above proposition is heretical. You have been admonished publicly for this heresy multiple times, and yet you pertinaciously adhere to it. That would make you a public/manifest heretic as well.
-
I doubt that he distinguished it this way. No, the first proposition is formally heretical because it's a simple negation of a Catholic dogma....
I will go with Fr. Hesse.
Heck, you post heresies from Fr. Fenton as if they are teachings of the Church when you, and certainly he should know better, so not sure what makes you think Fr. Hesse is wrong and you're the expert.
-
What is "proven" is that the Papal Magisterium cannot ever become substantially corrupt, and that the Pope cannot promulgate a harmful Rite of Public Worship that displeases God. To say otherwise is heretical. You can come up with with whatever explanation you want for how it wasn't legitimate Papal Authority exercised freely that gave us the evils of V2 and the NOM, but to deny the above proposition is heretical. You have been admonished publicly for this heresy multiple times, and yet you pertinaciously adhere to it. That would make you a public/manifest heretic as well.
Here we go again. Don't you ever tire of this? Hold onto your delusions if necessary to your mental balance, but prithee desist from calling those heretics who can deal with reality and maintain their balance.
So you simply gut the principle of indefectibility from its mooring and say, when a string of popes elected according to established procedure and with the universal consent of the hierarchy of cardinals and bishops have corrupted the Magisterium and promulgated a harmful Rite of Public Worship, that they are not popes, so the Magisterium remains indefectible.
By that standard, yeah, there could never be a corrupt Magisterium with a harmful Rite of Public Worship. But, as I said, that guts indefectibility of the reason for its provision by God to the Church in the first place: so that the faithful could rely with confidence on the teaching of the hierarchy of the Church and the means of salvation (the sacraments) that they provide for sanctification.
But no, that apparently is not the purpose of indefectibility. Apparently, the purpose it was provided by God was to be a wubby that Ladislaus can clutch to at night and hide under when those guys running the Church provide all kinds of false teaching and a harmful Rite of Public Worship to the rest of the Catholics in the world.
:facepalm:
If the rai·son d'ê·tre of indefectibility has been eliminated it is because God has a purpose in mind that entails him using a corrupt Magisterium in these latter days, in the consummation of the age, and not because the men He is working His will through are not pope(s) and bishop(s) in the Catholic Church.
-
And I'm going to keep writing it until some of you wake up to the fact that you've completely (and pertinaciously) embraced a heretical ecclesiology.
This is not rocket science. Our Lord promised the assistance of the Holy Spirit to the See of Peter, an assistance which prevents it from corrupting faith or morals.
You have two choices to avoid heresy, 1) claim that faith and morals haven't been corrupted (that V2 was misinterpreted by Modernists and the NOM is not essentially bad but has been abused) or 2) assert that legitimate Papal authority exercised freely did not produce V2 and the NOM.
Within #2, you have various choices, from sedevacantism, sedeprivationism, sedeimpoundism, Siri thesis, blackmailed pope, drugged pope, pope replaced by a double, etc.
This Chair of Peter cannot fail, and to say otherwise is heretical. Period. End of Story. Address it with #1 or with #2 (and any permutation of #2), but you can't simply run off and pertinaciously embrace some repackaged form of Old Catholicism / Eastern Orthodoxy / Protestantism.
You have the temerity to refer to this Basic Foundation of Catholicism as "delusion". Unbelievable.
-
a corrupt Magisterium in these latter days
Heresy, and there's a mountain of papal teaching, teaching from the Doctors of the Church, and from the Church Fathers that accuse you.
(https://i.ibb.co/5KfM5Zg/magisterium1.png)
(https://i.ibb.co/PYY4kLM/magisterium2.png)
-
And I'm going to keep writing it until some of you wake up to the fact that you've completely (and pertinaciously) embraced a heretical ecclesiology.
This is not rocket science. Our Lord promised the assistance of the Holy Spirit to the See of Peter, an assistance which prevents it from corrupting faith or morals.
Even you do not believe this because if you did, then why aren't you NO? Instead of you believing this, you choose to use it as an excuse for a vacant chair, that's why. It certainly isn't rocket science.
The same goes for your reply to DR - you do not believe that the Magisterium is unable to be mistaken, has immunity from error and etc, instead, you choose to use it for your own purpose, as an excuse for a vacant chair.
All the while flinging the proverbial "heretic" around at those trying to correct you.
-
And I'm going to keep writing it until some of you wake up to the fact that you've completely (and pertinaciously) embraced a heretical ecclesiology.
This is not rocket science. Our Lord promised the assistance of the Holy Spirit to the See of Peter, an assistance which prevents it from corrupting faith or morals.
You have two choices to avoid heresy, 1) claim that faith and morals haven't been corrupted (that V2 was misinterpreted by Modernists and the NOM is not essentially bad but has been abused) or 2) assert that legitimate Papal authority exercised freely did not produce V2 and the NOM.
Within #2, you have various choices, from sedevacantism, sedeprivationism, sedeimpoundism, Siri thesis, blackmailed pope, drugged pope, pope replaced by a double, etc.
This Chair of Peter cannot fail, and to say otherwise is heretical. Period. End of Story. Address it with #1 or with #2 (and any permutation of #2), but you can't simply run off and pertinaciously embrace some repackaged form of Old Catholicism / Eastern Orthodoxy / Protestantism.
You have the temerity to refer to this Basic Foundation of Catholicism as "delusion". Unbelievable.
There is another way. It is the way of Archbishop Lefebvre. Here's an article from the Dominicans of Avrille regarding the errors of both modernism and sedevacantism, which includes the stance of +ABL. Here's a quote from the article:
"Currently, facing a crisis in the Church, there are two errors to avoid: modernism (which, little by little, makes us lose the faith) and sedevacantism (which leans towards schism). If we want to remain Catholic, we must pass between heresy and schism, between Scylla and Charybdis."
Little Catechism on Sedevacantism - PART I - Dominicans of Avrille, France (dominicansavrille.us) (https://dominicansavrille.us/little-catechism-on-sedevacantism-part-i/)
-
Little Catechism on Sedevacantism - PART I - Dominicans of Avrille, France (dominicansavrille.us) (https://dominicansavrille.us/little-catechism-on-sedevacantism-part-i/)
From the article (which I have been trying to explain to Mr. LaRosa since p.2 of this thread):
"If a Catholic were convinced that John Paul II (or another Pope after Vatican II) is a formal, manifest heretic, should he then conclude that he is no longer pope?
No, he should not, because according to the “common” opinion (Suarez), or even the “more common” opinion (Billuart), theologians think that even a heretical pope can continue to exercise the papacy. For him to lose his jurisdiction, the Catholic bishops (the only judges in matters of faith besides the pope, by Divine will) would have to make a declaration denouncing the pope’s heresy.
Quote “According to the more common opinion, Christ, by a particular providence, for the common good and the tranquility of the Church, continues to give jurisdiction to an even manifestly heretical pontiff until such time as he should be declared a manifest heretic by the Church” (Billuart, De Fide, diss. V, a. III, § 3, obj. 2).
Now, in so serious a matter, it is not prudent to go against the common opinion.
But how can a heretic, who is no longer a member of the Church, be its leader or head?
Fr. Garrigou-Lagrange, basing his reasoning on Billuart, explains in his treatise De Verbo Incarnato (p. 232) that a heretical pope, while no longer a member of the Church, can still be her head. Indeed, what is impossible in the case of a physical head is possible (albeit abnormal) for a secondary moral head. “The reason is that – whereas a physical head cannot influence the members without receiving the vital influx of the soul – a moral head, as is the [Roman] Pontiff, can exercise jurisdiction over the Church even if he does not receive from the soul of the Church any influx of interior faith or charity.”
In short, the pope is constituted a member of the Church by his personal faith, which he can lose, but he is head of the visible Church by jurisdiction and authority that can co-exist with heresy.
-
There is another way. It is the way of Archbishop Lefebvre. Here's an article from the Dominicans of Avrille regarding the errors of both modernism and sedevacantism, which includes the stance of +ABL. Here's a quote from the article:
"Currently, facing a crisis in the Church, there are two errors to avoid: modernism (which, little by little, makes us lose the faith) and sedevacantism (which leans towards schism). If we want to remain Catholic, we must pass between heresy and schism, between Scylla and Charybdis."
Little Catechism on Sedevacantism - PART I - Dominicans of Avrille, France (dominicansavrille.us) (https://dominicansavrille.us/little-catechism-on-sedevacantism-part-i/)
Actually Meg, Lad makes for himself, and then puts himself in a fallacious and inescapable corner of his own free will with his "You have two choices..."
Then he posts authentic, de fide teachings from popes declaring the infallibility of the Church's Magisterium. That the magisterium is unable to err truly is the foundation upon which everything remains standing. This he should (is actually bound to) accept and make his permanent, never changing starting point which from there, everything must completely and totally conform.
Instead, he uses the Magisterium's infallibility in such a way as to be contrary to what the popes teach the Magisterium is - always infallible. The odd thing is, the result of doing this is always the same - either a magisterium that errs, and/or a vacant chair....and me, you and all who "just don't get it" are Old Catholics and heretics who hate the Church.
Same tired old thing.
-
Actually Meg, Lad makes for himself, and then puts himself in a fallacious and inescapable corner of his own free will with his "You have two choices..."
Then he posts authentic, de fide teachings from popes declaring the infallibility of the Church's Magisterium. That the magisterium is unable to err truly is the foundation upon which everything remains standing. This he should (is actually bound to) accept and make his permanent, never changing starting point which from there, everything must completely and totally conform.
Instead, he uses the Magisterium's infallibility in such a way as to be contrary to what the popes teach the Magisterium is - always infallible. The odd thing is, the result of doing this is always the same - either a magisterium that errs, and/or a vacant chair....and me, you and all who "just don't get it" are Old Catholics and heretics who hate the Church.
Same tired old thing.
:facepalm: Seriously?!
-
From the article (which I have been trying to explain to Mr. LaRosa since p.2 of this thread):
"If a Catholic were convinced that John Paul II (or another Pope after Vatican II) is a formal, manifest heretic, should he then conclude that he is no longer pope?
No, he should not, because according to the “common” opinion (Suarez), or even the “more common” opinion (Billuart), theologians think that even a heretical pope can continue to exercise the papacy. For him to lose his jurisdiction, the Catholic bishops (the only judges in matters of faith besides the pope, by Divine will) would have to make a declaration denouncing the pope’s heresy.
Now, in so serious a matter, it is not prudent to go against the common opinion.
But how can a heretic, who is no longer a member of the Church, be its leader or head?
Fr. Garrigou-Lagrange, basing his reasoning on Billuart, explains in his treatise De Verbo Incarnato (p. 232) that a heretical pope, while no longer a member of the Church, can still be her head. Indeed, what is impossible in the case of a physical head is possible (albeit abnormal) for a secondary moral head. “The reason is that – whereas a physical head cannot influence the members without receiving the vital influx of the soul – a moral head, as is the [Roman] Pontiff, can exercise jurisdiction over the Church even if he does not receive from the soul of the Church any influx of interior faith or charity.”
In short, the pope is constituted a member of the Church by his personal faith, which he can lose, but he is head of the visible Church by jurisdiction and authority that can co-exist with heresy.
Sean, I need to point out two important facts: It is certainly NOT the common opinion and never ever was. To say that the bishops can judge the pope, if he is in fact the pope, is heretical.
-
Sean, I need to point out one important fact: It is certainly NOT the common opinion and never ever was.
"Quod gratis asseritur, gratis negatur."
-
To say that the bishops can judge the pope, if he is in fact the pope, is heretical.
Incorrect: As has been discussed in this thread, the pope can be the subject of a discretionary judgment, but not a coercive judgment.
-
:facepalm: Seriously?!
Certainly. If I thought it would make a bit of difference I'd go back and post more of his posts of him doing what I just said he does, but his #1 and #2 suffices. Suffice to say that when you start with a false premise you end up with a vacant chair every time.
-
Incorrect: As has been discussed in this thread, the pope can be the subject of a discretionary judgment, but not a coercive judgment.
What's incorrect is your improper application of the distinction. If one is merely assessing the fact that the Pope has left the Church and lost authority, that means he's already ceased to be pope a priori to the judgment (Bellarmine), but if your judgment comes a priori to the loss of office, you're effectively deposing a Pope. Your position and that of S&S entails precisely such a coercive judgment, which is why St. Robert Bellarmine rejects it. You can argue Bellarmine vs. Cajetan all you want ... and it's a distraction from the real issue at hand and the one that confronts the consciences of Catholics ... it doesn't change the fact that a legitimate Pope freely exercising the Papal Magisterium cannot effect the corruption of the Magisterium, doctrinal or moral teaching, the Church's public worship, the cultus of the saints, etc. And this is precisely why, IMO, the infiltrators allowed Siri to accept the papal election and then forced him out. Had they simply gotten their guy Roncalli elected without this prior impediment to legitimate election, the Holy Spirit would have prevented Roncalli, Montini, and Wojtyla from perpetrating their destruction, even if it meant causing them to drop dead before they could do so.
-
:facepalm: Seriously?!
It would be laughable if it weren't so pernicious.
I never thought I'd see the day when I had to argue against "Trads" who assert that the Papal Magisterium and the Church's Public worship could become corrupt and harmful to souls. It's really unbelievable to me. PS: they claim to be followers of +Lefebvre, but +Lefebvre held no such thing. Of the two alternatives I laid out above, he clearly believed #2, but then merely prescinded from coming up with the precise detailed explanation of how it could have happened. These guys really are thinly-veiled Old Catholics, regurgitating nearly verbatim the talking points from the Old Catholic Declaration of Utrecht.
-
It would be laughable if it weren't so pernicious.
I never thought I'd see the day when I had to argue against "Trads" who assert that the Papal Magisterium and the Church's Public worship could become corrupt and harmful to souls. It's really unbelievable to me. PS: they claim to be followers of +Lefebvre, but +Lefebvre held no such thing. Of the two alternatives I laid out above, he clearly believed #2, but then merely prescinded from coming up with the precise detailed explanation of how it could have happened. These guys really are thinly-veiled Old Catholics, regurgitating nearly verbatim the talking points from the Old Catholic Declaration of Utrecht.
It is not pernicious. +ABL was not a sedevacantist. For a long time now, you've attempted to color Archbishop Lefebvre as a sedevacantist, but he was no such thing. You know that, and yet you persist in trying to make him something that he was not. That's dishonest.
-
From the article (which I have been trying to explain to Mr. LaRosa since p.2 of this thread):
"If a Catholic were convinced that John Paul II (or another Pope after Vatican II) is a formal, manifest heretic, should he then conclude that he is no longer pope?
No, he should not, because according to the “common” opinion (Suarez), or even the “more common” opinion (Billuart), theologians think that even a heretical pope can continue to exercise the papacy. For him to lose his jurisdiction, the Catholic bishops (the only judges in matters of faith besides the pope, by Divine will) would have to make a declaration denouncing the pope’s heresy.
Now, in so serious a matter, it is not prudent to go against the common opinion.
But how can a heretic, who is no longer a member of the Church, be its leader or head?
Fr. Garrigou-Lagrange, basing his reasoning on Billuart, explains in his treatise De Verbo Incarnato (p. 232) that a heretical pope, while no longer a member of the Church, can still be her head. Indeed, what is impossible in the case of a physical head is possible (albeit abnormal) for a secondary moral head. “The reason is that – whereas a physical head cannot influence the members without receiving the vital influx of the soul – a moral head, as is the [Roman] Pontiff, can exercise jurisdiction over the Church even if he does not receive from the soul of the Church any influx of interior faith or charity.”
In short, the pope is constituted a member of the Church by his personal faith, which he can lose, but he is head of the visible Church by jurisdiction and authority that can co-exist with heresy.
Dear Suarez, Lagrange, Billuart (and Avrille)-
Ladislaus says you're wrong, so please consult him and get back to us.
:jester::facepalm::laugh2::laugh1::confused:
-
It would be laughable if it weren't so pernicious.
I never thought I'd see the day when I had to argue against "Trads" who assert that the Papal Magisterium and the Church's Public worship could become corrupt and harmful to souls. It's really unbelievable to me.
We are not asserting that the papal magisterium can err, heck, you posted the authentic teachings of the Church stating the opposite - unlike you, we are the ones who actually believe it. As such, you have no grounds whatsoever to make such utterly absurd accusations.
The Church's public worship is not corrupt, never has been corrupt and can never be harmful to souls. Apparently you like making absurd accusations by the bucket full.
If you ever realize that the NO is not the Church and that it's public worship truly is a corruption of the Catholic worship, which does indeed make the NO public worship harmful to souls, then you will have accomplished something.
-
And I'm going to keep writing it until some of you wake up to the fact that you've completely (and pertinaciously) embraced a heretical ecclesiology.
This is not rocket science. Our Lord promised the assistance of the Holy Spirit to the See of Peter, an assistance which prevents it from corrupting faith or morals.
You have two choices to avoid heresy, 1) claim that faith and morals haven't been corrupted (that V2 was misinterpreted by Modernists and the NOM is not essentially bad but has been abused) or 2) assert that legitimate Papal authority exercised freely did not produce V2 and the NOM.
Within #2, you have various choices, from sedevacantism, sedeprivationism, sedeimpoundism, Siri thesis, blackmailed pope, drugged pope, pope replaced by a double, etc.
This Chair of Peter cannot fail, and to say otherwise is heretical. Period. End of Story. Address it with #1 or with #2 (and any permutation of #2), but you can't simply run off and pertinaciously embrace some repackaged form of Old Catholicism / Eastern Orthodoxy / Protestantism.
You have the temerity to refer to this Basic Foundation of Catholicism as "delusion". Unbelievable.
Neither the Church, nor its indefectibility, is an end unto itself, but serves a purpose. What is that purpose? It was most succinctly and ably expressed in something I've quote before, Vatican I's Draft Dogmatic Constitution on the Church:
We declare, moreover, that, whether one considers its existence or its constitution, the Church of Christ is an everlasting and indefectible society, and that, after it, no more complete nor more perfect economy of salvation is to be hoped for in this world. For, to the very end of the world the pilgrims of this earth are to be saved through Christ. Consequently, his Church, the only society of salvation, will last until the end of the world ever unchangeable and unchanged in its constitution. Therefore, although the Church is growing—and We wish that it may always grow in faith and charity for the upbuilding of Christ's body—although it evolves in a variety of ways according to the changing times and circuмstances in which it is constantly displaying activity, nevertheless, it remains unchangeable in itself and in the constitution it received from Christ. Therefore, Christ's Church can never lose its properties and its qualities, its sacred teaching authority, priestly office, and governing body, so that through his visible body, Christ may always be the way, the truth, and the life for all men.
Jesuit Fathers of St. Mary's College. The Church Teaches: Docuмents of the Church in English Translation . TAN Books. Kindle Edition.
There it is, in that "so that" highlighted in red above: the purpose for the Church and its indefectibility.
Now, either indefectibility doesn't mean what Ladislaus thinks it means - if so, it has betrayed its purpose and no longer has any meaning for its existence - and is actually what Stubborn says it is, the core teachings of Scripture and Tradition which are indeed free from error and conduct men to salvation, or, if it means what you think it means, it has obviously served its purpose and God is no longer working through a visible hierarchy, a "governing body" easily identified by men and a lamp guiding them through the darkness. As Cardinal Manning said, there would come an "hour" when the gates of hell would prevail, and that God would so " permit it for a time stands in the book of prophecy."
Take your pick between those two viable alternatives. Your view is in fact delusional, and does not hold up to reality.
-
Of
Neither the Church, nor its indefectibility, is an end unto itself, but serves a purpose. What is that purpose? It was most succinctly and ably expressed in something I've quote before, Vatican I's Draft Dogmatic Constitution on the Church:
There it is, in that "so that" highlighted in red above: the purpose for the Church and its indefectibility.
Now, either indefectibility doesn't mean what Ladislaus thinks it means - if so, it has betrayed its purpose and no longer has any meaning for its existence - and is actually what Stubborn says it is, the core teachings of Scripture and Tradition which are indeed free from error and conduct men to salvation, or, if it means what you think it means, it has obviously served its purpose and God is no longer working through a visible hierarchy, a "governing body" easily identified by men and a lamp guiding them through the darkness. As Cardinal Manning said, there would come an "hour" when the gates of hell would prevail, and that God would so " permit it for a time stands in the book of prophecy."
Take your pick between those two viable alternatives. Your view is in fact delusional, and does not hold up to reality.
Of course, there is a third alternative, not held by the overwhelming majority of those on this forum, and by most who would be identified as "Trads": there is nothing in V2 or the Novus Ordo, in themselves, which, if adhered to and followed, would deprive a Catholic of salvation.
But that view would be similar to Stubborn's in the sense of holding that the most solemn expressions of the Magisterium - in ecuмenical councils, in its form of worship - are not capable of error or poisonous to salvific health. Of course, it would differ in that Stubborn would disagree that V2 or the Novus Ordo are expressions of the solemn or infallible Magisterium.
-
Dear Suarez, Lagrange, Billuart (and Avrille)-
Ladislaus says you're wrong, so please consult him and get back to us.
:jester::facepalm::laugh2::laugh1::confused:
Especially after Vatican I, I prefer to learn from:
Saint Alphonsus, Saint Robert Bellarmine, Saint Francis de Sales, Saint Antoninus, Pope Paul IV, Pope Innocent III, Coronata, Vermeersch, Regatillo, Wernz-Vidal among many others.
-
Especially after Vatican I, I prefer to learn from:
Pope Paul IV
"The sedevacantists base their position on the apostolic constitution cuм ex Apostolatus of Pope Paul IV (1555-1559). But some good studies have shown that this constitution lost its legal force (even sedevacantist priests recognize it: “We cannot use the bull of Paul IV to prove that the Holy See is currently vacant, but only to prove the possibility that it can happen…” (Fr. F. Ricossa, Solalitium 36, May-June 1994, p. 57-58, note 1). That which remains valid in this constitution is its dogmatic aspect. And, consequently, it cannot be made to say more than the theological argument already examined.
Yet the Code in the Gasparri edition refers in a note to the cuм ex apostolatus constitution.
[Editor: The “Gasparri edition” refers to a special edition of Canon Law compiled and annotated with footnotes by the Italian cardinal, Pietro Gasparri. In those notes to the 1917 Code, he provides many links to the sources of that very code.]
Counter-Argument 1: These notes of the code in the Gasparri edition mention the sources of the Code. But this does not mean that all of its sources are still in force!
Counter-Argument 2: The 1917 Code says in Canon 6 (5°) that the punishments that are not mentioned in the code are abrogated. Now, the cuм ex apostolatus constitution was a penal law, because it inflicted the revocation of an ecclesiastical office, and the punishments that it prescribed were not picked up again in the code.
Counter-Argument 3: There is more: even before the new Code, St. Pius X had already abrogated Paul IV’s constitution by his consitition Vacante sede apostolica of December 25, 1904 (§ 29), which declares null any censure able to remove the active or passive voice from the cardinals of the conclave. And Canon 160 of the Code declares that the election of the pope is regulated only by this constitution of St. Pius X.
Counter-Argument 4: The constitution of Pius XII of December 8, 1945, Vacantis Apostolicæ Sedis, which replaced that of St. Pius X, takes the same position on this subject: “No cardinal may be excluded in any way from the active and passive election of the sovereign pontiff, under no pretext nor for cause of excommunication, suspension, interdiction or other ecclesiastical impediment. We lift the effect of these censures for this type of election only, keeping them in force for everything else” (n. 34)."
https://dominicansavrille.us/little-catechism-on-sedevacantism-part-i/
-
"The sedevacantists base their position on the apostolic constitution cuм ex Apostolatus of Pope Paul IV (1555-1559). But some good studies have shown that this constitution lost its legal force (even sedevacantist priests recognize it: “We cannot use the bull of Paul IV to prove that the Holy See is currently vacant, but only to prove the possibility that it can happen…” (Fr. F. Ricossa, Solalitium 36, May-June 1994, p. 57-58, note 1). That which remains valid in this constitution is its dogmatic aspect. And, consequently, it cannot be made to say more than the theological argument already examined.
Yet the Code in the Gasparri edition refers in a note to the cuм ex apostolatus constitution.
[Editor: The “Gasparri edition” refers to a special edition of Canon Law compiled and annotated with footnotes by the Italian cardinal, Pietro Gasparri. In those notes to the 1917 Code, he provides many links to the sources of that very code.]
Counter-Argument 1: These notes of the code in the Gasparri edition mention the sources of the Code. But this does not mean that all of its sources are still in force!
Counter-Argument 2: The 1917 Code says in Canon 6 (5°) that the punishments that are not mentioned in the code are abrogated. Now, the cuм ex apostolatus constitution was a penal law, because it inflicted the revocation of an ecclesiastical office, and the punishments that it prescribed were not picked up again in the code.
Counter-Argument 3: There is more: even before the new Code, St. Pius X had already abrogated Paul IV’s constitution by his consitition Vacante sede apostolica of December 25, 1904 (§ 29), which declares null any censure able to remove the active or passive voice from the cardinals of the conclave. And Canon 160 of the Code declares that the election of the pope is regulated only by this constitution of St. Pius X.
Counter-Argument 4: The constitution of Pius XII of December 8, 1945, Vacantis Apostolicæ Sedis, which replaced that of St. Pius X, takes the same position on this subject: “No cardinal may be excluded in any way from the active and passive election of the sovereign pontiff, under no pretext nor for cause of excommunication, suspension, interdiction or other ecclesiastical impediment. We lift the effect of these censures for this type of election only, keeping them in force for everything else” (n. 34)."
https://dominicansavrille.us/little-catechism-on-sedevacantism-part-i/
Sean why did you ignore……… Saint Alphonsus, Saint Robert Bellarmine, Saint Francis de Sales, Saint Antoninus, Pope Innocent III, Coronata, Vermeersch, Regatillo, Wernz-Vidal?
For the record I don’t base my position on cuм ex Apostolatus although I do find it supportive.
-
Sean why did you ignore……… Saint Alphonsus, Saint Robert Bellarmine, Saint Francis de Sales, Saint Antoninus, Pope Innocent III, Coronata, Vermeersch, Regatillo, Wernz-Vidal?
For the record I don’t base my position on cuм ex Apostolatus although I do find it supportive.
So you concede cuм ex does not apply?
-
So you concede cuм ex does not apply?
Not at all. As I’ve said before, cuм ex is based on Divine law and is reflected in Canon 188.4. I don’t find the need to base my whole argument for the vacant see on cuм ex (canon 188), but it no doubt supports the position totally and can be done.
What I have a problem with is the fact that you completely ignored three Saints and Doctors of the Church (among many other theologians) who teach that a pope loses his office at the point he becomes a pertinacious heretic. Why do you ignore them?
-
Especially after Vatican I, I prefer to learn from:
Saint Alphonsus, Saint Robert Bellarmine, Saint Francis de Sales, Saint Antoninus, Pope Paul IV, Pope Innocent III, Coronata, Vermeersch, Regatillo, Wernz-Vidal among many others.
ST ROBERT BELLARMINE (Refuting the eight conditions proposed by the Lutherans for celebrating a Council):
The third condition is unjust, because the Roman Pontiff cannot be deprived of his right to summon Councils and preside over them... unless he were first convicted by the legitimate judgement of a Council and is not the Supreme Pontiff. Moreover... the supreme prince, as long as he is not declared or judged to have legitimately been deprived of his rule, is always the supreme judge, even if he litigates with himself as a party.
The sixth condition is unjust and impertinent. Unjust, because inferiors ought not be free from the obedience to superiors, unless first he were legitimately deposed or declared not to be a superior... Furthermore, it is impertinent because that oath does not take away the freedom of the bishops, which is necessary in Councils, for they swear they will be obedient to the supreme Pontiff, which is understood as long as he is Pope, and provided he commands these things which, according to God and the sacred canons he can command; but they do not swear that they are not going to say what they think in the Council, or that they are not going to depose him if they were to clearly prove that he is a heretic.
ST ROBERT BELLARMINE (Answering doubts on Councils):
The second, whether or not it is lawful for a Council to be summoned by anyone other than the Pope when the Pope should not summon it, for the reason that he is a heretic or schismatic... To the second and third, I respond... in those two cases an imperfect Council could be gathered which would suffice to provide for the Church from the head. For the Church, without a doubt, has the authority to provide for itself from the head... Hence, that imperfect Council can happen, if either it is summoned by the college of Cardinals, or the bishops themselves come together in a place of themselves.
ST ROBERT BELLARMINE (On secret infidels):
Moreover, it is certain, whatever one or another might think, a secret heretic (my insertion - one who is guilty of the SIN of heresy), if he might be a bishop or even the Supreme Pontiff, does not lose jurisdiction, nor dignity, or the name of the head in the Church, until either he separates himself publicly from the Church, or being convicted of heresy is separated against his will.
ST ROBERT BELLARMINE (On secret infidels):
Two things can be considered on Bishops: Firstly, that they hold the place of Christ so for that reason we owe obedience to them... Secondly, that they might have the power of Order and Jurisdiction. If it is considered in the first mode, we are certain with an infallible certitude that these, whom we see, are our true Bishops and Pastors. For this, neither faith, nor the character of order, nor even legitimate election is required, but only that they be held for such by the Church... Now if this is considered in the second manner, we do not have any but a moral certitude that these will truly be Bishops, although it is certain with infallible certitude that at least some are true, otherwise God will have deserted the Church...
ST ROBERT BELLARMINE (On the Marks of the Church - Apostolic Succession):
...we cannot depose catholic bishops who have possessed their sees for so many canturies peacefully, unless they are legitimately judged and condemned; for in every controversy, the condition of the one possessing it is better...
ST ROBERT BELLARMINE (On deposition of bishops):
...if the pastor is a bishop, they (the faithful) cannot depose him and put another in his place. For Our Lord and the Apostles only lay down that false prophets are not to be listened to by the people, and not that they depose them. And it is certain that the practice of the Church has always been that heretical bishops be deposed by bishop's councils, or by the Sovereign Pontiff...
Add to these quotes those previously furnished by Sean that indicate clearly that St Robert requires monitions to demonstrate pertinacity (formal heresy) of the heretic Pope and some kind of judgement/declaration of the public facts by the Church.
-
Especially after Vatican I, I prefer to learn from:
Saint Alphonsus, Saint Robert Bellarmine, Saint Francis de Sales, Saint Antoninus, Pope Paul IV, Pope Innocent III, Coronata, Vermeersch, Regatillo, Wernz-Vidal among many others.
ST FRANCIS DE SALES:
"Now when he is explicitly a heretic, he falls ipso facto from his dignity and out of the Church, and the Church must either deprive him, or, as some say, declare him deprived, of his Apostolic See, and must say as S. Peter did: Let another take his bishopric" - The Catholic Controversy (p306 in my edition)
When St Francis says "explicitly a heretic", does that mean a material heretic, or a formal heretic? Formal, I would say, because nobody is a heretic and outside the Church simply on account of a materially heretical statement.
-
ST ROBERT BELLARMINE (Refuting the eight conditions proposed by the Lutherans for celebrating a Council):
The third condition is unjust, because the Roman Pontiff cannot be deprived of his right to summon Councils and preside over them... unless he were first convicted by the legitimate judgement of a Council and is not the Supreme Pontiff. Moreover... the supreme prince, as long as he is not declared or judged to have legitimately been deprived of his rule, is always the supreme judge, even if he litigates with himself as a party.
The sixth condition is unjust and impertinent. Unjust, because inferiors ought not be free from the obedience to superiors, unless first he were legitimately deposed or declared not to be a superior... Furthermore, it is impertinent because that oath does not take away the freedom of the bishops, which is necessary in Councils, for they swear they will be obedient to the supreme Pontiff, which is understood as long as he is Pope, and provided he commands these things which, according to God and the sacred canons he can command; but they do not swear that they are not going to say what they think in the Council, or that they are not going to depose him if they were to clearly prove that he is a heretic.
ST ROBERT BELLARMINE (Answering doubts on Councils):
The second, whether or not it is lawful for a Council to be summoned by anyone other than the Pope when the Pope should not summon it, for the reason that he is a heretic or schismatic... To the second and third, I respond... in those two cases an imperfect Council could be gathered which would suffice to provide for the Church from the head. For the Church, without a doubt, has the authority to provide for itself from the head... Hence, that imperfect Council can happen, if either it is summoned by the college of Cardinals, or the bishops themselves come together in a place of themselves.
ST ROBERT BELLARMINE (On secret infidels):
Moreover, it is certain, whatever one or another might think, a secret heretic (my insertion - one who is guilty of the SIN of heresy), if he might be a bishop or even the Supreme Pontiff, does not lose jurisdiction, nor dignity, or the name of the head in the Church, until either he separates himself publicly from the Church, or being convicted of heresy is separated against his will.
ST ROBERT BELLARMINE (On secret infidels):
Two things can be considered on Bishops: Firstly, that they hold the place of Christ so for that reason we owe obedience to them... Secondly, that they might have the power of Order and Jurisdiction. If it is considered in the first mode, we are certain with an infallible certitude that these, whom we see, are our true Bishops and Pastors. For this, neither faith, nor the character of order, nor even legitimate election is required, but only that they be held for such by the Church... Now if this is considered in the second manner, we do not have any but a moral certitude that these will truly be Bishops, although it is certain with infallible certitude that at least some are true, otherwise God will have deserted the Church...
ST ROBERT BELLARMINE (On the Marks of the Church - Apostolic Succession):
...we cannot depose catholic bishops who have possessed their sees for so many canturies peacefully, unless they are legitimately judged and condemned; for in every controversy, the condition of the one possessing it is better...
ST ROBERT BELLARMINE (On deposition of bishops):
...if the pastor is a bishop, they (the faithful) cannot depose him and put another in his place. For Our Lord and the Apostles only lay down that false prophets are not to be listened to by the people, and not that they depose them. And it is certain that the practice of the Church has always been that heretical bishops be deposed by bishop's councils, or by the Sovereign Pontiff...
Add to these quotes those previously furnished by Sean that indicate clearly that St Robert requires monitions to demonstrate pertinacity (formal heresy) of the heretic Pope and some kind of judgement/declaration of the public facts by the Church.
This is getting tiresome:
St. Robert Bellarmine:
“A Pope who is a manifest heretic automatically ceases to be a Pope and head, just as he ceases automatically to be a Christian and a member of the Church. Wherefore, he can be judged and punished by the Church. This is the teaching of all the ancient Fathers who teach that manifest heretics immediately lose all jurisdiction.”
St. Alphonsus Liguori:
“If ever a Pope, as a private person, should fall into heresy, he should at once fall from the Pontificate. If, however, God were to permit a pope to become a notorious and contumacious heretic, he would by such fact cease to be pope, and the apostolic chair would be vacant.”
St. Francis de Sales:
“Now when the Pope is explicitly a heretic, he falls ipso facto from his dignity and out of the Church . . . ”
St. Antoninus:
“In the case in which the Pope would become a heretic, he would find himself, by that very fact alone and without any other sentence, separated from the Church. A head separated from a body cannot, as long as it remains separated, be head of the same body from which it was cut off.”
-
ST ROBERT BELLARMINE (Refuting the eight conditions proposed by the Lutherans for celebrating a Council):
The third condition is unjust, because the Roman Pontiff cannot be deprived of his right to summon Councils and preside over them... unless he were first convicted by the legitimate judgement of a Council and is not the Supreme Pontiff. Moreover... the supreme prince, as long as he is not declared or judged to have legitimately been deprived of his rule, is always the supreme judge, even if he litigates with himself as a party.
The sixth condition is unjust and impertinent. Unjust, because inferiors ought not be free from the obedience to superiors, unless first he were legitimately deposed or declared not to be a superior... Furthermore, it is impertinent because that oath does not take away the freedom of the bishops, which is necessary in Councils, for they swear they will be obedient to the supreme Pontiff, which is understood as long as he is Pope, and provided he commands these things which, according to God and the sacred canons he can command; but they do not swear that they are not going to say what they think in the Council, or that they are not going to depose him if they were to clearly prove that he is a heretic.
ST ROBERT BELLARMINE (Answering doubts on Councils):
The second, whether or not it is lawful for a Council to be summoned by anyone other than the Pope when the Pope should not summon it, for the reason that he is a heretic or schismatic... To the second and third, I respond... in those two cases an imperfect Council could be gathered which would suffice to provide for the Church from the head. For the Church, without a doubt, has the authority to provide for itself from the head... Hence, that imperfect Council can happen, if either it is summoned by the college of Cardinals, or the bishops themselves come together in a place of themselves.
ST ROBERT BELLARMINE (On secret infidels):
Moreover, it is certain, whatever one or another might think, a secret heretic (my insertion - one who is guilty of the SIN of heresy), if he might be a bishop or even the Supreme Pontiff, does not lose jurisdiction, nor dignity, or the name of the head in the Church, until either he separates himself publicly from the Church, or being convicted of heresy is separated against his will.
ST ROBERT BELLARMINE (On secret infidels):
Two things can be considered on Bishops: Firstly, that they hold the place of Christ so for that reason we owe obedience to them... Secondly, that they might have the power of Order and Jurisdiction. If it is considered in the first mode, we are certain with an infallible certitude that these, whom we see, are our true Bishops and Pastors. For this, neither faith, nor the character of order, nor even legitimate election is required, but only that they be held for such by the Church... Now if this is considered in the second manner, we do not have any but a moral certitude that these will truly be Bishops, although it is certain with infallible certitude that at least some are true, otherwise God will have deserted the Church...
ST ROBERT BELLARMINE (On the Marks of the Church - Apostolic Succession):
...we cannot depose catholic bishops who have possessed their sees for so many canturies peacefully, unless they are legitimately judged and condemned; for in every controversy, the condition of the one possessing it is better...
ST ROBERT BELLARMINE (On deposition of bishops):
...if the pastor is a bishop, they (the faithful) cannot depose him and put another in his place. For Our Lord and the Apostles only lay down that false prophets are not to be listened to by the people, and not that they depose them. And it is certain that the practice of the Church has always been that heretical bishops be deposed by bishop's councils, or by the Sovereign Pontiff...
Add to these quotes those previously furnished by Sean that indicate clearly that St Robert requires monitions to demonstrate pertinacity (formal heresy) of the heretic Pope and some kind of judgement/declaration of the public facts by the Church.
They have no nsswer for this ^^^
-
ST FRANCIS DE SALES:
"Now when he is explicitly a heretic, he falls ipso facto from his dignity and out of the Church, and the Church must either deprive him, or, as some say, declare him deprived, of his Apostolic See, and must say as S. Peter did: Let another take his bishopric" - The Catholic Controversy (p306 in my edition)
When St Francis says "explicitly a heretic", does that mean a material heretic, or a formal heretic? Formal, I would say, because nobody is a heretic and outside the Church simply on account of a materially heretical statement.
Exactly! The pertinent part is: “he falls ipso facto from his dignity and out of the Church“……He has already fallen…….THEN…..the CHURCH acts. He already lost his office automatically, then to tidy up everything, the Church makes a declaration.
-
They have no nsswer for this ^^^
Sean, why do you continue to ignore the three Doctors of the Church I’ve quoted?
-
Sean, why do you continue to ignore the three Doctors of the Church I’ve quoted?
So you’re conceding Paul IV - cuм ex is irrelevant?
-
Exactly! The pertinent part is: “he falls ipso facto from his dignity and out of the Church“……He has already fallen…….THEN…..the CHURCH acts. He already lost his office automatically, then to tidy up everything, the Church makes a declaration.
“…and the Church must deprive him…”
You ‘accidentally’ forgot to include that part.
-
Especially after Vatican I, I prefer to learn from:
Saint Alphonsus, Saint Robert Bellarmine, Saint Francis de Sales, Saint Antoninus, Pope Paul IV, Pope Innocent III, Coronata, Vermeersch, Regatillo, Wernz-Vidal among many others.
ST ANTONINUS (+1459):
In the case in which the pope would become a heretic, he would find himself, by that fact alone and without any other sentence, separated from the Church. A head separated from a body cannot, as long as it remains separated, be head of the same body from which it was cut off. A pope who would be separated from the Church by heresy, therefore, would by that very fact itself cease to be head of the Church. He could not be a heretic and remain pope, because, since he is outside of the Church, he cannot possess the keys of the Church.
Is St Antoninus talking of any and every kind of heretic? A secret heretic? A material heretic? Only a formal heretic? Are monitions and demonstration of pertinacity and a declaration necessary to know that he is a heretic before, "by that fact alone", he is separated from the Church? Can anyone provide any context to this quote?
Three centuries later, one of his Dominican successors taught this:
BILLUART (+1757):
"The more common opinion holds that Christ, by a particular providence, for the common good and the tranquility of the Church, continues to give jurisdiction to an even manifestly heretical pontiff until such time as he should be declared a manifest heretic by the Church" - De Fide, Diss V, A III No 3 Obj 2
-
And I'm going to keep writing it until some of you wake up to the fact that you've completely (and pertinaciously) embraced a heretical ecclesiology.
This is not rocket science. Our Lord promised the assistance of the Holy Spirit to the See of Peter, an assistance which prevents it from corrupting faith or morals.
You have two choices to avoid heresy, 1) claim that faith and morals haven't been corrupted (that V2 was misinterpreted by Modernists and the NOM is not essentially bad but has been abused) or 2) assert that legitimate Papal authority exercised freely did not produce V2 and the NOM.
Within #2, you have various choices, from sedevacantism, sedeprivationism, sedeimpoundism, Siri thesis, blackmailed pope, drugged pope, pope replaced by a double, etc.
This Chair of Peter cannot fail, and to say otherwise is heretical. Period. End of Story. Address it with #1 or with #2 (and any permutation of #2), but you can't simply run off and pertinaciously embrace some repackaged form of Old Catholicism / Eastern Orthodoxy / Protestantism.
You have the temerity to refer to this Basic Foundation of Catholicism as "delusion". Unbelievable.
This chair of Peter cannot fail, what does it mean? It's not rocket science:
"'I have prayed for thee that thy faith not fail; and when you have converted, strengthen your brethren' (Luke 22:31). From this text, St Bernard in letter 90 to Pope Innocent deduced that the Roman Pontiff teaching ex cathedra cannot err; and before him the same was said by Pope Lucius I in letter I to the Bishops of Spain and France, by Pope Felix I in a letter to Benignus, Pope Mark in a letter to Athanasius, Leo I in sermon 3..., Leo IX in a letter to Peter Patriarch of Antioch, Agatho in a letter to the Emperor Constantine IV which was read at the Sixth Council (act 4 and again act 8) and approved by the whole Council, Pope Paschal II at the Roman Council..., Innocent III in the chapter Majores on Baptism and its effect... Therefore, if the Roman Pontiff cannot err when he is teaching ex cathedra, certainly his judgement must be followed... For we read Acts ch 15 that the Council said: 'It has seemed good to the Holy Ghost and to us'; such also now is the Pontiff's teaching ex cathedra, whom we showed is always directed by the Holy Ghost so that he cannot err." - St Robert Bellarmine, On the Word of God, Lib 3, Cap 5
"But since, in this very age in which the salutary efficacy of the Apostolic office is most of all required, not a few are found who take away from its authority, We judge it altogether necessary to assert solemnly the prerogative which the only-begotten Son of God found worthy to join with the supreme pastoral office. Therefore, faithfully adhering to the tradition received from the beginning of the Christian faith, for the glory of God Our Saviour, the exaltation of the Catholic Religion, and the salvation of Christian people, the Sacred Council approving, We teach and define that it is a divinely-revealed dogma: that the Roman Pontiff, when he speaks ex Cathedra, that is, when in discharge of the office of Pastor and Teacher of all Christians, by virtue of his supreme Apostolic authority, he defines a doctrine regarding faith or morals to be held by the Universal Church, by the divine assistance promised to him in blessed Peter, is possessed of that infallibility with which the divine Redeemer willed that His Church should be endowed for defining doctrine regarding faith or morals: and that therefore such definitions of the Roman Pontiff are irreformable of themselves, and not from the consent of the Church. But if anyone - God forbid - whould presume to contradict this our definition; let him be anathema." - Pastor Aeternus
"It should not be said that the Pontiff is infallible simply because of the authority of the Papacy but rather inasmuch as he is certainly and undoubtedly subject to the direction of the divine assistance. By the authority of the Papacy the Pontiff is always the supreme judge in matters of faith and morals, and the father and teacher of all Christians. But the divine assistance promised to him, by which he cannot err, he only enjoys as such when he really and actually exercises his duty as supreme judge and universal teacher of the Church in disputes about the Faith. Thus, the sentence 'The Roman Pontiff is infallible' should not be treated as false, since Christ promised infallibility to the person of Peter and his successors, but it is incomplete, since the Pope is only infallible when, by a solemn judgement, he defines a matter of faith and morals for the Church universal" - Bishop Vincent Gasser, Official Relatio on Infallibility of Vatican I
-
“…and the Church must deprive him…”
You ‘accidentally’ forgot to include that part.
I only excluded that part because it’s unnecessary to understand the first part, that he “falls ipso facto from his dignity and out of the Church”. AFTER it is recognized that he has fallen from his office, it must be declared by the Church that it has deprived *the former pope* of all that he once possessed so that a new pope can be elected. I don’t understand why you don’t follow this concept.
-
BILLUART (+1757):
"The more common opinion holds that Christ, by a particular providence, for the common good and the tranquility of the Church, continues to give jurisdiction to an even manifestly heretical pontiff until such time as he should be declared a manifest heretic by the Church" - De Fide, Diss V, A III No 3 Obj 2
Saint Robert Bellarmine, Doctor of the Church, disagrees:
“A Pope who is a manifest heretic automatically ceases to be a Pope and head, just as he ceases automatically to be a Christian and a member of the Church. Wherefore, he can be judged and punished by the Church. This is the teaching of all the ancient Fathers who teach that manifest heretics immediately lose all jurisdiction.”
Assuming Billuart’s quote is accurate, which one do you prefer to follow?
-
This chair of Peter cannot fail, what does it mean? It's not rocket science:
"'I have prayed for thee that thy faith not fail; and when you have converted, strengthen your brethren' (Luke 22:31). From this text, St Bernard in letter 90 to Pope Innocent deduced that the Roman Pontiff teaching ex cathedra cannot err; and before him the same was said by Pope Lucius I in letter I to the Bishops of Spain and France, by Pope Felix I in a letter to Benignus, Pope Mark in a letter to Athanasius, Leo I in sermon 3..., Leo IX in a letter to Peter Patriarch of Antioch, Agatho in a letter to the Emperor Constantine IV which was read at the Sixth Council (act 4 and again act 8) and approved by the whole Council, Pope Paschal II at the Roman Council..., Innocent III in the chapter Majores on Baptism and its effect... Therefore, if the Roman Pontiff cannot err when he is teaching ex cathedra, certainly his judgement must be followed... For we read Acts ch 15 that the Council said: 'It has seemed good to the Holy Ghost and to us'; such also now is the Pontiff's teaching ex cathedra, whom we showed is always directed by the Holy Ghost so that he cannot err." - St Robert Bellarmine, On the Word of God, Lib 3, Cap 5
"But since, in this very age in which the salutary efficacy of the Apostolic office is most of all required, not a few are found who take away from its authority, We judge it altogether necessary to assert solemnly the prerogative which the only-begotten Son of God found worthy to join with the supreme pastoral office. Therefore, faithfully adhering to the tradition received from the beginning of the Christian faith, for the glory of God Our Saviour, the exaltation of the Catholic Religion, and the salvation of Christian people, the Sacred Council approving, We teach and define that it is a divinely-revealed dogma: that the Roman Pontiff, when he speaks ex Cathedra, that is, when in discharge of the office of Pastor and Teacher of all Christians, by virtue of his supreme Apostolic authority, he defines a doctrine regarding faith or morals to be held by the Universal Church, by the divine assistance promised to him in blessed Peter, is possessed of that infallibility with which the divine Redeemer willed that His Church should be endowed for defining doctrine regarding faith or morals: and that therefore such definitions of the Roman Pontiff are irreformable of themselves, and not from the consent of the Church. But if anyone - God forbid - whould presume to contradict this our definition; let him be anathema." - Pastor Aeternus
"It should not be said that the Pontiff is infallible simply because of the authority of the Papacy but rather inasmuch as he is certainly and undoubtedly subject to the direction of the divine assistance. By the authority of the Papacy the Pontiff is always the supreme judge in matters of faith and morals, and the father and teacher of all Christians. But the divine assistance promised to him, by which he cannot err, he only enjoys as such when he really and actually exercises his duty as supreme judge and universal teacher of the Church in disputes about the Faith. Thus, the sentence 'The Roman Pontiff is infallible' should not be treated as false, since Christ promised infallibility to the person of Peter and his successors, but it is incomplete, since the Pope is only infallible when, by a solemn judgement, he defines a matter of faith and morals for the Church universal" - Bishop Vincent Gasser, Official Relatio on Infallibility of Vatican I
Using your line of reasoning, every time there is an interregnum, the chair of Peter fails.
-
So you’re conceding Paul IV - cuм ex is irrelevant?
As I’ve expressed above, the arguments compliment and support one another.
-
BILLUART (+1757):
"The more common opinion holds that Christ, by a particular providence, for the common good and the tranquility of the Church, continues to give jurisdiction to an even manifestly heretical pontiff until such time as he should be declared a manifest heretic by the Church" - De Fide, Diss V, A III No 3 Obj 2
I did a bit of research and just as I suspected, that quote was falsified! I’m not blaming you, but whoever was the source of this lie, and I believe I know who it is, should be flogged severely! Some people will go to any lengths just to say that some heretic dressed in white is the pope. Will you retract this “quote”?
From the website “Catholics in Ireland”:
To answer this, and to oppose St. Bellarmine teaching that we should judge a heretic by his external acts, another theologian was needed, Fr. Charles-Rene Billuart. Here we have the most astounding opinion:
“According to the more common opinion, Christ, by a particular providence, for the common good and the tranquility of the Church, continues to give jurisdiction to an even manifestly heretical pontiff until such time as he be declared a manifest heretic by the Church.”
The footnote at the above sentence is directing us to Billuart, De Fide (Diss.V, A.III,No.3,obj.2).
Although this sentence is given without quotation marks, in later publications it will have such. It would be significant, if the quotation was true. Let’s open “De Fide”, to check the source of the quotation carefully:
Dissertatio V (De Vittis Fidei Oppositis), Articulus III (De Apostasia):
Qui ab Ordine Sacro fine legitima dispensatione retrocedit ad statum Seacularem, est apostata & peccat mortaliter; quia deserit statum cui per Ecclesiam erat solemniter mancipatus, quem deserere vetant plures Canones, poenis impositis contra transgressores.(1)
In English translation it is:
One who leaves Holy Orders without a legitimate dispensation [in order] to return to a secular state, is an apostate and sins mortally; because to quit the religious state, in which one was solemnly enrolled by the Church, is forbidden by several Canons, which impose penalties against transgressors.
The relevance of the sentence from “A little Catechism…” to the source given in the footnote is null. As it was already said, this “quotation” of Billuart, which is false and fabricated, has been spread wide and far. We might even suppose that every SSPX district printed it in its own bulletin and since 2001 nobody dared to check the comparability of the “quoted” sentence with the given source! We can assume that this infamous sentence is just a summary (a precise one, at that) of the SSPX attitude regarding post Vatican II Council heretical popes. Let’s look at it again: “[C]hrist, by a particular providence, for the common good and the tranquility of the Church, continues to give jurisdiction to even manifestly heretical pontiff” – this is utterly unheard and opposite to the Church teaching. How astonishing that it was “cited” as Billuart’s work! SSPX theologians must have been desperate to have the “quotation” to support themselves and to give us confirmation of their own philosophy.
-
I did a bit of research and just as I suspected, that quote was falsified! I’m not blaming you, but whoever was the source of this lie, and I believe I know who it is, should be flogged severely! Some people will go to any lengths just to say that some heretic dressed in white is the pope. Will you retract this “quote”?
From the website “Catholics in Ireland”:
To answer this, and to oppose St. Bellarmine teaching that we should judge a heretic by his external acts, another theologian was needed, Fr. Charles-Rene Billuart. Here we have the most astounding opinion:
“According to the more common opinion, Christ, by a particular providence, for the common good and the tranquility of the Church, continues to give jurisdiction to an even manifestly heretical pontiff until such time as he be declared a manifest heretic by the Church.”
The footnote at the above sentence is directing us to Billuart, De Fide (Diss.V, A.III,No.3,obj.2).
Although this sentence is given without quotation marks, in later publications it will have such. It would be significant, if the quotation was true. Let’s open “De Fide”, to check the source of the quotation carefully:
Dissertatio V (De Vittis Fidei Oppositis), Articulus III (De Apostasia):
Qui ab Ordine Sacro fine legitima dispensatione retrocedit ad statum Seacularem, est apostata & peccat mortaliter; quia deserit statum cui per Ecclesiam erat solemniter mancipatus, quem deserere vetant plures Canones, poenis impositis contra transgressores.(1)
In English translation it is:
One who leaves Holy Orders without a legitimate dispensation [in order] to return to a secular state, is an apostate and sins mortally; because to quit the religious state, in which one was solemnly enrolled by the Church, is forbidden by several Canons, which impose penalties against transgressors.
The relevance of the sentence from “A little Catechism…” to the source given in the footnote is null. As it was already said, this “quotation” of Billuart, which is false and fabricated, has been spread wide and far. We might even suppose that every SSPX district printed it in its own bulletin and since 2001 nobody dared to check the comparability of the “quoted” sentence with the given source! We can assume that this infamous sentence is just a summary (a precise one, at that) of the SSPX attitude regarding post Vatican II Council heretical popes. Let’s look at it again: “[C]hrist, by a particular providence, for the common good and the tranquility of the Church, continues to give jurisdiction to even manifestly heretical pontiff” – this is utterly unheard and opposite to the Church teaching. How astonishing that it was “cited” as Billuart’s work! SSPX theologians must have been desperate to have the “quotation” to support themselves and to give us confirmation of their own philosophy.
You have to be quite gullible to believe that Avrille fabricated a quote, and some anonymous Irish blogger has discovered it.
I’ll contact Avrille and ask for a response.
NB: I sent the following email-
“A public question has arisen regarding the veracity of a quotation contained within the Little Catechism of Sedevacantism attributed to Rene Billuart, and I wondered if you could shed any light on it to silence our sedevacantist adversaries: (Here follows the quote of the anonymous Irish blogger).”
When I receive a response, I will post it. It may take a week +/-.
-
You have to be quite gullible to believe that Avrille fabricated a quote, and some anonymous Irish blogger has discovered it.
I’ll contact Avrille and ask for a response.
Good! If they don’t give a response, would you consider looking into the reference yourself?
Of course, the quote is questionable just for the fact that it came after and contradicts Bellarmine.
-
Good! If they don’t give a response, would you consider looking into the reference yourself?
Of course, the quote is questionable just for the fact that it came after and contradicts Bellarmine.
No, it does not contradict Bellarmine (the same article quotes him as saying the heresy must be formal and manifest, the definition of which seem to be perpetual mental blocks for sede apologists).
-
Good! If they don’t give a response, would you consider looking into the reference yourself?
Is there an online copy?
If not, I’ll go to the local Archdiocesan seminary library and see if they have a copy in mothballs somewhere. If they do, I’ll take pics of the book and passages and post them here.
-
Of course, there is a third alternative, not held by the overwhelming majority of those on this forum, and by most who would be identified as "Trads": there is nothing in V2 or the Novus Ordo, in themselves, which, if adhered to and followed, would deprive a Catholic of salvation.
But that view would be similar to Stubborn's in the sense of holding that the most solemn expressions of the Magisterium - in ecuмenical councils, in its form of worship - are not capable of error or poisonous to salvific health. Of course, it would differ in that Stubborn would disagree that V2 or the Novus Ordo are expressions of the solemn or infallible Magisterium.
I just want to say that you have some really good posts DR, thanks!
Consider Quo Primum, the law established by Pope Pius V mandating using only the Missale Romanum forever, and that whoever breaks that law incurs "the wrath of Almighty God and of the Blessed Apostles Peter and Paul."
Consider the reason Pope Pius V had for making the penalty "incurring the wrath of Almighty God and the blessed Apostles Peter and Paul."
The reason he authorized such a terrible penalty upon those who broke the law, was because he intended the penalty to be a stark deterrent, so that anyone so much as thinking of not using his missale or using some other missale would immediately abandon the idea and continue using his missale.
The reason for all of this is because he knew that *that* Mass is the very marrow of our faith, and he knew that if his missale was ever abandoned or changed, that there would be a loss of faith wherever his missale was not used, which is exactly what we we have today.
What all this means, is it is because of the massive loss of faith we see today that we say V2 and it's Novus Ordo Missae are a distinct break from, and not in any way expressions of the Church's Magisterium. Pre-V2 and the Missale Romanum *are* expressions of the Church's Magisterium. The two are as different as night and day because one is the law, the other breaks the law, and for that, we see with our own eyes the penalty being incurred upon the world.
-
Also odd that Avrille could say that Lagrange based his reasoning upon Billuart, if the Billuart quotation itself was false:
“Fr. Garrigou-Lagrange, basing his reasoning on Billuart, explains in his treatise De Verbo Incarnato (p. 232) that a heretical pope, while no longer a member of the Church, can still be her head. Indeed, what is uh impossible in the case of a physical head is possible (albeit abnormal) for a secondary moral head. “The reason is that – whereas a physical head cannot influence the members without receiving the vital influx of the soul – a moral head, as is the [Roman] Pontiff, can exercise jurisdiction over the Church even if he does not receive from the soul of the Church any influx of interior faith or charity.”
https://dominicansavrille.us/little-catechism-on-sedevacantism-part-i/
-
Saint Robert Bellarmine, Doctor of the Church, disagrees:
“A Pope who is a manifest heretic automatically ceases to be a Pope and head, just as he ceases automatically to be a Christian and a member of the Church. Wherefore, he can be judged and punished by the Church. This is the teaching of all the ancient Fathers who teach that manifest heretics immediately lose all jurisdiction.”
Assuming Billuart’s quote is accurate, which one do you prefer to follow?
What contradiction?
Bellarmine is talking about MANIFEST heretics.
-
Saint Robert Bellarmine, Doctor of the Church, disagrees:
“A Pope who is a manifest heretic automatically ceases to be a Pope and head, just as he ceases automatically to be a Christian and a member of the Church. Wherefore, he can be judged and punished by the Church. This is the teaching of all the ancient Fathers who teach that manifest heretics immediately lose all jurisdiction.”
Assuming Billuart’s quote is accurate, which one do you prefer to follow?
Why do you continue to take an isolated quote of St Robert Bellarmine out of context and ignore all the others I provided which show his opinion is very different from yours?
For example: For jurisdiction is certainly given to the Pontiff by God, but with the agreement of men, as is obvious; because this man who beforehand was not Pope, has from men that he would begin to be Pope, THEREFORE, he is not removed by God unless it is through men
Does St Robert Bellarmine teach that this man could be Quo Vadis Domine???
And again: the Roman Pontiff cannot be deprived of his right to summon Councils and preside over them... unless he were first convicted by the legitimate judgement of a Council and is not the Supreme Pontiff. Moreover... the supreme prince, as long as he is not declared or judged to have legitimately been deprived of his rule, is always the supreme judge
Read all the quotes I provided. At my end, I'm not just finding quotes on the internet, I'm reading his entire study De Controversiis.
But the whole point is, these are theological opinions. We have no right to make a definitive judgement with such extreme consequences when theologians are divided and the Church has not settled the matter. I have friends and family who, based on arguments that you and your friends have provided, have all but stopped frequenting the sacraments, visiting the Blessed Sacrament etc, just because the priest believes Francis to be Pope.
Theologians cannot agree, but I pontificate. I must be the Pope! It's just not Catholic!
-
I did a bit of research and just as I suspected, that quote was falsified! I’m not blaming you, but whoever was the source of this lie, and I believe I know who it is, should be flogged severely! Some people will go to any lengths just to say that some heretic dressed in white is the pope. Will you retract this “quote”?
From the website “Catholics in Ireland”:
I do not know who the "Catholics in Ireland" are. Let us presume them to be in good faith, and they may well be correct in that the reference may have been confused. However, the quote is almost certainly correct. Read this from the Dominicans of Avrille:
On the Deposition of the Pope (Part 2 of 2) - Dominicans of Avrille, France (dominicansavrille.us) (https://dominicansavrille.us/on-the-deposition-of-the-pope-part-2-of-2/)
Billuart (https://dominicansavrille.us/on-the-deposition-of-the-pope-part-2-of-2/)
(https://dominicansavrille.us/on-the-deposition-of-the-pope-part-2-of-2/)Charles-René Billuart O.P. (1685-1757) is a French Thomist theologian. He composed a Theology course which enjoys a high reputation.
(https://dominicansavrille.us/on-the-deposition-of-the-pope-part-2-of-2/)In the Treatise on the Incarnation (De Incarnatione, diss. IX, a. II, § 2, obj. 2) Billuart defends the thesis that Christ is not the head of heretics, even occult.
(https://dominicansavrille.us/on-the-deposition-of-the-pope-part-2-of-2/)It is objected that several doctors (Cajetan, Soto Cano, Suárez, etc.) say that the Pope fallen into occult heresy remains the head of the Church. So he must be a member.
(https://dominicansavrille.us/on-the-deposition-of-the-pope-part-2-of-2/)Billuart denies the conclusion:
(https://dominicansavrille.us/on-the-deposition-of-the-pope-part-2-of-2/)There is a difference between being constituted a head by the fact that one is influencing on the members, and being made a member by the fact that one is receiving an influx in itself; this is why, while the pontiff [who] fell into occult heresy keeps the jurisdiction by which he influences the Church by governing her, thereby he remains the head; but as he no longer receives the vital influx of Christ‘s faith or charity, who is the invisible and first head, he cannot be said to be a member of Christ or of the Church.
(https://dominicansavrille.us/on-the-deposition-of-the-pope-part-2-of-2/)Instance: it is repugnant to be the head of a body without being a member, since the head is the primary member.
(https://dominicansavrille.us/on-the-deposition-of-the-pope-part-2-of-2/)Answer: I distinguish the first sentence: it is repugnant to a natural head, I agree; to a moral head, I deny it. For example, Christ is the moral head of the Church, but he is not a member. The reason for the difference is that the natural head cannot have an influence on other members without receiving the vital influx of the soul. But the moral head, as the Pontiff is, can exercise the jurisdiction and the government over the Church and its members, although he is not informed by the soul of the Church, which are faith and charity, and that he does not receive any vital influx.
(https://dominicansavrille.us/on-the-deposition-of-the-pope-part-2-of-2/)
In a word, the Pope is made a member of the Church through the personal faith which he can lose, and the head of the Church by the jurisdiction and the power which can be reconciled with an internal heresy. (Cursus theologiœ, Pars III, Venice, 1787, p. 66)
(https://dominicansavrille.us/on-the-deposition-of-the-pope-part-2-of-2/)In the Treatise on Faith (De Fide diss IV to III, § 3, obj 2) Billuart defends the following thesis: Heretics, even manifest (unless being denounced by name, or by leaving the Church themselves) keep the jurisdiction and absolve validly.
(https://dominicansavrille.us/on-the-deposition-of-the-pope-part-2-of-2/)He considers the question of the case of a Pope, which is a special case, who receives his jurisdiction not from the Church, but directly from Christ:
(https://dominicansavrille.us/on-the-deposition-of-the-pope-part-2-of-2/)It is nowhere stated that Christ continues to give jurisdiction to a manifestly heretical Pontiff, for this can be known by the Church and she can get another pastor. However the common sentence [editor: opinion] holds that Christ, by a special provision (ex speciali dispensatione), for the common good and peace of the Church, continues [to give] jurisdiction to a Pontiff even who is a manifest heretic, until he is declared manifestly heretical by the Church. (Cursus theologiœ, Pars II-II, Brescia, 1838, p. 33-34)
(https://dominicansavrille.us/on-the-deposition-of-the-pope-part-2-of-2/)In the Treaty on the Rules of Faith (De regulis fidei, diss IV, VIII a, § 2, obj 2 and 6) Billuart defends the following thesis: The sovereign Pontiff is superior to any council by authority and jurisdiction.
(https://dominicansavrille.us/on-the-deposition-of-the-pope-part-2-of-2/)It is objected that the Pontiff is subject to the judgment of the Church in the case of heresy. Why then he would not be subject also in other cases?
(https://dominicansavrille.us/on-the-deposition-of-the-pope-part-2-of-2/)He replies:
(https://dominicansavrille.us/on-the-deposition-of-the-pope-part-2-of-2/)This is because in the case of heresy, and not in other cases, he loses the pontificate by the fact itself of his heresy: how could remain head of the Church he who is no longer a member? This is why he is subject to the judgment of the Church, not in order to be removed, since he is already deposed himself by heresy and he rejected the Pontificate (pontificatum abjecerit), but in order to be declared a heretic, and thus that he will be known to the Church that he is not anymore Pontiff: before this statement [of the Church] it is not permitted to refuse him obedience, because he keeps jurisdiction until then, not by right, as if he were still Pontiff, but in fact, by the will of God and accordingly disposing it for the common good of the Church. (Cursus theologiœ, Pars II-II, Brescia, 1838, p. 123)
(https://dominicansavrille.us/on-the-deposition-of-the-pope-part-2-of-2/)Another objector remarked that the Church would be deprived of a remedy if she could not subject the Pope to the Council in the case that he would be harmful and would seek to subvert her.
(https://dominicansavrille.us/on-the-deposition-of-the-pope-part-2-of-2/)Billuart replied that:
(https://dominicansavrille.us/on-the-deposition-of-the-pope-part-2-of-2/)If the pope sought to harm her in the faith, he would be manifestly heretical, and he would thereby lose the Pontificate: however it should be necessary a declaration of the Church in order to deny him obedience, as we have said above. (Cursus theologiœ, Pars II-II, Brescia, 1838, p. 125)
(https://dominicansavrille.us/on-the-deposition-of-the-pope-part-2-of-2/)If the Pope would harm the Church otherwise than in the faith, some say that one could resist him by the force of arms, however without losing his superiority. St. Thomas Aquinas said it would be necessary to appeal to God in order to correct him or taking him away from this world (4 Sent. D. 19, q. 2, a. 2 q.1a 3, ad 2).
(https://dominicansavrille.us/on-the-deposition-of-the-pope-part-2-of-2/)Billuart prefers to think that:
Whereas God governs and sustains his Church with a special Providence, he will not permit, as he has not permitted it so far, that this situation will happen, and if he permits it, he will not fail to give the means and the help appropriate. (Cursus theologiœ, Pars II-II, Brescia, 1838, p. 125)
(https://dominicansavrille.us/on-the-deposition-of-the-pope-part-2-of-2/)
-
Especially after Vatican I, I prefer to learn from:
Saint Alphonsus, Saint Robert Bellarmine, Saint Francis de Sales, Saint Antoninus, Pope Paul IV, Pope Innocent III, Coronata, Vermeersch, Regatillo, Wernz-Vidal among many others.
On the Deposition of the Pope (Part 2 of 2) - Dominicans of Avrille, France (dominicansavrille.us) (https://dominicansavrille.us/on-the-deposition-of-the-pope-part-2-of-2/)
St. Alphonsus Liguori
St. Alphonsus Liguori (1696-1787), Doctor of the Church, devoted several writings in defense of Papal power against the conciliarist heresy (which gave to the councils a higher authority over the Pope). Collected in one volume by a Redemptorist religious on the eve of Vatican Council I, (Du Pape et du concile; Tournai, Casterman, 1869) these writings have helped to prepare the definition of the dogma of Papal infallibility. St. Alphonsus does not really treat the issue of a heretical Pope, and he excludes it so that it does not disturb his subject. But, without entering into the details, he said repeatedly that the heretical Pope loses his authority only when his heresy has been confirmed by a council. He clearly shares the view of Cajetan and John of St. Thomas.
In an essay on the authority of the Pope, added by St. Alphonsus at the end of the edition of his Moral Theology in 1748,2 (https://dominicansavrille.us/on-the-deposition-of-the-pope-part-2-of-2/#easy-footnote-bottom-2-2028) the Holy Doctor vigorously defends the superiority of the Pope over the council, but beforehand he declares:
- It should first be noted that the superiority of the Pope over the council does not extend to the dubious Pope in the time of a schism when there is a serious doubt about the legitimacy of his election; because then everyone must submit to the council, as defined by the Council of Constance. Then indeed the General Council draws its supreme power directly from Christ, as in times of vacancy of the Apostolic See, as it was well said by St. Antoninus (Summa, p. 3 did. 23, c. 2 § 6).
- The same must be said of a pope who would be manifestly and exteriorly heretical (and not only secretly and mentally). However, others argue more accurately that, in this case, the Pope cannot be deprived of his authority by the council as if it were above him, but that he is deposed immediately by Jesus Christ, when the condition of this deposition [= the declaration of the council] is carried out as required.3 (https://dominicansavrille.us/on-the-deposition-of-the-pope-part-2-of-2/#easy-footnote-bottom-3-2028)
After presenting the views of Azorius (viz. that the council is above a manifestly heretical pope), St. Alphonsus nuances it and therefore ultimately follows the position of Cajetan and John of St. Thomas, considered as “more accurate”. St. Alphonsus did the same in his apologetical treatise Truth of Faith (1767):
“When in time of schism we are in doubt about the true Pope, the council may be convened by the cardinals and the bishops; and then each of the elected Popes is obliged to follow the decision of the council because, at that time, the Apostolic See is considered vacant. It would be the same if the Pope would fall notoriously and perseveringly, persistently in some heresy. However, there are those who affirm with more foundation that in the latter case, that the Pope would not be deprived of the papacy by the council as if it were superior to him, but he would be stripped directly by Jesus Christ because he would then become a subject completely disqualified and deprived of his office.” (Truth of Faith (1767), penultimate chapter “On the Superiority of the Roman pontiff over the councils”, art. I, Preliminary Notions, 2°)
St. Alphonsus defends again the same idea in 1768 in his refutation of the errors of Febronius:
If ever the Pope, as a private person, falls into heresy, then he would be immediately stripped of papal authority as he would be outside the Church and therefore he could not be the head of the Church. So, in this case, the Church should not truly depose him, because no one has a superior power to the Pope, but to declare him deprived of the pontificate. (We said: if the Pope fall into heresy as a private person, because the Pope as Pope, that is to say, teaching the whole Church ex cathedra cannot teach an error against Faith because Christ’s promise cannot fail). (Vindiciae pro suprema Pontificis potestate adversus justinum febronium, 1768, Chapter VIII, response to the 6th objection)
-
Bravo PV!
I hope you will stick around and post more frequently.
Your posts on Billuart demonstrate irrefutably that even if the citation is in error (which I doubt), it is moot, since the very same opinion of Billuart is contained in two of his other books.
The reality is that careful study reveals sedes really have nobody of eminence to support their position. Every classic theologian cited by QVD actually teaches the opposite of what they wish.
St. Bellarmine, St. Francis de Sales, St. Alphonsus, Billuart, Lagrange, Suarez, Cajetan, Vitoria, Torquemada, John of St. Thomas, Billot, etc. all side with us.
Time for sedevacantism to take its place along side donatism, albagensianism, and other long refuted heresies.
-
Bravo PV!
I hope you will stick around and post more frequently.
Your posts on Billuart demonstrate irrefutably that even if the citation is in error (which I doubt), it is moot, since the very same opinion of Billuart is contained in two of his other books.
The reality is that careful study reveals sedes really have nobody of eminence to support their position. Every classic theologian cited by QVD actually teaches the opposite of what they wish.
St. Bellarmine, St. Francis de Sales, St. Alphonsus, Billuart, Lagrange, Suarez, Cajetan, Vitoria, Torquemada, John of St. Thomas, Billot, etc. all side with us.
Time for sedevacantism to take its place along side donatism, albagensianism, and other long refuted heresies.
You may be correct about the Billuart quote, I will investigate it a bit later.
What is absolutely astonishing is that you have the audacity to write what you did above! (I highlighted it in red) Unbelievable!
Have words lost their meaning?
-
Sean, why do you continue to ignore the three Doctors of the Church I’ve quoted?
I can answer it for you now, because you *erroneously* believe they support your case. :laugh1:
-
I can answer it for you now, because you *erroneously* believe they support your case. :laugh1:
Now that IS funny! :laugh2:
-
On the Deposition of the Pope (Part 2 of 2) - Dominicans of Avrille, France (dominicansavrille.us) (https://dominicansavrille.us/on-the-deposition-of-the-pope-part-2-of-2/)
St. Alphonsus Liguori
St. Alphonsus Liguori (1696-1787), Doctor of the Church, devoted several writings in defense of Papal power against the conciliarist heresy (which gave to the councils a higher authority over the Pope). Collected in one volume by a Redemptorist religious on the eve of Vatican Council I, (Du Pape et du concile; Tournai, Casterman, 1869) these writings have helped to prepare the definition of the dogma of Papal infallibility. St. Alphonsus does not really treat the issue of a heretical Pope, and he excludes it so that it does not disturb his subject. But, without entering into the details, he said repeatedly that the heretical Pope loses his authority only when his heresy has been confirmed by a council. He clearly shares the view of Cajetan and John of St. Thomas.
In an essay on the authority of the Pope, added by St. Alphonsus at the end of the edition of his Moral Theology in 1748,2 (https://dominicansavrille.us/on-the-deposition-of-the-pope-part-2-of-2/#easy-footnote-bottom-2-2028) the Holy Doctor vigorously defends the superiority of the Pope over the council, but beforehand he declares:
- It should first be noted that the superiority of the Pope over the council does not extend to the dubious Pope in the time of a schism when there is a serious doubt about the legitimacy of his election; because then everyone must submit to the council, as defined by the Council of Constance. Then indeed the General Council draws its supreme power directly from Christ, as in times of vacancy of the Apostolic See, as it was well said by St. Antoninus (Summa, p. 3 did. 23, c. 2 § 6).
- The same must be said of a pope who would be manifestly and exteriorly heretical (and not only secretly and mentally). However, others argue more accurately that, in this case, the Pope cannot be deprived of his authority by the council as if it were above him, but that he is deposed immediately by Jesus Christ, when the condition of this deposition [= the declaration of the council] is carried out as required.3 (https://dominicansavrille.us/on-the-deposition-of-the-pope-part-2-of-2/#easy-footnote-bottom-3-2028)
After presenting the views of Azorius (viz. that the council is above a manifestly heretical pope), St. Alphonsus nuances it and therefore ultimately follows the position of Cajetan and John of St. Thomas, considered as “more accurate”. St. Alphonsus did the same in his apologetical treatise Truth of Faith (1767):
“When in time of schism we are in doubt about the true Pope, the council may be convened by the cardinals and the bishops; and then each of the elected Popes is obliged to follow the decision of the council because, at that time, the Apostolic See is considered vacant. It would be the same if the Pope would fall notoriously and perseveringly, persistently in some heresy. However, there are those who affirm with more foundation that in the latter case, that the Pope would not be deprived of the papacy by the council as if it were superior to him, but he would be stripped directly by Jesus Christ because he would then become a subject completely disqualified and deprived of his office.” (Truth of Faith (1767), penultimate chapter “On the Superiority of the Roman pontiff over the councils”, art. I, Preliminary Notions, 2°)
St. Alphonsus defends again the same idea in 1768 in his refutation of the errors of Febronius:
If ever the Pope, as a private person, falls into heresy, then he would be immediately stripped of papal authority as he would be outside the Church and therefore he could not be the head of the Church. So, in this case, the Church should not truly depose him, because no one has a superior power to the Pope, but to declare him deprived of the pontificate. (We said: if the Pope fall into heresy as a private person, because the Pope as Pope, that is to say, teaching the whole Church ex cathedra cannot teach an error against Faith because Christ’s promise cannot fail). (Vindiciae pro suprema Pontificis potestate adversus justinum febronium, 1768, Chapter VIII, response to the 6th objection)
By chance did you happen to read this part?:
“but that he is deposed immediately by Jesus Christ”
Do you realize that he doesn’t support your case?
In 1961 Father David Sharrock C.SS.R., S.T.L wrote a dissertation for his doctorate in sacred theology published by The Catholic University of America entitled; "The Theological Defense of Papal Power by St. Alphonsus de Liguori". Saint Alphonsus follows Saint Robert Bellarmine on the heretical pope question on page 88.
David John Sharrock C.SS.R., S.T.L. "The Theological Defense of Papal Power By St. Alphonsus de Liguori" :
"If the pope ever, as a private person, were to fall into heresy, then at that moment, he would cease to be Pope, because he would then be outside the Church, and as such, would no longer be able to be the head of the Church. In this case, the Church would not depose him, because no one has authority above the Pope. It would simply declare that he had fallen from his pontificate. We have said: 'if the Pope as a private person were to fall into heresy', for the Pope, as Pope, ie. as teaching the whole Church ex cathedra, is not able to teach anything against the faith....."
But the Saint teaches that this heresy
.....must be a question of manifest and external heresy, not of an occult or mental heresy.
And again:
Then (when he is a manifest and external heretic) the Pope is not deprived of his power by the Council as by a superior, but..... He is immediately despoiled of it by Christ...."
-
By chance did you happen to read this part?:
“but that he is deposed immediately by Jesus Christ”
Do you realize that he doesn’t support your case?
In 1961 Father David Sharrock C.SS.R., S.T.L wrote a dissertation for his doctorate in sacred theology published by The Catholic University of America entitled; "The Theological Defense of Papal Power by St. Alphonsus de Liguori". Saint Alphonsus follows Saint Robert Bellarmine on the heretical pope question on page 88.
David John Sharrock C.SS.R., S.T.L. "The Theological Defense of Papal Power By St. Alphonsus de Liguori" :
"If the pope ever, as a private person, were to fall into heresy, then at that moment, he would cease to be Pope, because he would then be outside the Church, and as such, would no longer be able to be the head of the Church. In this case, the Church would not depose him, because no one has authority above the Pope. It would simply declare that he had fallen from his pontificate. We have said: 'if the Pope as a private person were to fall into heresy', for the Pope, as Pope, ie. as teaching the whole Church ex cathedra, is not able to teach anything against the faith....."
But the Saint teaches that this heresy
.....must be a question of manifest and external heresy, not of an occult or mental heresy.
And again:
Then (when he is a manifest and external heretic) the Pope is not deprived of his power by the Council as by a superior, but..... He is immediately despoiled of it by Christ...."
In every instance, the quotes of St. Alphonsus supplied by PV suppose the Church’s declaration before the pope is deposed.
it appears your method is to extract piecemeal fragments from the quotes to make him say the opposite of what he is actually saying.
In doing so, you would create the “wavering Alphonsus,” same as sedes have, by the same artifice, created the “wavering Lefebvre.”
I believe earlier you stated such should be flogged?
-
In every instance, the quotes of St. Alphonsus supplied by PV suppose the Church’s declaration before the pope is deposed.
it appears your method is to extract piecemeal fragments from the quotes to make him say the opposite of what he is actually saying.
In doing so, you would create the “wavering Alphonsus,” same as sedes have, by the same artifice, created the “wavering Lefebvre.”
I believe earlier you stated such should be flogged?
:laugh2:
Does this mean anything to you:
“but that he is deposed *immediately* by Jesus Christ”
You don’t believe Bruce Jenner is a woman, do you? I didn’t think so…..
-
:laugh2:
Does this mean anything to you:
“but that he is deposed *immediately* by Jesus Christ”
You don’t believe Bruce Jenner is a woman, do you? I didn’t think so…..
No, it means nothing to me when you dishonestly snip off the words which immediately precede and follow (which is tantamount to conceding Alphonsus is against you):
“the Pope cannot be deprived of his authority by the council as if it were above him, but that he is deposed immediately by Jesus Christ, when the condition of this deposition [= the declaration of the council] is carried out as required.3 (https://dominicansavrille.us/on-the-deposition-of-the-pope-part-2-of-2/#easy-footnote-bottom-3-2028)”
-
Also odd that Avrille could say that Lagrange based his reasoning upon Billuart, if the Billuart quotation itself was false:
“Fr. Garrigou-Lagrange, basing his reasoning on Billuart, explains in his treatise De Verbo Incarnato (p. 232) that a heretical pope, while no longer a member of the Church, can still be her head. Indeed, what is uh impossible in the case of a physical head is possible (albeit abnormal) for a secondary moral head. “The reason is that – whereas a physical head cannot influence the members without receiving the vital influx of the soul – a moral head, as is the [Roman] Pontiff, can exercise jurisdiction over the Church even if he does not receive from the soul of the Church any influx of interior faith or charity.”
https://dominicansavrille.us/little-catechism-on-sedevacantism-part-i/
"Salza and Siscoe quote Billuart (who quotes Martin V’s Ad evitanda scandala) in a futile attempt to refute Bellarmine and the unanimous teaching of the Fathers....."
"Billuart’s error consists in his failure to make a critical distinction between those who lose their jurisdiction as a result of excommunication, and those who lose it ex natura hæresis, as a consequence of defecting from the faith and the Church, and thereby losing office and jurisdiction. Bellarmine points out that the decree only applies to excommunicates."
"The reason why Billuart’s failure to distinguish between those who lose their jurisdiction as a result of excommunication, and those who lose it ex natura hæresis, is of such great consequence, is that the ordinary and habitual jurisdiction of the officeholder is lost upon loss of office due to tacit resignation; but the excommunicates were provided with supplied jurisdiction in virtue of Ad evitanda scandala, and by the subsequent legislation that later replaced its provisions."
"Billuart erroneously deduced that 'heretics retain their jurisdiction', whereas all jurisdiction is lost by heretics, ex natura hæresis; but since heretics incur excommunication latæ sententiæ, jurisdiction was supplied by the decree Ad evitanda scandala. Billuart’s failure to distinguish between retaining jurisdiction and receiving supplied jurisdiction in virtue of the law itself led him into error on the question of loss of jurisdiction of a heretic pope."
"Billuart’s argues that since heretics retain jurisdiction 'for the benefit and tranquility of the faithful', therefore similarly, 'Christ, by a special dispensation, for the common good and tranquility of the Church, will continue to give jurisdiction even to a manifestly heretical pope, until he has been declared a manifest heretic by the Church.' Bellarmine’s words crush Billuart’s thesis: 'I say this avails to nothing. For those Fathers, when they say that heretics lose jurisdiction, do not allege any human laws which maybe did not exist then on this matter; rather, they argued from the nature of heresy.' Hence, there can be no exception by way of a 'special dispensation' from a loss of jurisdiction that results from the very nature of heresy. Heretics do not retain their jurisdiction: Jurisdiction is supplied to latæ sententiæ excommunicated heretics who not only lose all habitual jurisdiction, by their excommunication, but lose it ex natura hæresis. Billuart correctly notes that 'The pope… does not have his jurisdiction from the Church, but from Christ', but the pope would cease to be a member of the Church and lose all jurisdiction from Christ if he fell into manifest heresy; and since the pope cannot incur excommunication for so long as he remains pope, he could not receive supplied jurisdiction from such legislation as Ad evitanda scandala unless he were to fall from the Pontificate by tacit renunciation of office. Only then would he become minor quolibet catholico and accordingly incur excommunication latæ sententiæ, and straightaway receive supplied jurisdiction until his loss of office could be enforced by a declaratory sentence – but he would already have ceased to be pope."
All of the above quotes are taken from:
Kramer, Paul. To deceive the elect: The catholic doctrine on the question of a heretical Pope . Kindle Edition.
-
"Salza and Siscoe quote Billuart (who quotes Martin V’s Ad evitanda scandala) in a futile attempt to refute Bellarmine and the unanimous teaching of the Fathers....."
"Billuart’s error consists in his failure to make a critical distinction between those who lose their jurisdiction as a result of excommunication, and those who lose it ex natura hæresis, as a consequence of defecting from the faith and the Church, and thereby losing office and jurisdiction. Bellarmine points out that the decree only applies to excommunicates."
Is there an error there or is this quote being misinterpreted (as usual) by Salza and Siscoe? This part (from Billuart) in the actual quotations marks seems to be a reference to the internal sin of heresy, where he's lost sanctifying grace and can still be head of the Church. I'd like to see the actual full context of the quote. Indeed, the head can still function after having lost the "influx of interior faith and charity", but that's not what we're talking about here, but rather loss of membership due to EXTERNAL (public manifest heresy), i.e. a physical severing of the head from the body. If the head is severed from the body, it can certainly no longer govern / control the body.
-
"Salza and Siscoe quote Billuart (who quotes Martin V’s Ad evitanda scandala) in a futile attempt to refute Bellarmine and the unanimous teaching of the Fathers....."
"Billuart’s error consists in his failure to make a critical distinction between those who lose their jurisdiction as a result of excommunication, and those who lose it ex natura hæresis, as a consequence of defecting from the faith and the Church, and thereby losing office and jurisdiction. Bellarmine points out that the decree only applies to excommunicates."
"The reason why Billuart’s failure to distinguish between those who lose their jurisdiction as a result of excommunication, and those who lose it ex natura hæresis, is of such great consequence, is that the ordinary and habitual jurisdiction of the officeholder is lost upon loss of office due to tacit resignation; but the excommunicates were provided with supplied jurisdiction in virtue of Ad evitanda scandala, and by the subsequent legislation that later replaced its provisions."
"Billuart erroneously deduced that 'heretics retain their jurisdiction', whereas all jurisdiction is lost by heretics, ex natura hæresis; but since heretics incur excommunication latæ sententiæ, jurisdiction was supplied by the decree Ad evitanda scandala. Billuart’s failure to distinguish between retaining jurisdiction and receiving supplied jurisdiction in virtue of the law itself led him into error on the question of loss of jurisdiction of a heretic pope."
"Billuart’s argues that since heretics retain jurisdiction 'for the benefit and tranquility of the faithful', therefore similarly, 'Christ, by a special dispensation, for the common good and tranquility of the Church, will continue to give jurisdiction even to a manifestly heretical pope, until he has been declared a manifest heretic by the Church.' Bellarmine’s words crush Billuart’s thesis: 'I say this avails to nothing. For those Fathers, when they say that heretics lose jurisdiction, do not allege any human laws which maybe did not exist then on this matter; rather, they argued from the nature of heresy.' Hence, there can be no exception by way of a 'special dispensation' from a loss of jurisdiction that results from the very nature of heresy. Heretics do not retain their jurisdiction: Jurisdiction is supplied to latæ sententiæ excommunicated heretics who not only lose all habitual jurisdiction, by their excommunication, but lose it ex natura hæresis. Billuart correctly notes that 'The pope… does not have his jurisdiction from the Church, but from Christ', but the pope would cease to be a member of the Church and lose all jurisdiction from Christ if he fell into manifest heresy; and since the pope cannot incur excommunication for so long as he remains pope, he could not receive supplied jurisdiction from such legislation as Ad evitanda scandala unless he were to fall from the Pontificate by tacit renunciation of office. Only then would he become minor quolibet catholico and accordingly incur excommunication latæ sententiæ, and straightaway receive supplied jurisdiction until his loss of office could be enforced by a declaratory sentence – but he would already have ceased to be pope."
All of the above quotes are taken from:
Kramer, Paul. To deceive the elect: The catholic doctrine on the question of a heretical Pope . Kindle Edition.
Why should SS quote Billuart "in a futile attempt to refute Bellarmine," when they both agree on the subject?
Either Fr. Kramer has not understood SS's position, or he has not understood Billuart's position, or he has not understood Bellarmine's position (or he has not understood any of their positions).
But that Billuart and Bellarmine agree has already been shown in previous pages.
-
Fr. Chazal provides an assessment of Billuart in his book, Contra Cekadam, pg. 20. Bear in mind that Fr. Chazal is addressing Fr. Cekada:
"Billuart, OP (1685-1757), is very clear in his own De Fide: "Nowhere is it said that Christ continues to give jurisdiction to a manifestly heretical pontiff, because this can only be known by the Church and she can avail herself of another pastor. Nevertheless, the common sentence holds that Christ, by his special deposition, for the common good and tranquility of the Church, continues to give jurisdiction to a pontiff, even manifestly heretic, until he gets declared to be a manifest heretic by the Church." (diss. IV, III, #3.obj.2)"
"And in his 'de Fide de Regulis Fidei' Billuart pulls the carpet under the mantra of sedevacantism of ipso facto loss of office of a non-member of the Catholic Church: Billuart: "It is because in the case of heresy, and not in other cases, he loses the pontificate by the very fact of heresy: how could he stay a member of the Church if he is not a member?" (Addressing Fr. Cekada:) [I think you would not refuse to quote this part of the sentence, it sounds like you, reverend Father, but bear with us and pay attention to the rest, to what you always carefully omit]. Billuart con't: "That is why he is submitted to the judgment of the Church, not to be deposed, because he has already deposed himself through heresy and has rejected the pontificate, but to be declared heretical, and thus it may be known by the Church that he is no longer pontiff: before such declaration it is not allowed to deny him obedience, because he keeps then jurisdiction, not as a right,, as if he were still pontiff, but as a fact, God willing it thus for the common good of the Church." (diss IV, a., VIII, #2, obj. 2&6).
-
No, it means nothing to me when you dishonestly snip off the words which immediately precede and follow (which is tantamount to conceding Alphonsus is against you):
“the Pope cannot be deprived of his authority by the council as if it were above him, but that he is deposed immediately by Jesus Christ, when the condition of this deposition [= the declaration of the council] is carried out as required.3 (https://dominicansavrille.us/on-the-deposition-of-the-pope-part-2-of-2/#easy-footnote-bottom-3-2028)”
Why do you think that by adding those words (even if the translation is accurate) change anything about *when* he is deposed? He is already deposed *before* the council meets. Just because I recognize that he isn’t a pope and you refuse to see reality, doesn’t change the fact that he isn’t a pope at the time his heresy is manifested.
I’ve always held that a council, whether perfect or imperfect, needs be called so it can tidy up the loose ends and officially declare him a heretic so that an election can proceed. Unfortunately for you, St. Alphonsus doesn’t support your position in the least and is just another nail in the coffin of the R&R position.
-
Why do you think that by adding those words (even if the translation is accurate) change anything about *when* he is deposed? He is already deposed *before* the council meets. Just because I recognize that he isn’t a pope and you refuse to see reality, doesn’t change the fact that he isn’t a pope at the time his heresy is manifested.
I’ve always held that a council, whether perfect or imperfect, needs be called so it can tidy up the loose ends and officially declare him a heretic so that an election can proceed. Unfortunately for you, St. Alphonsus doesn’t support your position in the least and is just another nail in the coffin of the R&R position.
:facepalm:
-
But that Billuart and Bellarmine agree has already been shown in previous pages.
If they agree, it would be with Bellarmine's actual position (vs. the S&S distortion thereof). But I would have to look at what Billuart actually said, because the citation by S&S sounds like it's talking about the internal sin of heresy (which deprives one of supernatural faith and charity) rather than with membership in the Church.
-
If they agree, it would be with Bellarmine's actual position (vs. the S&S distortion thereof). But I would have to look at what Billuart actually said, because the citation by S&S sounds like it's talking about the internal sin of heresy (which deprives one of supernatural faith and charity) rather than with membership in the Church.
What is important, and obvious to all but the wilfully blind, is that we are dealing here with theological opinion.
Anyone with an ounce of intellectual honesty will appreciate that there is a very weighty body of theological opinion of celebrated theologians and jurists spanning many centuries that holds that an heretical pope is not truly such until his heresy is demonstrated to be formal and that even then he maintains his office until such time as the Church removes him from office in some fashion or other, and that he cannot be simply judged by the individual as being no longer pope. Not every theologian holds this view, obviously, there is perhaps no 'common opinion'. The Church has never settled this dispute.
Do I then have the right to pontificate if the Church has not done so?
For those who appreciate St Robert Bellarmine's opinions, recall some of his teachings:
- "We cannot depose catholic bishops who have possessed their sees for so many centuries peacefully, unless they are legitimately judged and condemned; for in every controversy, the condition of the one possessing it is better..."
- "...we are certain with an infallible certitude that these, whom we see, are our true Bishops and Pastors. For this, neither faith, nor the character of order, nor even legitimate election is required, but only that they be held for such by the Church..."
- "...Our Lord and the Apostles only lay down that false prophets are not to be listened to by the people, and not that they depose them. And it is certain that the practice of the Church has always been that heretical bishops be deposed by bishop's councils, or by the Sovereign Pontiff..." Add to this the common sense of Cajetan: "... a heretical Pope is not deprived (of the Papacy) by divine or human law... Other bishops if they become heretics are not deprived ipso facto by divine or human law; therefore, neither is the Pope. The conclusion is obvious, because the Pope is not in a worse situation than other bishops..."
"One cannot tolerate that a personal thesis be presented as confirmed and Church-defined dogmas in books, nor that the opposite thesis be accused of heresy. Thus the people of God is troubled, dissentions among theologians are created or augmented, and the bond of charity is broken." - Pope Benedict XIV, Sollicita n25
As Fr Chazal says in Contra Cekadam: "The practical behaviour of Catholics does not depend in any way on an opinion. What you say as a private person is not a dogma... and before Vatican II no dogma on this intricate, controversial and until then academic question had ever been formulated. On the contrary, with the exception of the time of Gratian, the constant unanimity was that there is no unanimity on this question."
Thus, Pere Jean (OFM Cap, Morgon) wrote in 2016: “It is understandable that some Traditional Catholics... be deeply troubled by the scandals of Pope Francis, who seems to have surpassed his predecessors'. The sedevacantist solution may appear to them as the simplest, most logical, and best. In fact, the fundamental problem remains the same since the '70s, and the prudent attitude of Abp Lefebvre, in considering the risk of excessive and rash judgement, with the attendant danger of schism, should not be abandoned.
In 2001, the “Small Catechism on Sedevacantism” published by Le Sel de la Terre concluded: “This is a position that has not been proven at the speculative level, and it is imprudent to hold it at a practical level, an imprudence that can bear very serious consequences.” (No. 36, p. 117) This conclusion holds as much for pope Francis as for pope John-Paul II who had kissed the Quran.
In this lies the whole drama of the sedevacantist movement. Individuals dogmatising an opinion, setting themselves up against their superiors (eg Sanborn against Lefebvre), dividing Tradition, isolating souls from the sacraments etc... and undoubtedly leading some souls down the path of schism, separating them forever from the Holy See.
-
Q. Is a Pope who falls into heresy deprived, ipso jure, of the Pontificate?
A. There are two opinions: one holds that he is by virtue of divine appointment, divested ipso facto, of the Pontificate; the other, that he is, jure divino, only removable. Both opinions agree that he must at least be declared guilty of heresy by the Church, ie, by an ecuмenical council or the College of Cardinals - Rev S B Smith DD, Elements of Ecclesiasticla Law, Benzinger Bros, 1881, 3rd ed, p210
Elements of ecclesiastical law : Smith, S. B. (Sebastian Bach), 1845-1895 : Free Download, Borrow, and Streaming : Internet Archive (https://archive.org/details/elementsofeccles01smituoft/page/240/mode/2up)
Page 240 in this online edition
-
Q. Is a Pope who falls into heresy deprived, ipso jure, of the Pontificate?
A. There are two opinions: one holds that he is by virtue of divine appointment, divested ipso facto, of the Pontificate; the other, that he is, jure divino, only removable. Both opinions agree that he must at least be declared guilty of heresy by the Church, ie, by an ecuмenical council or the College of Cardinals - Rev S B Smith DD, Elements of Ecclesiasticla Law, Benzinger Bros, 1881, 3rd ed, p210
Elements of ecclesiastical law : Smith, S. B. (Sebastian Bach), 1845-1895 : Free Download, Borrow, and Streaming : Internet Archive (https://archive.org/details/elementsofeccles01smituoft/page/240/mode/2up)
Page 240 in this online edition
Incorrect on two counts. 1) There are more than two opinions, and 2) St. Robert Bellarmine makes it clear that no declaration is required. Nor does this explain what ipso jure means. Which law? Divine Law or Church law? In addition, sedeprivationism distinguishes, that such a Pope is not deprived by the Divine Law itself of material possession of the Pontificate, but is deprive by Divine Law of being able to exercise the authority of the office (apart from the material aspects, such as making appointments). So this citation is a hot mess. St. Robert's citation of the Pope St. Celestine decree regarding Nestorius is fatal to this position and to that of Salza and Siscoe.
At the end of the day, it doesn't really matter. This has nothing to do with the chief error of R&R to which many of you adhere pertinaciously.
-
What is important, and obvious to all but the wilfully blind, is that we are dealing here with theological opinion.
...
In this lies the whole drama of the sedevacantist movement. Individuals dogmatising an opinion, setting themselves up against their superiors (eg Sanborn against Lefebvre), dividing Tradition, isolating souls from the sacraments etc... and undoubtedly leading some souls down the path of schism, separating them forever from the Holy See.
None of your long-winded post has anything to do with the passage of mine that you quoted. Most of it is a distortion and taking stuff out of context and misapplying it.
No, the problem isn't with sedevacantists. It's with certain R&R Old Catholic heretics who promote the notion that the legitimate Papal authority can corrupt the Magisterium and the Public worship of the Church. If you hold this, you too are a heretic, and part of the problem, not of the solution, despite your preferences for the smells and bells of the Tridentine Mass.
PS, nor was +Lefebvre Father Sanborn's superior. +Lefebvre had no jurisdiction or authority over anyone.
What an idiot, accusing SVs of schism, when Canon Lawyers clearly state that it's not schismatic to refuse submission to a Pope based on well-founded doubts about his legitimacy. You'll notice that the implied corollary is that it is schismatic to refuse submission WITHOUT doubts about the Pope's legitimacy ... as R&R does. R&R is what's schismatic, and you have the temerity to accuse SVs of it. Your assertion that SVs are separating themselves from the Holy See is begging the question, assuming that Bergoglio and his predecessors are the Holy See. But you claim that it IS the Holy See and you separate yourselves from that See. It's ludicrous that you claim to be united with the Holy See and in submission to it because you pay lip service ("yes, he's the pope") and put up a picture of Bergoglio in the vestibule.
Really, both the stupidity and the bad will involved in this version of the R&R position are almost beyond belief.
And +Lefebvre did not adhere to your errors, despite your assertions, and it's provable from his own words.
-
Q. Is a Pope who falls into heresy deprived, ipso jure, of the Pontificate?
A. There are two opinions: one holds that he is by virtue of divine appointment, divested ipso facto, of the Pontificate; the other, that he is, jure divino, only removable. Both opinions agree that he must at least be declared guilty of heresy by the Church, ie, by an ecuмenical council or the College of Cardinals - Rev S B Smith DD, Elements of Ecclesiasticla Law, Benzinger Bros, 1881, 3rd ed, p210
Elements of ecclesiastical law : Smith, S. B. (Sebastian Bach), 1845-1895 : Free Download, Borrow, and Streaming : Internet Archive (https://archive.org/details/elementsofeccles01smituoft/page/240/mode/2up)
Page 240 in this online edition
The thing is that these "popes" didn't fall into heresy.
They were blatant, persistent, public heretics and therefore
out of the Church before they were even elected.
Can a non-Catholic become pope?
It's the equivalent to using a potato chip at the consecration at Mass instead of unleavened bread - it’s invalid matter and no consecration takes place.
A public heretic or apostate is not “valid matter”for any office in the Church as such a one is barred by divine law from the papacy.
So no consecration could take place.
There is no pope to judge.
These theological arguments that go round and round are about judging and deposing a pope. That's above our paygrade.
I can't depose them. That's not my jurisdiction. That's not for me to worry about.
I just can't worship with them.
The bottom line for me, and I don't try to bind other people's consciences or say they are going to hell if they don't agree
but for me anyway
it's just a matter of basic Catechism.
It's against the First Commandment to pray in union with non-Catholics.
I don't need a Church council to come to my town and declare the Imam down the street or the Protestant preacher a heretic even if they called themselves Catholic. I have the ability to determine that much on my own.
God gave me eyes and ears.
If somebody dresses up as a priest or even as a pope and tells me that we worship the same god as Muslims (which VII states) then I know they aren't Catholic. Catholics don't worship Allah. I don't worship Allah.
Even little ol' me knows that much. ::)
If even an angel dresses up as pope and preaches a false gospel, I'm commanded to treat them as an anathema.
But these guys aren't even disguised as angels.
They have made it very, very, clear they deny Christ, deny the need for His Sacrifice to go to Heaven, deny His bodily resurrection, they worship in mosques and ѕуηαgσgυєs and with pagans and write books saying that all religions lead to Heaven etc. etc. etc.
I posted photos earlier in this thread where they walk around blatantly showing themselves to not be Catholics. Benedict wearing the Star of Remphan on his mitre, Paul VI wearing the Ephod, Benedict getting a witchdoctor blessing, Francis worshipping pajamamama.
They have left the Barque.
They are the leaders of the nєω ωσrℓ∂ σr∂єr One World Religion.
It's blatant and in your face.
God allowed that so even the common man can see it with their own eyes.
I can't pray with non-Catholics.
That would be a sin against the First Commandment.
How can I worship una cuм (in union with) these guys?
How can I join my prayers to theirs?
I don't share the same religion.
I don't share the same gods.
-
Is there an error there or is this quote being misinterpreted (as usual) by Salza and Siscoe? This part (from Billuart) in the actual quotations marks seems to be a reference to the internal sin of heresy, where he's lost sanctifying grace and can still be head of the Church. I'd like to see the actual full context of the quote. Indeed, the head can still function after having lost the "influx of interior faith and charity", but that's not what we're talking about here, but rather loss of membership due to EXTERNAL (public manifest heresy), i.e. a physical severing of the head from the body. If the head is severed from the body, it can certainly no longer govern / control the body.
The part in quotes that begins with ""Billuart’s error consists in his failure..." are the words of Fr. Paul Kramer. Sorry for the confusion. None of the quotes I provided in that post are the words of Salza or Siscoe. Fr. Paul Kramer is writing about the public sin of heresy.
-
Why should SS quote Billuart "in a futile attempt to refute Bellarmine," when they both agree on the subject?
Either Fr. Kramer has not understood SS's position, or he has not understood Billuart's position, or he has not understood Bellarmine's position (or he has not understood any of their positions).
But that Billuart and Bellarmine agree has already been shown in previous pages.
All the quotes in that post are the words of Fr. Paul Kramer except the quote in quote surrounded by ' marks, which are Fr. Paul Kramer quoting someone else.
-
What is important, and obvious to all but the wilfully blind, is that we are dealing here with theological opinion.
What we know for certain is that the public sin of manifest formal heresy per se separates one from the Church.
-
Q. Is a Pope who falls into heresy deprived, ipso jure, of the Pontificate?
A. There are two opinions: one holds that he is by virtue of divine appointment, divested ipso facto, of the Pontificate; the other, that he is, jure divino, only removable. Both opinions agree that he must at least be declared guilty of heresy by the Church, ie, by an ecuмenical council or the College of Cardinals - Rev S B Smith DD, Elements of Ecclesiasticla Law, Benzinger Bros, 1881, 3rd ed, p210
Elements of ecclesiastical law : Smith, S. B. (Sebastian Bach), 1845-1895 : Free Download, Borrow, and Streaming : Internet Archive (https://archive.org/details/elementsofeccles01smituoft/page/240/mode/2up)
Page 240 in this online edition
You fail to make the distinction between the sin of heresy and the crime of heresy. The public sin of heresy per se separates one from the Church. The author of what you wrote did not have the luxury of Pope Pius XII's teaching in Mystici Corporis:
“For not every sin, however grave it may be, is such as of its own nature to sever a man from the Body of the Church, as does schism or heresy or apostasy.”
(Pope Pius XII, Mystici Corporis, 23) [Emphases mine]
-
None of your long-winded post has anything to do with the passage of mine that you quoted. Most of it is a distortion and taking stuff out of context and misapplying it.
No, the problem isn't with sedevacantists. It's with certain R&R Old Catholic heretics who promote the notion that the legitimate Papal authority can corrupt the Magisterium and the Public worship of the Church. If you hold this, you too are a heretic, and part of the problem, not of the solution, despite your preferences for the smells and bells of the Tridentine Mass.
PS, nor was +Lefebvre Father Sanborn's superior. +Lefebvre had no jurisdiction or authority over anyone.
What an idiot, accusing SVs of schism, when Canon Lawyers clearly state that it's not schismatic to refuse submission to a Pope based on well-founded doubts about his legitimacy. You'll notice that the implied corollary is that it is schismatic to refuse submission WITHOUT doubts about the Pope's legitimacy ... as R&R does. R&R is what's schismatic, and you have the temerity to accuse SVs of it. Your assertion that SVs are separating themselves from the Holy See is begging the question, assuming that Bergoglio and his predecessors are the Holy See. But you claim that it IS the Holy See and you separate yourselves from that See. It's ludicrous that you claim to be united with the Holy See and in submission to it because you pay lip service ("yes, he's the pope") and put up a picture of Bergoglio in the vestibule.
Really, both the stupidity and the bad will involved in this version of the R&R position are almost beyond belief.
And +Lefebvre did not adhere to your errors, despite your assertions, and it's provable from his own words.
Sorry if you thought I was attacking you with that post Ladislaus. I can see why you took offence. I'm not sure why I quoted you to introduce that. Mea culpa!
-
The thing is that these "popes" didn't fall into heresy.
They were blatant, persistent, public heretics and therefore
out of the Church before they were even elected.
Can a non-Catholic become pope?
It's the equivalent to using a potato chip at the consecration at Mass instead of unleavened bread - it’s invalid matter and no consecration takes place.
A public heretic or apostate is not “valid matter”for any office in the Church as such a one is barred by divine law from the papacy.
So no consecration could take place.
There is no pope to judge.
These theological arguments that go round and round are about judging and deposing a pope. That's above our paygrade.
I can't depose them. That's not my jurisdiction. That's not for me to worry about.
I just can't worship with them.
The bottom line for me, and I don't try to bind other people's consciences or say they are going to hell if they don't agree
but for me anyway
it's just a matter of basic Catechism.
It's against the First Commandment to pray in union with non-Catholics.
I don't need a Church council to come to my town and declare the Imam down the street or the Protestant preacher a heretic even if they called themselves Catholic. I have the ability to determine that much on my own.
God gave me eyes and ears.
If somebody dresses up as a priest or even as a pope and tells me that we worship the same god as Muslims (which VII states) then I know they aren't Catholic. Catholics don't worship Allah. I don't worship Allah.
Even little ol' me knows that much. ::)
If even an angel dresses up as pope and preaches a false gospel, I'm commanded to treat them as an anathema.
But these guys aren't even disguised as angels.
They have made it very, very, clear they deny Christ, deny the need for His Sacrifice to go to Heaven, deny His bodily resurrection, they worship in mosques and ѕуηαgσgυєs and with pagans and write books saying that all religions lead to Heaven etc. etc. etc.
I posted photos earlier in this thread where they walk around blatantly showing themselves to not be Catholics. Benedict wearing the Star of Remphan on his mitre, Paul VI wearing the Ephod, Benedict getting a witchdoctor blessing, Francis worshipping pajamamama.
They have left the Barque.
They are the leaders of the nєω ωσrℓ∂ σr∂єr One World Religion.
It's blatant and in your face.
God allowed that so even the common man can see it with their own eyes.
I can't pray with non-Catholics.
That would be a sin against the First Commandment.
How can I worship una cuм (in union with) these guys?
How can I join my prayers to theirs?
I don't share the same religion.
I don't share the same gods.
A very good post, Miser. I'd like to add another dimension, a part I think you left out.
This final cause of this crisis is, at with everything else under the sun, the glory of God. The crisis is not about them, i.e. the popes, or about the Church qua an institution that leads men to Christ, though I do think it's a judgment on the institution. The Church, and the popes and subjection to them, are only means used by God, and then they are not "intrinsically necessary" means, but means it pleases and has pleased God to use under the New Covenant, as He uses the sacraments of the New Covenant. I'll quote the oft maligned (and by me as well) Holy Office Letter of 1949, with which I take fault not so much for its theology as for the application of its judgment vis a vis St. Benedict Center, and what it failed to say about the targets of the SBC's vitriol (i.e., Cushing and his heretical cohorts, who would come to dominate, alas, at Vatican II) :
In His infinite mercy God has willed that the effects, necessary for one to be saved, of those helps to salvation which are directed toward man's final end, not by intrinsic necessity, but only by divine institution, can also be obtained in certain circuмstances when those helps are used only in desire and longing. This we see clearly stated in the Sacred Council of Trent, both in reference to the sacrament of regeneration and in reference to the sacrament of penance (<Denzinger>, nn. 797, 807).
The same in its own degree must be asserted of the Church, in as far as she is the general help to salvation. Therefore, that one may obtain eternal salvation, it is not always required that he be incorporated into the Church actually as a member, but it is necessary that at least he be united to her by desire and longing.
https://www.ewtn.com/catholicism/library/letter-to-the-archbishop-of-boston-2076
The Church is a "general help" to salvation, by "divine institution." In that regard she is like Israel of the Old Covenant, through whom God spoke in the Law and the prophets, and whose rites and rituals, her daily worship and sacrifices, pointed to Christ, whom the elect of Israel could see dimly - some more clearly than others - through them. And as then it was not about Israel, but about the elect and Christ's "sheep" (John 10), so it is now. It is the elect who, through their faith and holy submission and dependence on God, render Him the ultimate glory, who give full expression to and realize the "final cause." It is not about the Church, preserving its indefectibility, but about seeking, finding and saving Christ's sheep: "he chose us in him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and unspotted in his sight in charity." Eph. 1:4.
As it was with Israel at the times Elias and of the apostles, so it is now:
Romans 11
[[1] I say then: Hath God cast away his people? God forbid. For I also am an Israelite of the seed of Abraham, of the tribe of Benjamin. [2] God hath not cast away his people, which he foreknew. Know you not what the scripture saith of Elias; how he calleth on God against Israel? [3] Lord, they have slain thy prophets, they have dug down thy altars; and I am left alone, and they seek my life. [4] But what saith the divine answer to him? I have left me seven thousand men, that have not bowed their knees to Baal. [5] Even so then at this present time also, there is a remnant saved according to the election of grace.
It is not about "the Church," but it is about us, Miser, Ladislaus, Stubborn, Sean, 2Vermont, Mithrandylan, Viva Cristo Rey and on and on. Outside of the forum, I dare say it is also about, and includes, Timothy Gordon, Michael Matt, Michael Voris . . . thousands who worship Christ as understood by the redeemed under the New Covenant, those who can say, with us - among the Sedes, the R & R, the faithful among the Novus Ordo - "with the heart, we believe unto justice . . . [and] with the mouth, confession is made unto salvation." Belief and confession of what? The saving Gospel of Jesus Christ:
2 Corinthians 5:21
Him, who knew no sin, he hath made sin for us, that we might be made the justice of God in him.
Viva Cristo Rey once remarked here, "Some of the greatest saints had rosary in one hand and bible in the other. And the clothes on their backs. They owned nothing else." Indeed. And the Bible is our book, a Catholic book. It is the revelation of God to His Church, and about His Church and people, and how they will be saved. His Church has tares and wheat, did, and will always. His Church has false priests and prophets and frauds and hucksters amidst it, does and always did. And Scripture gives a light to lead through these times, and in looking back at the history of God's people, and of God's revelations regarding the future, we, the sheep, are given eyes to see, and can come to understand where we are and the crisis we confront, though somewhat dimly and without absolute clarity, yet enough to get the "big picture" and enough to understand the general lay of the land.
So if indeed the pope(s) go afoul, and worship in pagan temples, and "teach" things below the level of "God hath said" - below the level of divine revelation, below the "infallible" - that feebly blow against the wind of the Holy Ghost and the eternal and traditional Gospel, there is nothing new under sun, even this:
Ezekiel 22
[26] Her priests have despised my law, and have defiled my sanctuaries: they have put no difference between holy and profane: nor have distinguished between the polluted and the clean: and they have turned away their eyes from my sabbaths, and I was profaned in the midst of them . . . [28] And her prophets have daubed them without tempering the mortar, seeing vain things, and divining lies unto them, saying: Thus saith the Lord God: when the Lord hath not spoken.
You can affix yourself to theologian's "daubings" about the indefectibility of the Church and how the "ecclesia docens" can never teach error even when they speak below the level of declaring something to be from God's mouth, or how "true" priests could never "despise [God's] law, and . . . defile [His] sanctuary," but I hold to my Rosary and THIS, which says other, and I'm instructed.
I also believe that those who go up to "the temple of God" in a Catholic Church to receive the Body of Christ with a believing heart and true faith, looking to Him for the redemption of their sins - whether in the Novus Ordo, an SSPX chapel, an SSPV chapel, an independent Sede chapel, or any chapel under a Catholic priest offering the sacrifice with the same shared faith - like the faithful Jєωs who went up to Jerusalem during the Pasch when its priests were despising his law and defiling his sanctuary, are among the 7,000 spoke of by Elias and St. Paul.
Like Miser says, I think it is simple. I think the signs are clearly there showing the hierarchy to be going foul and deceiving some unto their destruction. But I think Scripture and the doctors of our faith, with their simple wisdom and clear sight, have also taught that if one holds to "Israel," to what God has identified as the "Israel of God" and the temple of His people by the clear marks of its lineage and progeny and succession, i.e, the identifiable Catholic Church, even if full of priests despising His law and sanctuary, one is and may be among the true elect of Israel and may possess the Gospel faith that saves.
I close with St. Augustine and St. Francis de Sale, two doctors of the Church who I think would understand our plight and would also have counseled remaining Catholic and "with the Church" to the best of our lights and understandings, and counseled against "setting up another altar," leaving the communion of Israel as God has seen fit to constitute it in our present time:
So cried Moses and Isaiah, Jeremiah and Ezekiel. Let us see then if they acted thus, if they left the people of God, and betook themselves to other nations. How many and vehement rebukes did Jeremiah utter against the sinners, and wicked ones of his people. Yet he lived amongst them, he entered into the same temple with them, celebrated the same mysteries;[ 1107 ] he lived in that congregation of wicked men, but by his crying out “he went out from them.” This is “to go out from them;” this is not “to touch the unclean thing,” the not consenting to them in will, and the not sparing them in word. What shall I say of Jeremiah, of Isaiah, of Daniel, and Ezekiel, and the rest of the prophets, who did not retire from the wicked people, lest they should desert the good who were mingled with that people, among whom themselves were able to be such as they were?
Augustine, Saint. The Complete Works of St. Augustine: Cross-linked to the Bible and with in-line footnotes (pp. 11645-11646). Kindle Edition.
I say, thirdly, that the authority of the extraordinary mission never destroys the ordinary, and is never given to overthrow it. Witness all the Prophets, who never set up altar against altar, never overthrew the priesthood of Aaron, never abolished the constitutions of the ѕуηαgσgυє. Witness Our Lord, who declares that every kingdom divided against itself shall be brought to desolation, and a house upon a house shall fall (Luke xi. 17). Witness the respect which he paid to the chair of Moses, the doctrine of which he would have to be observed. And indeed if the extraordinary ought to abolish the ordinary, how should we know when, and how, and to whom, to give our obedience. No, no; the ordinary is immortal for such time as the Church is here below in the world. The pastors and teachers whom he has once given to the Church are to have a perpetual succession for the perfection of the saints . . . till we all meet in the unity of faith, and of the knowledge of the Son of God, unto a perfect man, unto the measure of the age of the fulness of Christ. That we may not now be children, tossed to and fro, an d carried about with every wind -i doctrine, in the wickedness of men and in their craftiness (Eph. iv. 1) Such is the strong argument which S. Paul uses to prove that if the ordinary pastors and doctors had not perpetual succession, and were liable to have their authority abrogated by the extraordinary, we should also have but an irregular faith and discipline, interrupted at every step; we should be liable to be seduced by men, who on every occasion would boast of having an extraordinary vocation. Thus like the Gentiles we should walk (as he infers afterwards) in the vanity of our mind (ibid. 17), each one persuading himself that he felt the movement of the Holy Ghost; of which our age furnishes so many examples that this is one of the strongest proofs that can be brought forward in this connection. For if the extraordinary may talge away the ordinary ministration, to which shall we give the guardianship of it - to Calvin or to Luther, to Luther or to Paciomontanus, to Paciomontanus or to Brandratus, to Brandratus or to Brentius, to Brentius or to the Queen of England? - for each will draw to his or her side this pretext of extraordinary mission.
But the word of Our Lord frees us from all these difficulties, who has built his Church an so good a foundation and in such wise proportions that the Bates of hell shall never prevail against it. And if they have never prevailed not shall prevail, then the extraordinary vocation is not necessary to abolish it, for God hateth nothing of those things which he has made (Wis. xi. 25). How then did they abolish the ordinary Church, to make an extraordinary one, since it is he, who has built the ordinary one, and cemented it with his own blood?
https://www.goodcatholicbooks.org/francis/catholic-controversy/church-mission.html#CHAPTER_III
-
None of your long-winded post has anything to do with the passage of mine that you quoted. Most of it is a distortion and taking stuff out of context and misapplying it.
No, the problem isn't with sedevacantists. It's with certain R&R Old Catholic heretics who promote the notion that the legitimate Papal authority can corrupt the Magisterium and the Public worship of the Church. If you hold this, you too are a heretic, and part of the problem, not of the solution, despite your preferences for the smells and bells of the Tridentine Mass.
PS, nor was +Lefebvre Father Sanborn's superior. +Lefebvre had no jurisdiction or authority over anyone.
What an idiot, accusing SVs of schism, when Canon Lawyers clearly state that it's not schismatic to refuse submission to a Pope based on well-founded doubts about his legitimacy. You'll notice that the implied corollary is that it is schismatic to refuse submission WITHOUT doubts about the Pope's legitimacy ... as R&R does. R&R is what's schismatic, and you have the temerity to accuse SVs of it. Your assertion that SVs are separating themselves from the Holy See is begging the question, assuming that Bergoglio and his predecessors are the Holy See. But you claim that it IS the Holy See and you separate yourselves from that See. It's ludicrous that you claim to be united with the Holy See and in submission to it because you pay lip service ("yes, he's the pope") and put up a picture of Bergoglio in the vestibule.
Really, both the stupidity and the bad will involved in this version of the R&R position are almost beyond belief.
And +Lefebvre did not adhere to your errors, despite your assertions, and it's provable from his own words.
There have been sedevacantist groups that have gone into schism. Fr. Chazal lists them, but I can't recall their names just now. And it's not the majority of sedevacantists, but rather a minority that have gone into schism. That's the danger associated with sedevacantism. DR is not saying that all sedevacantists are schismatic. Of course they aren't.
And you tend to go on and on about R&R and a certain belief about the magisterium, but you are the one who quibbles about this. We don't. Archbishop Lefebvre did not address the "corrupt magisterium" problem that you bring up a lot, because it wasn't and isn't necessary. It's only necessary for a sedevacantist to push that view, in order to promote sedevacantism.
-
There have been sedevacantist groups that have gone into schism. Fr. Chazal lists them, but I can't recall their names just now. And it's not the majority of sedevacantists, but rather a minority that have gone into schism. That's the danger associated with sedevacantism. DR is not saying that all sedevacantists are schismatic. Of course they aren't.
And you tend to go on and on about R&R and a certain belief about the magisterium, but you are the one who quibbles about this. We don't. Archbishop Lefebvre did not address the "corrupt magisterium" problem that you bring up a lot, because it wasn't and isn't necessary. It's only necessary for a sedevacantist to push that view, in order to promote sedevacantism.
Correction: It wasn't DR who brought up the issue of schism and sedevacantism; it was PV who brought it up. My mistake.
-
A very good post, Miser. I'd like to add another dimension, a part I think you left out.
This final cause of this crisis is, at with everything else under the sun, the glory of God. The crisis is not about them, i.e. the popes, or about the Church qua an institution that leads men to Christ, though I do think it's a judgment on the institution. The Church, and the popes and subjection to them, are only means used by God, and then they are not "intrinsically necessary" means, but means it pleases and has pleased God to use under the New Covenant, as He uses the sacraments of the New Covenant. I'll quote the oft maligned (and by me as well) Holy Office Letter of 1949, with which I take fault not so much for its theology as for the application of its judgment vis a vis St. Benedict Center, and what it failed to say about the targets of the SBC's vitriol (i.e., Cushing and his heretical cohorts, who would come to dominate, alas, at Vatican II) :
The Church is a "general help" to salvation, by "divine institution." In that regard she is like Israel of the Old Covenant, through whom God spoke in the Law and the prophets, and whose rites and rituals, her daily worship and sacrifices, pointed to Christ, whom the elect of Israel could see dimly - some more clearly than others - through them. And as then it was not about Israel, but about the elect and Christ's "sheep" (John 10), so it is now. It is the elect who, through their faith and holy submission and dependence on God, render Him the ultimate glory, who give full expression to and realize the "final cause." It is not about the Church, preserving its indefectibility, but about seeking, finding and saving Christ's sheep: "he chose us in him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and unspotted in his sight in charity." Eph. 1:4.
As it was with Israel at the times Elias and of the apostles, so it is now:
It is not about "the Church," but it is about us, Miser, Ladislaus, Stubborn, Sean, 2Vermont, Mithrandylan, Viva Cristo Rey and on and on. Outside of the forum, I dare say it is also about, and includes, Timothy Gordon, Michael Matt, Michael Voris . . . thousands who worship Christ as understood by the redeemed under the New Covenant, those who can say, with us - among the Sedes, the R & R, the faithful among the Novus Ordo - "with the heart, we believe unto justice . . . [and] with the mouth, confession is made unto salvation." Belief and confession of what? The saving Gospel of Jesus Christ:
Viva Cristo Rey once remarked here, "Some of the greatest saints had rosary in one hand and bible in the other. And the clothes on their backs. They owned nothing else." Indeed. And the Bible is our book, a Catholic book. It is the revelation of God to His Church, and about His Church and people, and how they will be saved. His Church has tares and wheat, did, and will always. His Church has false priests and prophets and frauds and hucksters amidst it, does and always did. And Scripture gives a light to lead through these times, and in looking back at the history of God's people, and of God's revelations regarding the future, we, the sheep, are given eyes to see, and can come to understand where we are and the crisis we confront, though somewhat dimly and without absolute clarity, yet enough to get the "big picture" and enough to understand the general lay of the land.
So if indeed the pope(s) go afoul, and worship in pagan temples, and "teach" things below the level of "God hath said" - below the level of divine revelation, below the "infallible" - that feebly blow against the wind of the Holy Ghost and the eternal and traditional Gospel, there is nothing new under sun, even this:
You can affix yourself to theologian's "daubings" about the indefectibility of the Church and how the "ecclesia docens" can never teach error even when they speak below the level of declaring something to be from God's mouth, or how "true" priests could never "despise [God's] law, and . . . defile [His] sanctuary," but I hold to my Rosary and THIS, which says other, and I'm instructed.
I also believe that those who go up to "the temple of God" in a Catholic Church to receive the Body of Christ with a believing heart and true faith, looking to Him for the redemption of their sins - whether in the Novus Ordo, an SSPX chapel, an SSPV chapel, an independent Sede chapel, or any chapel under a Catholic priest offering the sacrifice with the same shared faith - like the faithful Jєωs who went up to Jerusalem during the Pasch when its priests were despising his law and defiling his sanctuary, are among the 7,000 spoke of by Elias and St. Paul.
Like Miser says, I think it is simple. I think the signs are clearly there showing the hierarchy to be going foul and deceiving some unto their destruction. But I think Scripture and the doctors of our faith, with their simple wisdom and clear sight, have also taught that if one holds to "Israel," to what God has identified as the "Israel of God" and the temple of His people by the clear marks of its lineage and progeny and succession, i.e, the identifiable Catholic Church, even if full of priests despising His law and sanctuary, one is and may be among the true elect of Israel and may possess the Gospel faith that saves.
I close with St. Augustine and St. Francis de Sale, two doctors of the Church who I think would understand our plight and would also have counseled remaining Catholic and "with the Church" to the best of our lights and understandings, and counseled against "setting up another altar," leaving the communion of Israel as God has seen fit to constitute it in our present time:
Nicely stated DR.
-
Correction: It wasn't DR who brought up the issue of schism and sedevacantism; it was PV who brought it up. My mistake.
Meg,
Yeah, thanks for pointing that out. Lad and I get into enough tussles on our own without the need to have someone create one. :laugh1:
And thanks for the compliment.
God bless,
DR
-
The bottom line for me, and I don't try to bind other people's consciences or say they are going to hell if they don't agree
The Church binds us to believe with Divine and Catholic Faith that the public sin of manifest formal heresy per se separates the heretic from the Church. Some arguments I have seen in this thread try to place qualifiers such as "the Church has to make that judgment". These qualifiers add conditions that are not in the Church's teaching on this matter. I think a key cause in adding these conditions is because the distinction is not made between the "sin" of heresy and the "crime" of heresy. The Church teaching is that the "sin" of heresy separates the heretic from the Church. This would be the case regardless of whether heresy is classified as a crime by the Church. "Sin' is a concept regarding Divine Law and Natural Law whereas "crime" is a concept of human positive law. That the Church and only the Church can judge one to be a heretic makes the Church teaching regarding the "sin" of heresy dependent upon the "crime" of heresy. This is false because human positive law is based on Divine and Natural Law and not the other way around and more fundamentally, human positive law doesn't need to exist at all.
Everyone is bound in conscience to hold that the public sin of manifest formal heresy per se separates the heretic from the Church, and this without qualifications.
-
The Church binds us to believe with Divine and Catholic Faith that the public sin of manifest formal heresy per se separates the heretic from the Church. Some arguments I have seen in this thread try to place qualifiers such as "the Church has to make that judgment". These qualifiers add conditions that are not in the Church's teaching on this matter. I think a key cause in adding these conditions is because the distinction is not made between the "sin" of heresy and the "crime" of heresy. The Church teaching is that the "sin" of heresy separates the heretic from the Church. This would be the case regardless of whether heresy is classified as a crime by the Church. "Sin' is a concept regarding Divine Law and Natural Law whereas "crime" is a concept of human positive law. That the Church and only the Church can judge one to be a heretic makes the Church teaching regarding the "sin" of heresy dependent upon the "crime" of heresy. This is false because human positive law is based on Divine and Natural Law and not the other way around and more fundamentally, human positive law doesn't need to exist at all.
Everyone is bound in conscience to hold that the public sin of manifest formal heresy per se separates the heretic from the Church, and this without qualifications.
...except that you have no idea what "manifest formal heresy" is.
-
There have been sedevacantist groups that have gone into schism. Fr. Chazal lists them, but I can't recall their names just now. And it's not the majority of sedevacantists, but rather a minority that have gone into schism.
Well, if the pope is the pope, then those who reject his legitimacy are per se schismatics.
-
All the quotes in that post are the words of Fr. Paul Kramer except the quote in quote surrounded by ' marks, which are Fr. Paul Kramer quoting someone else.
And?
-
What we know for certain is that the public sin of manifest formal heresy per se separates one from the Church.
...but not his jurisdiction over the Church, as has been repeatedly shown.
-
Well, if the pope is the pope, then those who reject his legitimacy are per se schismatics.
Yes, except if you have well founded reason(s) to suspect his legitimacy.
-
Yes, except if you have well founded reason to suspect his legitimacy.
Suspicion of heresy can lead to a council to declare, but does not in itself separate one from the Church.
Unless the Church declares the fact of the heresy, the jurisdiction remains.
-
Well, if the pope is the pope, then those who reject his legitimacy are per se schismatics.
Sean,
For rejecting a manifest heretic?
As Ladislaus has pointed out, the NO conservative has better grounds for calling you as a schismatic for rejecting a valid popes' liturgical reforms and canonizations, even though you hold the NO "valid."
Mind you, I'm not saying I agree with Lad's position, which has its own problems . . . as almost all "solutions" do btw.
DR
-
The Church binds us to believe with Divine and Catholic Faith that the public sin of manifest formal heresy per se separates the heretic from the Church.....The Church teaching is that the "sin" of heresy separates the heretic from the Church...
Everyone is bound in conscience to hold that the public sin of manifest formal heresy per se separates the heretic from the Church, and this without qualifications.
You've repeated this a few times now that the Church binds us to believe this, yet any and every Catholic who has fallen into the mortal sin of heresy and wants to repent, can (and must) do what *only* members of the Church are permitted (and encouraged) to do, namely, walk into the confessional, confess their sins and receive absolution, just like you have to, and I have to , and all Catholics have to.
So by saying what you said, are you saying the Church actually permits all those outside of the Church to use her sacrament of penance?
-
Sean,
For rejecting a manifest heretic?
As Ladislaus has pointed out, the NO conservative has better grounds for calling you as a schismatic for rejecting a valid popes' liturgical reforms and canonizations, even though you hold the NO "valid."
Mind you, I'm not saying I agree with Lad's position, which has its own problems . . . as almost all "solutions" do btw.
DR
I can’t find a definition for schism which includes Lad’s minutiae.
What I do find is that one who rejects the authority of the pope to govern the universal Church is schismatic.
This would seem to include by definition all those who deny the legitimacy of Francis, does it not?
PS: And since the Church has not determined his pertinacity, by definition he is not a “formal manifest” heretic (as has been repeatedly discussed).
-
...but not his jurisdiction over the Church, as has been repeatedly shown.
What kind of jurisdiction?
-
You've repeated this a few times now that the Church binds us to believe this, yet any and every Catholic who has fallen into the mortal sin of heresy and wants to repent, can (and must) do what *only* members of the Church are permitted (and encouraged) to do, namely, walk into the confessional, confess their sins and receive absolution, just like you have to, and I have to , and all Catholics have to.
So by saying what you said, are you saying the Church actually permits all those outside of the Church to use her sacrament of penance?
If the heretic is excommunicated by name by the Church, what would he have to do?
-
What kind of jurisdiction?
Ordinary
-
Ordinary
Is ordinary jurisdiction inextricably bound to an office?
-
Is ordinary jurisdiction inextricably bound to an office?
In the case of a pope, or generally speaking?
-
If the heretic is excommunicated by name by the Church, what would he have to do?
That depends on the requirements of the censure or the requirements given at the time the censure was issued. According to Canon Law, no abjuration of heresy is required for absolution - unless the bishop makes it a requirement. I posted the canon law once but cannot find it now.
At any rate, Fr. Wathen explains it......
"It may surprise lay readers to learn that in the traditional formula of absolution in the Sacrament of Penance there is a general absolution from the censures of the Church. This means, of course, that everyone who has received a censure, and everyone who is"under a censure," is a Catholic, since he goes to confession to seek its removal.....
One who is not a Catholic cannot receive the Sacraments. The excommunicated Catholic can receive the Sacrament of Penance, whereby the censure can be removed, and the sin be forgiven. The Church first removes the censure, then forgives the sin...
May our Lord Jesus Christ absolve you: and I, by His authority, absolve you from every bond of excommunication,
(suspension), and interdict, in so far as I am able and you are needful. Next, I absolve you from your sins, in the Name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost. Amen.
(The word suspensionis {suspension} is used only for clerics. A cleric may be suspended without being excommunicated; but, should he incur excommunication, he is suspended also.)..."
-
In the case of a pope, or generally speaking?
Any office divinely constituted.
-
Any office divinely constituted.
What is a divinely constituted office?
-
What is a divinely constituted office?
An office established by Jesus Christ.
-
An office established by Jesus Christ.
Can you name a few?
-
Can you name a few?
Pope and bishop
-
That depends on the requirements of the censure or the requirements given at the time the censure was issued. According to Canon Law, no abjuration of heresy is required for absolution - unless the bishop makes it a requirement. I posted the canon law once but cannot find it now.
At any rate, Fr. Wathen explains it......
"It may surprise lay readers to learn that in the traditional formula of absolution in the Sacrament of Penance there is a general absolution from the censures of the Church. This means, of course, that everyone who has received a censure, and everyone who is"under a censure," is a Catholic, since he goes to confession to seek its removal.....
One who is not a Catholic cannot receive the Sacraments. The excommunicated Catholic can receive the Sacrament of Penance, whereby the censure can be removed, and the sin be forgiven. The Church first removes the censure, then forgives the sin...
May our Lord Jesus Christ absolve you: and I, by His authority, absolve you from every bond of excommunication,
(suspension), and interdict, in so far as I am able and you are needful. Next, I absolve you from your sins, in the Name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost. Amen.
(The word suspensionis {suspension} is used only for clerics. A cleric may be suspended without being excommunicated; but, should he incur excommunication, he is suspended also.)..."
Good post Stubborn!
-
Everyone is bound in conscience to hold that the public sin of manifest formal heresy per se separates the heretic from the Church, and this without qualifications.
I'm sorry if I've missed one of your posts, CK. Would you kindly provide the Church's precise teaching on this for me. Thanks.
-
Is ordinary jurisdiction inextricably bound to an office?
This is what Jone says in his Moral Theology:
1. The subject of ordinary jurisdiction is one with whose office jurisdiction is connected by law, e.g. residential bishops...
2. The extent of ordinary jurisdiction covers the entire district committed to one's care, and in case of superiors it extends over their subjects.
3. The cessation of ordinary jurisdiction takes place by the loss of office; also by excommunication, interdict or suspension from office after a declaratory or condemnatory sentence (C 873)
I guess it is the third point here that we are interested in.
How that applies to the Pope is the issue. Exactly how and when does he lose his office? Can he remain in office but lose his jurisdiction?
It seems abundantly clear to me that theologians and jurists have discussed this question for centuries and the matter has never been resolved by the Magisterium.
So, in my opinion, we are obliged to adhere to what is certain and refrain from making definitive judgements about this issue. It is certain, as Archbishop Lefebvre taught us, that no one, not even the highest member of the hierarchy, can command us to diminish our faith. Anything that anyone does or says to endanger our faith must be resisted, and this is never a schismatic attitude, to the contrary. Obedience is at the service of the Faith.
-
I can’t find a definition for schism which includes Lad’s minutiae.
What I do find is that one who rejects the authority of the pope to govern the universal Church is schismatic.
This would seem to include by definition all those who deny the legitimacy of Francis, does it not?
PS: And since the Church has not determined his pertinacity, by definition he is not a “formal manifest” heretic (as has been repeatedly discussed).
I might be talking nonsense here (again!) but I would say materially schismatic, perhaps, but not formally, at least for most of them. I think the depth of the crisis in the Church excuse most of us from errors in these matters, since all of us here want to adhere to the Roman See with all our heart and soul. The Church is in 'new territory'!
-
Titular bishops have office, but no ordinary jurisdiction:
"According to the present ecclesiastical discipline (https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/05030a.htm) no bishop (https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/02581b.htm) can be consecrated (https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/04276a.htm) without title to a certain and distinct diocese which he governs either actually or potentially. Actual government requires residence, potential does not. Hence, there are two principal classes of bishops (https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/02581b.htm), the residential, or diocesan (https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/05001a.htm) or, local, or ordinary; and the non-residential, or titular. Diocesan bishops (https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/02581b.htm) have and exercise (de jure) full power of order and jurisdiction (https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/08567a.htm), in and over the diocese committed to their exclusive care by the pope (https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/12260a.htm). Titulars, as such, have not, and do not exercise, power of order and jurisdiction (https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/08567a.htm), in and over their titular sees (https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/08025a.htm)."
https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/02145b.htm
-
I can’t find a definition for schism which includes Lad’s minutiae.
What I do find is that one who rejects the authority of the pope to govern the universal Church is schismatic.
This would seem to include by definition all those who deny the legitimacy of Francis, does it not?
PS: And since the Church has not determined his pertinacity, by definition he is not a “formal manifest” heretic (as has been repeatedly discussed).
I have posted this several times in the past:
Canonists have told us that sedevacantists are not schismatic if they recognize the papacy, do not intend to reject a true pope and act with good reason.
F.X. Wernz, P. Vidal: “Finally they cannot be numbered among the schismatics, who refuse to obey the Roman Pontiff because they consider his person to be suspect or doubtfully elected on account of rumours in circulation.” (Ius Canonicuм, 7:398, 1943)
Rev Ignatius Szal: “Nor is there any schism if one merely transgress a papal law for the reason that one considers it too difficult, or if one refuses obedience inasmuch as one suspects the person of the pope or the validity of his election, or if one resists him as the civil head of a state.” (Communication of Catholics with Schismatics, 1948)
De Lugo: “Neither is someone a schismatic for denying his subjection to the Pontiff on the grounds that he has solidly founded [‘probabiliter'] doubts concerning the legitimacy of his election or his power [refers to Sanchez and Palao].” (Disp., De Virt. Fid. Div., disp xxv, sect iii, nn. 35-8)
-
I might be talking nonsense here (again!) but I would say materially schismatic, perhaps, but not formally, at least for most of them.
IF they're wrong that Bergoglio is not the pope, then they would be in material schism. You're begging the question that Bergoglio is the Pope. Again, multiple Canon Lawyers state that refusal of submission to the Holy See is not schismatic if done on account of well-founded doubts about a pope's legitimacy ... or even pride, stubbornness, simple laziness, etc. Sedevacantists are sedevacantists precisely because they uphold the requirement for Catholics to be in submission to the Holy See. If anything, certain R&R positions carry the risk of becoming formally shismatic. There's a bit of a fine line between simple disobedience and schism, but the line is in great danger of being crossed when people refuse to accept the papal Magisterium and refuse to attend the same Mass that the "Pope" offers. Paying lip service by saying "Bergoglio is pope" and putting his picture up in the vestibule does not constitute submission to the Pope ... when people reject pretty much every decision and teaching emanating from the putative "Pope".
-
I have posted this several times in the past:
Canonists have told us that sedevacantists are not schismatic if they recognize the papacy, do not intend to reject a true pope and act with good reason.
F.X. Wernz, P. Vidal: “Finally they cannot be numbered among the schismatics, who refuse to obey the Roman Pontiff because they consider his person to be suspect or doubtfully elected on account of rumours in circulation.” (Ius Canonicuм, 7:398, 1943)
Rev Ignatius Szal: “Nor is there any schism if one merely transgress a papal law for the reason that one considers it too difficult, or if one refuses obedience inasmuch as one suspects the person of the pope or the validity of his election, or if one resists him as the civil head of a state.” (Communication of Catholics with Schismatics, 1948)
De Lugo: “Neither is someone a schismatic for denying his subjection to the Pontiff on the grounds that he has solidly founded [‘probabiliter'] doubts concerning the legitimacy of his election or his power [refers to Sanchez and Palao].” (Disp., De Virt. Fid. Div., disp xxv, sect iii, nn. 35-8)
Yes, these have been posted here by you and by man others (myself included) many times here on CI. You'll notice that the reason that R&R refuse subjection to the Roman Pontiff is not listed among the exceptions, namely, because the Pope's Magisterium has become corrupt. That's precisely the claim made by the Protestants, Orthodox, and Old Catholics.
-
Yes, these have been posted here by you and by man others (myself included) many times here on CI. You'll notice that the reason that R&R refuse subjection to the Roman Pontiff is not listed among the exceptions, namely, because the Pope's Magisterium has become corrupt. That's precisely the claim made by the Protestants, Orthodox, and Old Catholics.
RR do not refuse subjection to the Pope.
I think you meant sedes.
-
Is ordinary jurisdiction inextricably bound to an office?
It's a good question, but one that I think is unresolved in the case of the Pope.
We have already heard the opinion of many of the theologians on this thread, but I think it is worthwhile hearing again what St Robert Bellarmine says in relation to this:
1. "...if the pastor is a bishop, they (the faithful) cannot depose him and put another in his place. For Our Lord and the Apostles only lay down that false prophets are not to be listened to by the people, and not that they depose them. And it is certain that the practice of the Church has always been that heretical bishops be deposed by bishop's councils, or by the Sovereign Pontiff."
This, "they are not to be listened to", might suggest that St Robert's opinion is that the bishop has lost jurisdiction even before he loses office. He says elsewhere (I just can't find the passage at the moment) that the moment they begin preaching heresy they can bind and loose no one...
Does he hold the same in relation to the Pope?
It is difficult sometimes (for amateurs like me at least) to reconcile his various opinions expressed in different works.
2. "...the Roman Pontiff cannot be deprived of his right to summon Councils and preside over them... unless he were first convicted by the legitimate judgement of a Council and is not Supreme Pontiff... For the supreme prince, as long as he is not declared or judged to have legitimately been deprived of his rule, is always the supreme judge..."
3. Writing specifically on the obedience of bishops to the Pope at a Council: "...inferiors ought not be free from the obedience to superiors, unless first he were legitimately deposed or declared not to be a superior..."
Does that mean the bishops will blindly obey the Pope? Not at all, St Robert continues "...for they swear they will be obedient to the Supreme Pontiff, which is understood as long as he is Pope, and provided he commands these things which, according to God and the sacred canons he can command; but they do not swear that they are not going to say what they think in the Council, or that they are not going to depose him if they were to clearly prove that he is a heretic.".
Here again we have the example of true obedience. The bishops will only obey the Pope provided that... There is no schism here!
-
I have posted this several times in the past:
Canonists have told us that sedevacantists are not schismatic if they recognize the papacy, do not intend to reject a true pope and act with good reason.
F.X. Wernz, P. Vidal: “Finally they cannot be numbered among the schismatics, who refuse to obey the Roman Pontiff because they consider his person to be suspect or doubtfully elected on account of rumours in circulation.” (Ius Canonicuм, 7:398, 1943)
Rev Ignatius Szal: “Nor is there any schism if one merely transgress a papal law for the reason that one considers it too difficult, or if one refuses obedience inasmuch as one suspects the person of the pope or the validity of his election, or if one resists him as the civil head of a state.” (Communication of Catholics with Schismatics, 1948)
De Lugo: “Neither is someone a schismatic for denying his subjection to the Pontiff on the grounds that he has solidly founded [‘probabiliter'] doubts concerning the legitimacy of his election or his power [refers to Sanchez and Palao].” (Disp., De Virt. Fid. Div., disp xxv, sect iii, nn. 35-8)
Good post QVD, we newbies haven't seen all the old posts :)
-
I have posted this several times in the past:
Canonists have told us that sedevacantists are not schismatic if they recognize the papacy, do not intend to reject a true pope and act with good reason.
F.X. Wernz, P. Vidal: “Finally they cannot be numbered among the schismatics, who refuse to obey the Roman Pontiff because they consider his person to be suspect or doubtfully elected on account of rumours in circulation.” (Ius Canonicuм, 7:398, 1943)
Rev Ignatius Szal: “Nor is there any schism if one merely transgress a papal law for the reason that one considers it too difficult, or if one refuses obedience inasmuch as one suspects the person of the pope or the validity of his election, or if one resists him as the civil head of a state.” (Communication of Catholics with Schismatics, 1948)
De Lugo: “Neither is someone a schismatic for denying his subjection to the Pontiff on the grounds that he has solidly founded [‘probabiliter'] doubts concerning the legitimacy of his election or his power [refers to Sanchez and Palao].” (Disp., De Virt. Fid. Div., disp xxv, sect iii, nn. 35-8)
Hmm.
Interesting quote, QVD.
I'll dig into this.
-
I have posted this several times in the past:
Canonists have told us that sedevacantists are not schismatic if they recognize the papacy, do not intend to reject a true pope and act with good reason.
F.X. Wernz, P. Vidal: “Finally they cannot be numbered among the schismatics, who refuse to obey the Roman Pontiff because they consider his person to be suspect or doubtfully elected on account of rumours in circulation.” (Ius Canonicuм, 7:398, 1943)
Rev Ignatius Szal: “Nor is there any schism if one merely transgress a papal law for the reason that one considers it too difficult, or if one refuses obedience inasmuch as one suspects the person of the pope or the validity of his election, or if one resists him as the civil head of a state.” (Communication of Catholics with Schismatics, 1948)
De Lugo: “Neither is someone a schismatic for denying his subjection to the Pontiff on the grounds that he has solidly founded [‘probabiliter'] doubts concerning the legitimacy of his election or his power [refers to Sanchez and Palao].” (Disp., De Virt. Fid. Div., disp xxv, sect iii, nn. 35-8)
I'll add one to the list.
Cardinal Catejan wrote:
"If somebody for a reasonable motive holds as suspect the person of the Pope, and refuse his presence, even his jurisdiction, he does not commit any delict of schism, nor any other delict as long as he is ready to accept the Pope if he were not suspect. It is obvious that we the right to avoid what is causing damage and to prevent dangers."
Notice the condition that Cardinal Catejan attaches to the idea of holding the pope suspect and refusing his jurisdiction. I have to wonder if the three quotes provided by QVD might also have a similar condition.
Fr. Chazal points that in the above quote, Catejan does not say that one has to refuse jurisdiction of the suspect Pontiff, but that someone could, for good reason.
-
I'll add one to the list.
Cardinal Catejan wrote:
"If somebody for a reasonable motive holds as suspect the person of the Pope, and refuse his presence, even his jurisdiction, he does not commit any delict of schism, nor any other delict as long as he is ready to accept the Pope if he were not suspect. It is obvious that we the right to avoid what is causing damage and to prevent dangers."
Notice the condition that Cardinal Catejan attaches to the idea of holding the pope suspect and refusing his jurisdiction. I have to wonder if the three quotes provided by QVD also have a similar condition.
Fr. Chazal points that in the above quote, Catejan does not say that one has to refuse jurisdiction of the suspect Pontiff, but that someone could, for good reason.
Good quote, Meg. I agree, I think that that condition, him being suspect, is taken for granted in the quotes I posted above.
-
Good quote, Meg. I agree, I think that that condition, him being suspect, is taken for granted in the quotes I posted above.
The condition that I was referring to is that one does not commit any delict of schism as long as he is ready to accept the Pope if he were not suspect. According to Catejan.
-
The condition that I was referring to is that one does not commit any delict of schism as long as he is ready to accept the Pope if he were not suspect. According to Catejan.
Yes, if you have no reason to suspect him then you absolutely must accept him.
-
I have posted this several times in the past:
Canonists have told us that sedevacantists are not schismatic if they recognize the papacy, do not intend to reject a true pope and act with good reason.
F.X. Wernz, P. Vidal: “Finally they cannot be numbered among the schismatics, who refuse to obey the Roman Pontiff because they consider his person to be suspect or doubtfully elected on account of rumours in circulation.” (Ius Canonicuм, 7:398, 1943)
Not 100% sure if this below canon is the one being referenced above, but it seems to be........
Canon 1325
§ 2. After the reception of baptism, if anyone, retaining the name Christian, pertinaciously denies or doubts something to be believed from the truth of divine and Catholic faith, [such a one is] a heretic; if he completely turns away from the Christian faith, [such a one is] an apostate; if finally he refuses to be under the Supreme Pontiff or refuses communion with the members of the Church subject to him, he is a schismatic.
From what I can find, the quoted reference from QVD is that of a commentary on Canon Law by Wernz, which was later revised by Vidal in 1943 according to the quote - Link: https://tinyurl.com/2nk8zhv6
If someone wants to translate for themselves...
(https://i.imgur.com/AJrTmb0.png)
Rev Ignatius Szal: “Nor is there any schism if one merely transgress a papal law for the reason that one considers it too difficult, or if one refuses obedience inasmuch as one suspects the person of the pope or the validity of his election, or if one resists him as the civil head of a state.” (Communication of Catholics with Schismatics, 1948)
https://tinyurl.com/yc8bpcr5 is a link to Communication of Catholics with Schismatics, 1948
I'm expanding the quote here below, bolding the above text:
The Communication of Catholics with Schismatics
the name of Christian, nevertheless refuses obedience to the
Supreme Pontiff or refuses to communicate with those members
of the Church who are subject to him. 2 There is here involved
no denial of any article of divine or Catholic faith. Strictly
considered, a schismatic professes belief in the sovereign power
and primacy of the Pope, but out of malice refuses to be subject
to him and to obey him as the Head of the Church and the Vicar
of Christ on earth. Such schism is called pure schism.
To constitute the delict of schism in the strict sense, the
following conditions are required:
1 ) One must withdraw directly (expressly) or indirectly (by
means of one’s actions) from obedience to the Roman
Pontiff, and separate oneself from ecclesiastical com¬
munion with the rest of the faithful, even though one does
not join a separate schismatical sect;
2 ) one’s withdrawal must be made with obstinacy and rebel¬
lion ;
3) the withdrawal must be made in relation to those things
by which the unity of the Church is constituted; and
4) despite this formal disobedience the schismatic must rec¬
ognize the Roman Pontiff as the true pastor of the
Church, and he must profess as an article of faith that
obedience is due the Roman Pontiff. 3
As a consequence there is no schism involved if one separates
from his bishop and the communion of the faithful of his diocese,
but remains subject to the Roman Pontiff and the Universal
Church. However, today such a position would be impossible
to maintain in practice. Nor is there any schism if one merely
transgress a Papal law for the reason that one considers it too
difficult, or if one refuses obedience inasmuch as one suspects
the person of the Pope or the validity of his election, or if one
resists him as the civil head of a state. 4
(4 Reiffenstuel, Jus Canonicuм TJniversum (5 vols. in 3, Maceratae, 1760,
Lib. V, tit. 8, n. 5 (hereafter cited Jus Canonicuм); Schmalzgrueber, Jus)
-
De Lugo: “Neither is someone a schismatic for denying his subjection to the Pontiff on the grounds that he has solidly founded [‘probabiliter'] doubts concerning the legitimacy of his election or his power [refers to Sanchez and Palao].” (Disp., De Virt. Fid. Div., disp xxv, sect iii, nn. 35-8)
Continued here due to formatting went haywire on the previous post for some reason.....
Here is the link, from 1646: https://tinyurl.com/2uhs7kk4
(https://i.imgur.com/M1ieRqJ.png)
Thanks to Gardner on SD for doing all the leg work!
-
RR do not refuse subjection to the Pope.
I think you meant sedes.
Sean, do you even logic? SVs refuse subjection to a man they don't believe is the Pope. To claim that they refuse subjection to the Pope is to beg the question that Jorge Bergoglio is the pope. As per the quotations cited, if Jorge is the pope, they would be materially schismatic, but not formally. SVs base their refusal of subjection to Jorge on the well-founded questioning of his legitimacy. Even Bishop Williamson and Avrille have stated that their position is "understandable".
(Non-Chazalist) R&R on the other hand assert that Jorge is certainly and categorically / unequivocally the pope. In which way are you subject to Jorge Bergoglio, aka "Pope Francis"? By saying "He's the Pope." or by putting up a picture of Jorge at the local Trad chapel?
This difference is in line with my analogy about taking the $100 bill. If you see a $100 bill on a table and pick it up, thinking it's yours, but it turns out to belong to someone else, you have committed theft materially but not formally. If you see a $100 bill on the table and pick it up, thinking it belongs to someone else, but it turns out to belong to you (say you left it there earlier but forgot), then you have committed theft formally but not materially. SVs are potentially in material schism (if Jorge is the pope), but not formal schism. R&R on the other hand are in danger of formal schism.
If rejecting a Pope's Magisterium, refusing to accept the Mass he promulgated and to recognized the saints he's canonized, etc. if that isn't refusal of subjection, then there's no such thing. As I said, merely paying lip service, "Yep. He's the Pope." and putting his picture up in the vestibule while rejecting everything the man stands for, that doesn't constitute "subjection" by any reasonable standard. Now, where it gets blurry is that classic R&R holds that in principle you must obey the Pope except when he teaches something erroneous or commands something evil. But when is the last time anyone accepted anything that Jorge taught or commanded? Do you respectfully read through each Encyclical (Recyclical) of his and learn from the Holy Father, while respectfully disagreeing with the particular sentences that you find fault with? No, you simply throw them in the trash bin before even reading them. I called you out on another thread for deriding and mocking Jorge. Is that the proper attitude of a Catholic who believes the man is the Pope? Your attitude should be, "Holy Father, I must respectfully disagee with [this, that, or the other point]." To hold the Holy Father, the Vicar of Christ, in contempt the way your clearly do, that's crossing over into a formally schismatic attitude. Probably the only thing absolving you of formal schism would be the confusion of this crisis.
-
Good quote, Meg. I agree, I think that that condition, him being suspect, is taken for granted in the quotes I posted above.
Right. If R&R at least entertained a DOUBT about Jorge, as Archbishop Lefebvre did, for example, they'd be absolved from schism. Bishop Williamson, for instance, has clearly stated that there's some room for doubt there. So has +Vigano.
Dogmatic Sedeplenists however are in a very bad way.
Generally speaking, the legitimacy of a Pope is either dogmatic fact or at least moral certainty (depending on the theologian), but that's a technicality. Both dogmatic and moral certainty preclude any doubt. But if R&R were to say, "Yeah, I have my suspicions about Jorge," they'be be OK in terms of schism. Unfortunately, out of animosity toward sedevacantism, many of them overstate their case and adopt an attitude of dogmatic or at least moral certainty regarding Jorge's legitimacy. If you look at what Archbishop Lefebvre said and wrote, he regularly entertained doubts about the V2 papal claimants.
As I've repeatedly stated, I have no issues with Archbishop Lefebvre's position. He unequivocally affirmed that the protection of the Holy Spirit precludes such damage being done to the Church by the exercise of papal authority, but siimply prescinded from adopting a explanation for how this has happened. In one talk, he went through the possibilities, a drugged pope, a blackmailed pope, etc., dismissing these as very unlikely, but then ended up saying SVism is a possible explanation. He repeatedly stated that SVism is possible. But he left open the possibility that there was some other explanation and therefore never asserted SVism. There's nothing wrong with that stance. But many modern R&R have lost sight of this distinction, claiming that the protection / guidance of the Holy Spirit over the papal office does ot prevent a Pope from thoroughly corrupting the Magisterium and the Public worship of the Church. That is NOT the position of Archbishop Lefebvre, who said the complete opposite.
-
That depends on the requirements of the censure or the requirements given at the time the censure was issued. According to Canon Law, no abjuration of heresy is required for absolution - unless the bishop makes it a requirement. I posted the canon law once but cannot find it now.
At any rate, Fr. Wathen explains it......
"It may surprise lay readers to learn that in the traditional formula of absolution in the Sacrament of Penance there is a general absolution from the censures of the Church. This means, of course, that everyone who has received a censure, and everyone who is"under a censure," is a Catholic, since he goes to confession to seek its removal.....
One who is not a Catholic cannot receive the Sacraments. The excommunicated Catholic can receive the Sacrament of Penance, whereby the censure can be removed, and the sin be forgiven. The Church first removes the censure, then forgives the sin...
May our Lord Jesus Christ absolve you: and I, by His authority, absolve you from every bond of excommunication,
(suspension), and interdict, in so far as I am able and you are needful. Next, I absolve you from your sins, in the Name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost. Amen.
(The word suspensionis {suspension} is used only for clerics. A cleric may be suspended without being excommunicated; but, should he incur excommunication, he is suspended also.)..."
I would think that one separated from the Church because of his public heresy would go through the same process unless he publicly joined, for example, a Protestant sect. In that case, he would also be a schismatic. Being a heretic and schismatic may require a different process to come back to the Church.
-
Titular bishops have office, but no ordinary jurisdiction:
"According to the present ecclesiastical discipline (https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/05030a.htm) no bishop (https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/02581b.htm) can be consecrated (https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/04276a.htm) without title to a certain and distinct diocese which he governs either actually or potentially. Actual government requires residence, potential does not. Hence, there are two principal classes of bishops (https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/02581b.htm), the residential, or diocesan (https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/05001a.htm) or, local, or ordinary; and the non-residential, or titular. Diocesan bishops (https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/02581b.htm) have and exercise (de jure) full power of order and jurisdiction (https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/08567a.htm), in and over the diocese committed to their exclusive care by the pope (https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/12260a.htm). Titulars, as such, have not, and do not exercise, power of order and jurisdiction (https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/08567a.htm), in and over their titular sees (https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/08025a.htm)."
https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/02145b.htm
Okay. Is the papal office inextricably linked with ordinary jurisdiction?
-
I would think that one separated from the Church because of his public heresy would go through the same process unless he publicly joined, for example, a Protestant sect. In that case, he would also be a schismatic. Being a heretic and schismatic may require a different process to come back to the Church.
My initial intent was to demonstrate how easily you or anyone (including me) can preach heresy (or error), all the while believing the whole time that they are preaching de fide teachings of the Church. Your quotes that I posted is just one example.
It is only my opinion, but those teachings you refer to, they must be talking about those heretics who've never been Catholic and who've always been outside of the Church.
-
Sean, do you even logic? SVs refuse subjection to a man they don't believe is the Pope. To claim that they refuse subjection to the Pope is to beg the question that Jorge Bergoglio is the pope. As per the quotations cited, if Jorge is the pope, they would be materially schismatic, but not formally. SVs base their refusal of subjection to Jorge on the well-founded questioning of his legitimacy. Even Bishop Williamson and Avrille have stated that their position is "understandable".
(Non-Chazalist) R&R on the other hand assert that Jorge is certainly and categorically / unequivocally the pope. In which way are you subject to Jorge Bergoglio, aka "Pope Francis"? By saying "He's the Pope." or by putting up a picture of Jorge at the local Trad chapel?
This difference is in line with my analogy about taking the $100 bill. If you see a $100 bill on a table and pick it up, thinking it's yours, but it turns out to belong to someone else, you have committed theft materially but not formally. If you see a $100 bill on the table and pick it up, thinking it belongs to someone else, but it turns out to belong to you (say you left it there earlier but forgot), then you have committed theft formally but not materially. SVs are potentially in material schism (if Jorge is the pope), but not formal schism. R&R on the other hand are in danger of formal schism.
If rejecting a Pope's Magisterium, refusing to accept the Mass he promulgated and to recognized the saints he's canonized, etc. if that isn't refusal of subjection, then there's no such thing. As I said, merely paying lip service, "Yep. He's the Pope." and putting his picture up in the vestibule while rejecting everything the man stands for, that doesn't constitute "subjection" by any reasonable standard. Now, where it gets blurry is that classic R&R holds that in principle you must obey the Pope except when he teaches something erroneous or commands something evil. But when is the last time anyone accepted anything that Jorge taught or commanded? Do you respectfully read through each Encyclical (Recyclical) of his and learn from the Holy Father, while respectfully disagreeing with the particular sentences that you find fault with? No, you simply throw them in the trash bin before even reading them. I called you out on another thread for deriding and mocking Jorge. Is that the proper attitude of a Catholic who believes the man is the Pope? Your attitude should be, "Holy Father, I must respectfully disagee with [this, that, or the other point]." To hold the Holy Father, the Vicar of Christ, in contempt the way your clearly do, that's crossing over into a formally schismatic attitude. Probably the only thing absolving you of formal schism would be the confusion of this crisis.
The difference is huge:
Sedes reject the authority of the Roman Pontifff in principle.
Resistance (old SSPX) accept it in principle.
-
Okay. Is the papal office inextricably linked with ordinary jurisdiction?
You cannot have a pope who does not have jurisdiction.
-
Right. If R&R at least entertained a DOUBT about Jorge, as Archbishop Lefebvre did, for example, they'd be absolved from schism. Bishop Williamson, for instance, has clearly stated that there's some room for doubt there. So has +Vigano.
And who would absolve us? Would it be you?
-
I did a bit of research and just as I suspected, that quote was falsified! I’m not blaming you, but whoever was the source of this lie, and I believe I know who it is, should be flogged severely! Some people will go to any lengths just to say that some heretic dressed in white is the pope. Will you retract this “quote”?
From the website “Catholics in Ireland”:
To answer this, and to oppose St. Bellarmine teaching that we should judge a heretic by his external acts, another theologian was needed, Fr. Charles-Rene Billuart. Here we have the most astounding opinion:
“According to the more common opinion, Christ, by a particular providence, for the common good and the tranquility of the Church, continues to give jurisdiction to an even manifestly heretical pontiff until such time as he be declared a manifest heretic by the Church.”
The footnote at the above sentence is directing us to Billuart, De Fide (Diss.V, A.III,No.3,obj.2).
Although this sentence is given without quotation marks, in later publications it will have such. It would be significant, if the quotation was true. Let’s open “De Fide”, to check the source of the quotation carefully:
Dissertatio V (De Vittis Fidei Oppositis), Articulus III (De Apostasia):
Qui ab Ordine Sacro fine legitima dispensatione retrocedit ad statum Seacularem, est apostata & peccat mortaliter; quia deserit statum cui per Ecclesiam erat solemniter mancipatus, quem deserere vetant plures Canones, poenis impositis contra transgressores.(1)
In English translation it is:
One who leaves Holy Orders without a legitimate dispensation [in order] to return to a secular state, is an apostate and sins mortally; because to quit the religious state, in which one was solemnly enrolled by the Church, is forbidden by several Canons, which impose penalties against transgressors.
The relevance of the sentence from “A little Catechism…” to the source given in the footnote is null. As it was already said, this “quotation” of Billuart, which is false and fabricated, has been spread wide and far. We might even suppose that every SSPX district printed it in its own bulletin and since 2001 nobody dared to check the comparability of the “quoted” sentence with the given source! We can assume that this infamous sentence is just a summary (a precise one, at that) of the SSPX attitude regarding post Vatican II Council heretical popes. Let’s look at it again: “[C]hrist, by a particular providence, for the common good and the tranquility of the Church, continues to give jurisdiction to even manifestly heretical pontiff” – this is utterly unheard and opposite to the Church teaching. How astonishing that it was “cited” as Billuart’s work! SSPX theologians must have been desperate to have the “quotation” to support themselves and to give us confirmation of their own philosophy.
I realize the conversation has progressed beyond this quote, but since I mentioned I would post Avrille's response once I received it, here it is:
"Dear Sir,
Indeed the reference is incorrect, it should read Diss. IV, A.III, No.3, obj.2
The sentence is at the bottom of page 128:
Assuring you of my religious devotion,
Fr. Pierre Marie +
Convent of La Haye-aux-Bonshommes"
Fr. Pierre Marie's email included an attachment of the relevant section, which I have attached to this post.
-
The difference is huge:
Sedes reject the authority of the Roman Pontifff in principle.
Resistance (old SSPX) accept it in principle.
Absolutely and utterly ridiculous, Sean. It's this exact opposite, and this post shows your bad will.
How does sedes reject the authority of the Pope "in principle"?
It's actually the neo-SSPX that accept the authority of the Roman Pontiff "in principle" rather than the Resistance.
I can't understand how you can have everything so exactly backwards short of extreme bad will and malice.
Of the 3 groups mentioned, the Resistance lead admits Papal Authority "in principle". Neo-SSPX holds that they have to try as hard and as much as they can to submit to "the Pope" while the Resistance thinks it's OK to carry on as if he didn't exist and ignore him entirely.
-
Absolutely and utterly ridiculous, Sean. It's this exact opposite, and this post shows your bad will.
How does sedes reject the authority of the Pope "in principle"?
It's actually the neo-SSPX that accept the authority of the Roman Pontiff "in principle" rather than the Resistance.
I can't understand how you can have everything so exactly backwards short of extreme bad will and malice.
Of the 3 groups mentioned, the Resistance lead admits Papal Authority "in principle". Neo-SSPX holds that they have to try as hard and as much as they can to submit to "the Pope" while the Resistance thinks it's OK to carry on as if he didn't exist and ignore him entirely.
Yes, I realize you are quick to attribute malice and ill will to all who disagree with you.
I, on the other hand, am not.
Pax tecuм.
-
Sedes reject the authority of the Roman Pontifff in principle.
.
:confused:
-
.
:confused:
Francis is the Roman Pontiff, and by definition, if you say Francis isn't pope, you reject his authority in principle.
-
The difference is huge:
Sedes reject the authority of the Roman Pontifff in principle.
Resistance (old SSPX) accept it in principle.
How do sedevacantists reject the authority of the Roman Pontiff in principle if, in their opinion, the man who claims to be the Roman Pontiff is not, and does not have authority to submit to?
-
How do sedevacantists reject the authority of the Roman Pontiff in principle if, in their opinion, the man who claims to be the Roman Pontiff is not, and does not have authority to submit to?
"In their opinion" subjectivises the matter.
I'm speaking objectively.
-
What a mess the Church is in! (and this thread!)
True subjection to any authority requires true obedience (vs false obedience).
The problem with the recent Popes is that they so habitually abuse their authority that it is necessary for us to separate ourselves from them, as Archbishop Lefebvre clearly stated, because they represent such a grave danger to faith and morals. This is not a denial that they possess authority, but rather a recognition that they are not putting that authority at the service of the Faith. In the case of bishops, St Robert says the teaching of the Church is "they are not to be listened to" but not that the faithful depose them which is the role of the Church authority.
We continue to pray for the Pope every day in the Mass. We offer our daily Rosaries for his conversion and that he will obey Our Lady of Fatima and consecrate Russia to the Immaculate Heart of Mary. We pray for the Intentions of the Holy Father (which are the same Intentions as all his predecessors) every day to gain Indulgences.
This is not paying mere lip service to the Pope. It is a thoroughly Catholic attitude in an extraordinary situation in the Church. Many theologians have spoken of the duty to resist the erring Pontiff or the Pontiff destroying the Church. This is not schism, and there is no danger of schism, formal or otherwise.
If your father goes to live in a brothel, the family doesn't move in with him. When he tells you how to run the household, you tell him respectfully: "Dad, when you come back home and start behaving like a father, and loving our mother, and show us that you have the welfare of our family at heart, then we will start listening to you again". I'm not denying he is my father, nor that he has authority. Nor am I denying perhaps that the authorities should deal with him! Every analogy has limits of course.
-
How do sedevacantists reject the authority of the Roman Pontiff in principle if, in their opinion, the man who claims to be the Roman Pontiff is not, and does not have authority to submit to?
Correct. That is not denying the authority of the Roman Pontiff in principle. Clearly most Sedevacantists are not schismatics. The danger of schism that Archbishop Lefebvre and others spoke about relates more to the future. As the Archbishop said, if there is no Pope, no Cardinals, no bishops, where will the next Pope come from, who will tell us who is the Pope? Will those who have gone down the SV track recognise a future successor of St Peter? That is the concern.
-
As I've repeatedly stated, I have no issues with Archbishop Lefebvre's position. He unequivocally affirmed that the protection of the Holy Spirit precludes such damage being done to the Church by the exercise of papal authority, but siimply prescinded from adopting a explanation for how this has happened. In one talk, he went through the possibilities, a drugged pope, a blackmailed pope, etc., dismissing these as very unlikely, but then ended up saying SVism is a possible explanation. He repeatedly stated that SVism is possible. But he left open the possibility that there was some other explanation and therefore never asserted SVism. There's nothing wrong with that stance. But many modern R&R have lost sight of this distinction, claiming that the protection / guidance of the Holy Spirit over the papal office does ot prevent a Pope from thoroughly corrupting the Magisterium and the Public worship of the Church. That is NOT the position of Archbishop Lefebvre, who said the complete opposite.
Ladislaus, if no one posts what Archbishop Lefebvre really believed, then others reading this forum might be in danger of thinking that you are stating the truth about what the Archbishop believed, when you are not.
Here is what +ABL stated in his book, "Open Letter to Confused Catholics," published in 1986, pg. 176, from the chapter titled, "Neither a Heretic or a Schismatic":
"I have not ceased repeating that if anyone separates himself from the Pope, it will not be I. The question comes down to this: the power of the Pope within the Church is supreme, but not absolute and limitless, because it is subordinate to the Divine authority which is expressed in Tradition, Holy Scripture, and the definitions already promulgated by the Church's magisterium. In fact, the limits of papal power at set by the ends for which it was given to Christ's Vicar on earth, ends which Pius IX clearly defined in the constitution Pastor Aeternus of the First Vatican Council. So in saying this I am not expressing a personal theory.
"Blind obedience is not Catholic; nobody is exempt from responsibility for having obeyed man rather than God if he accepts orders from a higher authority, even a Pope, when these are contrary to the Will of God as it is known from certainty from Tradition. It is true that one cannot envisage such an eventuality when papal infallibility is engaged; but this happens only in a limited number of cases. It is an error to think that every word uttered by a Pope is infallible."
"Nevertheless, I am not among those who insist or insinuate that Paul Vl was a heretic and therefore, by that very fact, no longer Pope. John Paul I and John Paul II would then not have been legitimately elected. This is the position of those called "sede-vacantists."
-
Ladislaus, if no one posts what Archbishop Lefebvre really believed, then others reading this forum might be in danger of thinking that you are stating the truth about what the Archbishop believed, when you are not.
Here is what +ABL stated in his book, "Open Letter to Confused Catholics," published in 1986, pg. 176, from the chapter titled, "Neither a Heretic or a Schismatic":
"I have not ceased repeating that if anyone separates himself from the Pope, it will not be I. The question comes down to this: the power of the Pope within the Church is supreme, but not absolute and limitless, because it is subordinate to the Divine authority which is expressed in Tradition, Holy Scripture, and the definitions already promulgated by the Church's magisterium. In fact, the limits of papal power at set by the ends for which it was given to Christ's Vicar on earth, ends which Pius IX clearly defined in the constitution Pastor Aeternus of the First Vatican Council. So in saying this I am not expressing a personal theory.
"Blind obedience is not Catholic; nobody is exempt from responsibility for having obeyed man rather than God if he accepts orders from a higher authority, even a Pope, when these are contrary to the Will of God as it is known from certainty from Tradition. It is true that one cannot envisage such an eventuality when papal infallibility is engaged; but this happens only in a limited number of cases. It is an error to think that every word uttered by a Pope is infallible."
"Nevertheless, I am not among those who insist or insinuate that Paul Vl was a heretic and therefore, by that very fact, no longer Pope. John Paul I and John Paul II would then not have been legitimately elected. This is the position of those called "sede-vacantists."
Yet, I've heard from several sources that he called these popes anti-Christs.
-
Yet, I've heard from several sources that he called these popes anti-Christs.
So you believe that they are, or were popes? It seems that you do. Because +ABL certainly did. He was not a sedevacantist, despite the best efforts of sedevacantists on this forum saying otherwise.
-
Yet, I've heard from several sources that he called these popes anti-Christs.
Yes he did, antichrists as you say, not Antichrist.
They undermined the Faith, and now this Pope even more so is undermining morals. As such, they were doing the work of the devil and gravely abusing their position as Vicar of Christ. Theologians have spoken of Popes even wanting to destroy the Church. That is anti-Christ!
Interesting question: Could the Antichrist be a true Pope? Will the Antichrist have the Faith?
Could Pope Francis be a satanist who has the Faith but wants to destroy it because of a diabolical hatred of Christ?
-
So you believe that they are, or were popes? It seems that you do. Because +ABL certainly did. He was not a sedevacantist, despite the best efforts of sedevacantists on this forum saying otherwise.
No, I don't believe they were popes because a non Catholic cannot become pope. They were outside the Church before they were elected. The consecration would not occur.
What I'm saying here is that in the quote you posted ABL says:"Nevertheless, I am not among those who insist or insinuate that Paul Vl was a heretic and therefore, by that very fact, no longer Pope. John Paul I and John Paul II would then not have been legitimately elected. This is the position of those called "sede-vacantists."
And yet he calls them antichrists.
Can you be an antichrist and not be a heretic?
Can you be an antichrist and still remain in the Church?
Can you be an antichrist and be legitimately elected?
Wouldn't an antichrist be invalid matter so no consecration would take place?
-
No, I don't believe they were popes because a non Catholic cannot become pope. They were outside the Church before they were elected. The consecration would not occur.
What I'm saying here is that in the quote you posted ABL says:"Nevertheless, I am not among those who insist or insinuate that Paul Vl was a heretic and therefore, by that very fact, no longer Pope. John Paul I and John Paul II would then not have been legitimately elected. This is the position of those called "sede-vacantists."
And yet he calls them antichrists.
Can you be an antichrist and not be a heretic?
Can you be an antichrist and still remain in the Church?
Can you be an antichrist and be legitimately elected?
And yet he called them antichrists. Yes. Maybe he saw the situation a bit differently than you? After all, he was not a sedevacantist. He must have looked at the situation differently from you and the other sedevacantists here.
-
So you believe that they are, or were popes? It seems that you do. Because +ABL certainly did. He was not a sedevacantist, despite the best efforts of sedevacantists on this forum saying otherwise.
Great posting, Meg, keep up the good work!
Archbishop Lefebvre was utterly shocked by the antics of some of these popes, so much so that he even publicly asked the question as to whether they could be popes, whether a pope could do such a thing, but he never adopted the theoretical, and certainly not the practical, position of the Sedevacantists. To the contrary.
Even on the eve of his death he gave a conference to the Society Sisters at Saint-Michel-en-Brenne on praying for the Pope in the Canon of the Mass, mocking the SVs understanding of this prayer. There is a short YouTube video of this but I can't find it right now.
-
And yet he called them antichrists. Yes. Maybe he saw the situation a bit differently than you? After all, he was not a sedevacantist. He must have looked at the situation differently from you and the other sedevacantists here.
From what I've learned, it took a while for the sedevacantist view to become clear.
Perhaps in time the contradiction of a "non heretic antichrist pope" would have become more clear?
-
Great posting, Meg, keep up the good work!
Archbishop Lefebvre was utterly shocked by the antics of some of these popes, so much so that he even publicly asked the question as to whether they could be popes, whether a pope could do such a thing, but he never adopted the theoretical, and certainly not the practical, position of the Sedevacantists. To the contrary.
Even on the eve of his death he gave a conference to the Society Sisters at Saint-Michel-en-Brenne on praying for the Pope in the Canon of the Mass, mocking the SVs understanding of this prayer. There is a short YouTube video of this but I can't find it right now.
I didn't know that he gave a conference just before his death on praying for the Pope in the canon of the Mass. I assume that he believed that the Pope should be prayed for? That's something that he would think, of course, given his good Catholic sense.
-
From what I've learned, it took a while for the sedevacantist view to become clear.
Perhaps in time the contradiction of a "non heretic antichrist pope" would have become more clear?
I don't go by "what if's" when it comes to what +ABL believed. He is no longer with us. We only have access to what he actually did say and do, and that suffices for those of us who do not care to re-make the Archbishop into a sedevacantist.
-
I didn't know that he gave a conference just before his death on praying for the Pope in the canon of the Mass. I assume that he believed that the Pope should be prayed for? That's something that he would think, of course, given his good Catholic sense.
Correction: it was almost 2 years before his death.
I found the text, the good old Avrille Dominicans usually come up with the goods:
Archbishop Lefebvre and the sedevacantists - Dominicans of Avrille, France (dominicansavrille.us) (https://dominicansavrille.us/archbishop-lefebvre-sedevacantists/)
Archbishop Lefebvre and the sedevacantists
(a little known docuмent)
Concerning the position of Archbishop Lefebvre on the “non una cuм” sedevacantist position, after the Episcopal consecrations of 1988; here is an excerpt from a conference given by Archbishop Lefebvre during a retreat preached to the sisters of Saint-Michel en Brenne 1 (https://dominicansavrille.us/archbishop-lefebvre-sedevacantists/#sdfootnote1sym), France, on April 1st, 1989 (AUDIO excerpt attached).
« … And then, he (Dom Guillou O.S.B. 2 (https://dominicansavrille.us/archbishop-lefebvre-sedevacantists/#sdfootnote2sym)) goes through all the prayers of the Canon, all the prayers of the Roman Canon. He goes through them one after the other and then he shows the difference, he gives translations, very good ones. He gives, for example, precisely this famous.. you know, this famous una cuм.., una cuм of the sedevacantists. And you, do you say una cuм? (laughter of the nuns of St-Michel-en-Brenne). You say una cuм in the Canon of the Mass! Then we cannot pray with you; then you’re not Catholic; you’re not this; you’re not that; you’re not.. Ridiculous! ridiculous! because they claim that when we say una cuм summo Pontifice, the Pope, isn’t it, with the Pope, so therefore you embrace everything the Pope says. It’s ridiculous! It’s ridiculous! In fact, this is not the meaning of the prayer.
Te igitur clementissime Pater. This is the first prayer of the Canon. So here is how Dom Guillou translates it, a very accurate translation, indeed :
“We therefore pray Thee with profound humility, most merciful Father, and we beseech Thee, through Jesus Christ, Thy Son, Our Lord, to accept and to bless these gifts, these presents, these sacrifices, pure and without blemish, which we offer Thee firstly for Thy Holy Catholic Church. May it please Thee to give Her peace, to keep Her, to maintain Her in unity, and to govern Her throughout the earth, and with Her, Thy servant our Holy Father the Pope.”
It is not said in this prayer that we embrace all ideas that the Pope may have or all the things he may do. With Her, your servant our Holy Father the Pope, our Bishop and all those who practice the Catholic and Apostolic Orthodox faith! So to the extent where, perhaps, unfortunately, the Popes would no longer have …, nor the bishops…, would be deficient in the Orthodox, Catholic and Apostolic Faith, well, we are not in union with them, we are not with them, of course. We pray for the Pope and all those who practice the Catholic and Apostolic Orthodox faith!
Then he (Dom Guillou) had a note about that to clarify a little:
“In the official translation, based on a critical review of Dom Botte O.S.B. 3 (https://dominicansavrille.us/archbishop-lefebvre-sedevacantists/#sdfootnote3sym), the UNA cuм or “in union with” of the sedevacantists of any shade is no longer equivalent but to the conjunction “and ” reinforced either by the need to restate the sentence, or to match the solemn style of the Roman canon. Anyway, every Catholic is always in union with the Pope in the precise area where the divine assistance is exercised, infallibility confirmed by the fact that as soon as there is a deviation from the dogmatic Tradition, the papal discourse contradicts itself.
Let us collect the good grain, knowing that for the rest, it is more necessary than ever to ask God, with the very ancient Major Litanies, that be “kept in the holy religion” the “holy orders” and the “Apostolic Lord” himself (that is to say the Pope): UT DOMINUM APOSTOLIcuм AND OMNES ECCLESIASTICOS ORDINES IN SANCTA RELIGIONE CONSERVARE DIGNERIS, TE ROGAMUS, AUDI NOS.”
It is a request of the litanies of the Saints, right? WE ASK TO KEEP THE POPE IN THE TRUE RELIGION. We ask that in the Litanies of the Saints! This proves that sometimes it can happen that unfortunately, well, maybe sometimes it happens that… well there have been hesitations, there are false steps, there are errors that are possible. We have too easily believed since Vatican I, that every word that comes from the mouth of the Pope is infallible. That was never said in Vatican I! The Council never said such a thing. Very specific conditions are required for the infallibility; very, very strict conditions. The best proof is that throughout the Council, Pope Paul VI himself said “There is nothing in this Council which is under the sign of infallibility”. So, it is clear, he says it himself! He said it explicitly.
Then we must not keep this idea which is FALSE! which a number of Catholics, poorly instructed, poorly taught, believe! So obviously, people no longer understand anything, they are completely desperate, they do not know what to expect! We must keep the Catholic faith as the Church teaches it. »
Archbishop Lefebvre, retreat at Saint-Michel en Brenne, April 1st, 1989
-
I don't go by "what if's" when it comes to what +ABL believed. He is no longer with us. We only have access to what he actually did say and do, and that suffices for those of us who do not care to re-make the Archbishop into a sedevacantist.
I understand. It's important to go by docuмented statements.
How did he explain that an antichrist is not a heretic?
Do you have any quotes for that?
-
I understand. It's important to go by docuмented statements.
How did he explain that an antichrist is not a heretic?
Do you have any quotes for that?
No I don't have an explanation or quotes. Why do you need an explanation? Is it only so that you can try to prove that +ABL was really a sedevacantist?
-
No I don't have an explanation. Why do you need an explanation? Is it only so that you can try to prove that +ABL was really a sedevacantist?
No.
I'm just asking for an explanation because the concept doesn't make sense.
How can an antichrist not be a heretic?
-
No.
I'm just asking for an explanation because the concept doesn't make sense.
How can an antichrist not be a heretic?
I have no idea. But I'm not concerned about it, because I don't think as a sedevacantist does.
I understand that everything has to make perfect sense to a sedevacantist, but as +ABL said many times, there is a certain mystery to the Crisis that we cannot understand. "It's a mystery!" he used to say. He was right, IMO.
-
I have no idea. But I'm not concerned about it, because I don't think as a sedevacantist does.
I understand that everything has to make perfect sense to a sedevacantist, but as +ABL said many times, there is a certain mystery to the Crisis that we cannot understand. "It's a mystery!" he used to say. He was right, IMO.
Well, if you could explain it to me perhaps I would stop being a sedevacantist and join you.
I only care about the truth and not "what side" I'm on.
Once we "take sides" we only look for information that fits our confirmation bias.
Perhaps I am wrong about sedevacantism.
Perhaps ABL is correct and these popes were antichrists but they were not heretics because if they were heretics it would mean their elections were invalid and apparently that simply cannot be.
Maybe somebody else here has the answer.
Is it truly possible to be an antichrist and not a heretic?
-
Well, if you could explain it to me perhaps I would stop being a sedevacantist and join you.
I only care about the truth and not "what side" I'm on.
Once we "take sides" we only look for information that fits our confirmation bias.
Perhaps I am wrong about sedevacantism.
Perhaps ABL is correct and these popes were antichrists but they were not heretics because if they were heretics it would mean their elections were invalid and apparently that simply cannot be.
Maybe somebody else here has the answer.
Is it truly possible to be an antichrist and not a heretic?
I don't need you to stop being a sedevacantist. What I don't like is when sedevacantists try to make +ABL into a sedevacantist, or would-be sedevacantist, because he wasn't one.
Maybe it's possible that we aren't meant to have all of the answers?
-
I understand. It's important to go by docuмented statements.
How did he explain that an antichrist is not a heretic?
Do you have any quotes for that?
How do you explain that an anti-Christ must be a heretic, MP?
Is a satanist necessarily a heretic? But he is anti-Christ, right?
Let us take a quote from St Robert Bellarmine on the Pope: On The Church, Vol I, Bk II, On The Authority of Councils, Ch XIX, The Responses of Our Adversaries are Refuted:
"But they will say, therefore, only the Church remains without an efficacious human remedy if it has a bad Pope, and the Pope can disturb all things unpunished, and destroy and no one will be able to resist.
"I respond: No wonder, if the Church remains without an efficacious human remedy, seeing that its safety does not rest principally upon human industry, but divine protection, since God is its king. Therefore, even if the Church could not depose a Pope, still, it may and must beg the Lord that He would apply the remedy, and it is certain that God has care of its safety, that he would either convert the Pope or abolish him from the midst before he destroys the Church. Nevertheless, it does not follow from here that it is not lawful to resist a Pope destroying the Church; for it is lawful to admonish him while preserving all reverence, and to modestly correct him, even to oppose him with force and arms if he means to destroy the Church. For to resist and repel by force of arms, no authority is required. See more on this with Juan Torquemada, lib. 2 cap. 106."
Archbishop Lefebvre would call such a Pope an anti-Christ.
Would you not agree, MP?
-
I don't need you to stop being a sedevacantist. What I don't like is when sedevacantists try to make +ABL into a sedevacantist, or would-be sedevacantist, because he wasn't one.
Maybe it's possible that we aren't meant to have all of the answers?
Well, when my salvation is on the line, it's pretty important though.
I need to stop being a sedevacantist if ABL is correct.
I need to join my prayers in union with these popes (now Francis) who are legit because even though they are antichrists they are not heretics.
So that's why I want to understand how an antichrist can also not be a heretic.
I just don't see how I can offer my prayers, and specifically the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass, the Body and Blood of Our Lord Jesus Christ in union with antichrists.
That hurts to even think about. It makes me feel sick to my stomach.
I don't understand how "in union with" actually means "for".
See, when I join my prayers "in union with" somebody, to me that means I'm praying to God in union with them. It doesn't mean I'm praying "for" that person.
Perhaps somebody can explain how "in union with" actually means "for"??
And since Francis (and these other guys) all pray to different gods, I'm just not comfortable joining my prayers "in union with" theirs. They aren't praying to the same God as me.
Anyway,
I also don't see how an antichrist (according to ABL) can be valid matter for consecration of the papal office.
The ramifications of these questions can be very hard to face though.
It's tempting for people to want to try and "square a circle" or find some loophole because they could mean the loss of friends, family, the respect of my priest and chapel community. It could mean moving somewhere else. A lot of very hard things to face.
Yet, like the rich man who was sent away sad or like Abraham with his son Isaac, I'm willing to do whatever it takes to serve God in good conscience.
So if I'm wrong I need to know and I need to make some changes no matter what it might cost me.
These seem like pretty simple questions to answer:
1. How can an antichrist not be a heretic?
2. How can an antichrist be consecrated pope when he's invalid matter?
3. How can "in union with" actually mean "for"?
-
I don't need you to stop being a sedevacantist. What I don't like is when sedevacantists try to make +ABL into a sedevacantist, or would-be sedevacantist, because he wasn't one.
Maybe it's possible that we aren't meant to have all of the answers?
I wish people's brains wouldn't be so muddled. Nobody said that +Lefebvre was a sedevacantist. But it's very clear that he was open to it as a possible explanation for the crisis.
What's at issue is that +Lefebvre, unlike some R&R here, affirmed Catholic teaching that the Pope has the assistance of the Holy Spirit in his governance of the Church, that it's not possible for a legitimate Pope in exercising his authority freely to corrupt the Magisterium and to institute Public Worship that displeases God and harms souls.
Apart from that, I could hardly care less about what opinion one has in terms of how this came about. If you wanted to believe that they were blackmailed, or replaced by doubles, more power to you.
Father Chazal's position is perfectly Catholic. So was that of Archbishop Lefebvre, who said to the sedevacantists, that "I agree with you" where it comes to the fact that the assistance of the Holy Ghost would prevent a legitimate pope acting freely from engineering such destruction. But some of you twist the insistance that the Holy Spirit would not allow a legitimate Pope to fail like this as some kind of principle invented or made up by sedevacantists. Ridiculous. It's been reaffirmed by pages of Papal teaching, teachings of the Church Fathers, teachings of the Doctors of the Church. So you twist that proposition into an affirmation of sedevacantism.
But many modern-day versions of R&R are nothing short of heretical.
So I urge all your R&R to adopt Father Chazal's position, as it prevent having to throw the Church and the papacy under the bus in order to avoid that wicked sedevacantism. And yet some remain pertnacious in their insistence that the Catholic Magisterium has become corrupt and the Public Worship instituted by the Pope harms souls and displeases God. That demonstrates some bad will.
-
Father Chazal's position is perfectly Catholic. So was that of Archbishop Lefebvre
Matthew, could we please set up this quote from Ladislaus as an introduction to the CathInfo site? :)
-
How do you explain that an anti-Christ must be a heretic, MP?
Is a satanist necessarily a heretic? But he is anti-Christ, right?
Archbishop Lefebvre would call such a Pope an anti-Christ.
Would you not agree, MP?
St Robert Bellarmine is speaking:
On The Authority of Councils
He is describing the procedures for a Council.
I'm not a Council. He is not speaking to me.
I'm not deposing anybody.
I'm just a Catholic avoiding sinning against the First Commandment by praying in union with an antichrist.
What is an antichrist?
According to ABL the concilliar popes are antichrists.
St John defines it further:
22Who is a liar, but he who denieth that Jesus is the Christ? This is Antichrist, who denieth the Father and the Son. 23 (https://biblehub.com/catholic/1_john/2-23.htm)Whosoever denieth the Son, the same hath not the Father. He that confesseth the Son hath the Father also. 24 (https://biblehub.com/catholic/1_john/2-24.htm)As for you, let that which you have heard from the beginning abide in you. If that abide in you, which you have heard from the beginning, you also shall abide in the Son and in the Father.
1 John 2:22
Whether they be a satanist, a heretic,
or a non heretical antichrist pope who somehow "got consecrated" even though he is invalid matter,
I can't join my prayers in union with theirs.
-
St Robert Bellarmine is speaking:
On The Authority of Councils
He is describing the procedures for a Council.
I'm not a Council. He is not speaking to me.
I'm not deposing anybody.
I'm just a Catholic avoiding sinning against the First Commandment by praying in union with an antichrist.
What is an antichrist?
According to ABL the concilliar popes are antichrists.
St John defines it further:
22Who is a liar, but he who denieth that Jesus is the Christ? This is Antichrist, who denieth the Father and the Son. 23 (https://biblehub.com/catholic/1_john/2-23.htm)Whosoever denieth the Son, the same hath not the Father. He that confesseth the Son hath the Father also. 24 (https://biblehub.com/catholic/1_john/2-24.htm)As for you, let that which you have heard from the beginning abide in you. If that abide in you, which you have heard from the beginning, you also shall abide in the Son and in the Father.
1 John 2:22
Whether they be a satanist, a heretic,
or a non heretical antichrist pope who somehow "got consecrated" even though he is invalid matter,
I can't join my prayers in union with theirs.
This quote from St John is saying that a heretic is Antichrist. But it does not say that every anti-Christ is a heretic. Do you see the difference? Every boy is a male, but not every male is a boy. We ought not to make ABL say something he did not mean.
On the una cuм question, which I am guessing is what you mean by "prayers in union with theirs", we only need to pick up some classical studies on the Mass to learn what this prayer in the Canon of the Mass means. Here's a quick selection from my library:
The Holy Sacrifice of the Mass by Gihr, 1902, The First Prayer of the Canon before the Consecration:
After this manner do we, in the first place, offer our prayers and the Sacrifice for Holy Church, for she is, indeed, our greatest benefactress, our spiritual mother... The general fruit of the Sacrifice falls the more copiously to the share of the individual members of the mystical body of Christ in proportion as they contribute to the common welfare of the Church, hence we have now a special and an express offering and prayer for the Pope, and for the chief pastor of the diocese in which the Holy Mass is celebrated...
The Mass, A Study of the Roman Liturgy, by Fortesque, 1912:
The Intercession (from "in primis"), now scattered throughout the Canon, begins by praying for the Church, Pope, bishop and the faithful...in the Middle Ages the celebrant added a prayer for himself...
The Heart of the Mass, compiled from approved sources, Imprimatur 1936:
After praying for the Church in general, a special petition is added for the Sovereign Pontiff and the diocesan bishop. Great responsibilities rest upon our ecclesiastical superiors; the welfare of mankind depends largely upon their fidelity to duty; therefore, we implore the divine assistance in their behalf.
-
From what I've learned, it took a while for the sedevacantist view to become clear.
Perhaps in time the contradiction of a "non heretic antichrist pope" would have become more clear?
From memory, the way it worked in my neck of the woods I think is typical.....
The then Father Sanborn, over time, worked himself into a frenzy in order to become sede. When he was fresh out of the seminary his sermons were awesome, even spell binding (to me) and I would say all of his parishioners really loved that man as a true holy and courageous priest with a great gift of communicating to his sheep! I still have a deep respect for him to this day from sermons he gave some 45 odd years ago.
Some how the word got out and almost every week you would see a new family or new people who heard of a TLM being offered in an old school's gymnasium. His little chapel was getting crowded and growing.
Then seemingly out of the blue one day his sermons switched gears as he started preaching against the pope, before long he started calling the pope, in a totally disrespectful way, "Montini" (most people did not know who "Montini" even was at the time), blaming him for everything. Shortly thereafter he came out insisting he was not the pope. I'm only guessing because it was so long ago, but I would say the transition from R&R to sedeism took him about 3 to 4 months.
During his early ravings against the pope from the pulpit, one by one his parishioners began leaving because of his sermons against the pope, but it was only few weeks after he went full on sede that more than half of his parishioners abruptly left due to his preaching exclusively and almost obsessively, sedeism.
The sad thing is, there was no need for him to switch gears at all, none whatsoever. All it accomplished was to stop the growth, cause division among the faithful, and who knows what became of those with nowhere else to go but left due to him switching gears for no reason, who knows how many of them left the Church altogether and/or went back the the NO?
Whatever happened, this was and still is the result of sedeism, this is the divisive nature inherent in sedeism that from then till now and into the future, is repeated over and over. For whatever reason, the sedes blind themselves to this, it's only purpose.
-
Father Chazal's position is perfectly Catholic.
So I urge all your R&R to adopt Father Chazal's position, as it prevent having to throw the Church and the papacy under the bus in order to avoid that wicked sedevacantism. And yet some remain pertnacious in their insistence that the Catholic Magisterium has become corrupt and the Public Worship instituted by the Pope harms souls and displeases God. That demonstrates some bad will.
Ladislaus,
Father Chazal believes Francis is the pope. I asked you before how Fr. Chazal's position differs from Sean Johnson's and you never responded. How do they differ?
If Fr. Chazal is "perfectly Catholic" and believes Franics is, and Benedict XVI, JPII, Paul VI were, popes, how does that not impugn the Catholic Magisterium of corruption and a public worship that harms souls and displeases God?
:popcorn:
-
Ladislaus,
Father Chazal believes Francis is the pope. I asked you before how Fr. Chazal's position differs from Sean Johnson's and you never responded. How do they differ?
If Fr. Chazal is "perfectly Catholic" and believes Franics is, and Benedict XVI, JPII, Paul VI were, popes, how does that not impugn the Catholic Magisterium of corruption and a public worship that harms souls and displeases God?
:popcorn:
Even better, how does Fr. Chazal's position differ from Stubborn's, since Stubborn believes Francis is pope and "quarantines" or "impounds" him just as Fr. Chazal does?
-
But many modern-day versions of R&R are nothing short of heretical.
So I urge all your R&R to adopt Father Chazal's position, as it prevent having to throw the Church and the papacy under the bus in order to avoid that wicked sedevacantism. And yet some remain pertnacious in their insistence that the Catholic Magisterium has become corrupt and the Public Worship instituted by the Pope harms souls and displeases God. That demonstrates some bad will.
When has Fr. Chazal ever referred to any traditional Catholic as a heretic, as you continually do here? When has he ever said that a Catholic must have positive doubt about the Pope, as you say we must have? Your mixed-up beliefs are nothing like that of Fr. Chazal.
-
This quote from St John is saying that a heretic is Antichrist. But it does not say that every anti-Christ is a heretic. Do you see the difference? Every boy is a male, but not every male is a boy. We ought not to make ABL say something he did not mean.
Thanks for the quotes, PV. I'll address that in another post. First:
Okay, if not every antichrist is a heretic,
would Catholics who are antichrist be heretics?
Can a Catholic be an antichrist and not be a heretic?
That doesn't seem possible to me.
Yet, ABL believed these popes were Catholic, right?
And he believed they were antichrist
and yet they were not heretics?
That's contradictory, isn't it?
A Catholic antichrist who is not a heretic?
-
Thanks for the quotes, PV. I'll address that in another post. First:
Okay, if not every antichrist is a heretic,
would Catholics who are antichrist be heretics?
Can a Catholic be an antichrist and not be a heretic?
That doesn't seem possible to me.
Yet, ABL believed these popes were Catholic, right?
And he believed they were antichrist
and yet they were not heretics?
That's contradictory, isn't it?
A Catholic antichrist who is not a heretic?
You're welcome, MP.
Yes, a Catholic could be anti-Christ and not be a heretic. Can't you think of any in your parish? :)
You don't have to deny an article of the Faith to be anti-Christ.
Judas was anti-Christ.
Go through the Ten Commandments, you can do the devil's work in so many ways, even publicly, causing grave scandal, without denying an article of Faith.
The higher the authority and greater the influence of the one giving scandal, the more appropriate the label.
St Robert Bellarmine's quote I gave is in fact very pertinent. He is not talking to a Council. He is answering the Protestants who say the Church could have a bad Pope who could disturb all things and destroy the Chruch and go unpunished and no one could resist him. Obviously, such a Pope would be anti-Christ. St Robert then gives his answer as you can read, and he says that while preserving all reverence we can resist such a Pope, and he says that if it were the case that a Council could not depose him, we should pray to God to remove him or convert him, which God would certainly do before he could destroy the Church.
I believe that is exactly the situation we are in today. Even if St Robert also talks about Cardinals and bishops calling an imperfect Council to convict a Pope of heresy and depose him, to 'provide for the Church against the Head', it seems unlikely that will happen, so we must follow his advice to pray and 'beg the Lord that He would apply the remedy', which we know He certainly will.
-
You're welcome, MP.
Yes, a Catholic could be anti-Christ and not be a heretic. Can't you think of any in your parish? :)
You don't have to deny an article of the Faith to be anti-Christ.
Judas was anti-Christ.
Go through the Ten Commandments, you can do the devil's work in so many ways, even publicly, causing grave scandal, without denying an article of Faith.
I see. Since I'm a bear of very little brain, I'm only able to address one issue at a time. :P
So staying on track with this part of our discussion,
I would need to understand your definition of the following terms:
What is a heretic?
What is an antichrist?
What is an apostate?
And by what authority/source do you draw your definition?
Thanks
-
I see. Since I'm a bear of very little brain, I'm only able to address one issue at a time. :P
So staying on track with this part of our discussion,
I would need to understand your definition of the following terms:
What is a heretic?
What is an antichrist?
What is an apostate?
And by what authority/source do you draw your definition?
Thanks
Yes, always a good idea to define the terms.
I see there is another term popping into the picture now.
I think we are all at sixes and sevens here.
I am happy for you to define the terms for me and make your point in a logical syllogism.
But as far as the authority with which I make my point, I did quote St Robert Bellarmine.
-
Ladislaus,
Father Chazal believes Francis is the pope. I asked you before how Fr. Chazal's position differs from Sean Johnson's and you never responded. How do they differ?
If Fr. Chazal is "perfectly Catholic" and believes Franics is, and Benedict XVI, JPII, Paul VI were, popes, how does that not impugn the Catholic Magisterium of corruption and a public worship that harms souls and displeases God?
:popcorn:
Yes, as I understand it, this results in the following problem:
Evil changes + true popes = defected Church
-
Yes, as I understand it, this results in the following problem:
Evil changes + true popes = defected Church
Interesting 'logic'. Yet a Church with no Pope for 60 years apparently doesn't. Go figure...
-
Yes, always a good idea to define the terms.
I see there is another term popping into the picture now.
I think we are all at sixes and sevens here.
I am happy for you to define the terms for me and make your point in a logical syllogism.
But as far as the authority with which I make my point, I did quote St Robert Bellarmine.
Yes, there's another term that she puts into the picture. She isn't interested in having her questions answered. She just wants to prove a point, and she will pretend humility, when there is none.
-
Interesting 'logic'. Yet a Church with no Pope for 60 years apparently doesn't. Go figure...
No, it doesn't. There has been a theologian cited here precisely to that effect. So, tell me, genius, what is the time limit for a vacancy before the Church would defect? 5 years? 10? 15? 23 years 5 months 2 days 7 hours 5 minutes and 23 seconds? It's utterly absurd. You have to come up with a theological principle and not just this stupid "60 years" nonsense.
As for deriding the logic, it's basic Catholicism, that the Magisterium and the Public Worship of the Church cannot ever become substantially corrupt and hamful to souls. Would you like me to cite the Catholic Encyclopedia article to that effect? This has been taught by numerous Popes, the Church Fathers, Church Doctors, and unanimously taught by theologians before Vatican II. On the other hand, no time limit for a papal interregnum has ever been taught by anyone.
OK, so 60 years without a legitimate pope vs. 60 years of corrupt Magisterium and corrupt Public Worship. To say that the Church's Public Worship of God harms souls and displeases God is nothing short of blasphemy, and you're dangerously close to falling under the anathema pronounced by Trent for those who claim this (with only the tiniest bit of wiggle room).
What's the point of even having a Pope, a warm body sitting on the Chair and walking around Rome in white, when said Pope can corrupt the Faith and the Deposit of Revelation and impose a Rite of Public Worship that displeases God and harms souls? This is precisely WHY Our Lord established the Papacy, to prevent the Church from going off the rails. Your notion of the Papacy makes it utterly worthless, to the point that we would have been better off without a Papacy. "Lord, you want to set up a Papacy, one which could lead the entire Church into grave error? Thanks, but no thanks. We'll go it on our own here."
You need to reconsider and repent of your heretical view of the Papacy and the Church, which is nothing more than a thinly-veiled repackaging of Old Catholicism.
-
No, it doesn't. There has been a theologian cited here precisely to that effect. So, tell me, genius, what is the time limit for a vacancy before the Church would defect? 5 years? 10? 15? 23 years 5 months 2 days 7 hours 5 minutes and 23 seconds? It's utterly absurd. You have to come up with a theological principle and not just this stupid "60 years" nonsense.
As for deriding the logic, it's basic Catholicism, that the Magisterium and the Public Worship of the Church cannot ever become substantially corrupt and hamful to souls. Would you like me to cite the Catholic Encyclopedia article to that effect? This has been taught by numerous Popes, the Church Fathers, Church Doctors, and unanimously taught by theologians before Vatican II. On the other hand, no time limit for a papal interregnum has ever been taught by anyone.
OK, so 60 years without a legitimate pope vs. 60 years of corrupt Magisterium and corrupt Public Worship. To say that the Church's Public Worship of God harms souls and displeases God is nothing short of blasphemy, and you're dangerously close to falling under the anathema pronounced by Trent for those who claim this (with only the tiniest bit of wiggle room).
What's the point of even having a Pope, a warm body sitting on the Chair and walking around Rome in white, when said Pope can corrupt the Faith and the Deposit of Revelation and impose a Rite of Public Worship that displeases God and harms souls? This is precisely WHY Our Lord established the Papacy, to prevent the Church from going off the rails. Your notion of the Papacy makes it utterly worthless, to the point that we would have been better off without a Papacy. "Lord, you want to set up a Papacy, one which could lead the entire Church into grave error? Thanks, but no thanks. We'll go it on our own here."
You need to reconsider and repent of your heretical view of the Papacy and the Church, which is nothing more than a thinly-veiled repackaging of Old Catholicism.
How can you pretend a 65 year (and counting) “vacancy” is simply a really, really, really long “interregnum?”
So long, in fact, that all those with jurisdiction have died, and there’s no way to get out of the “interregnum,” since nobody has any authority to elect another pope.
Sedevacantism is merely a transitional migration into ecclesiavacantism.
-
As for deriding the logic, it's basic Catholicism, that the Magisterium and the Public Worship of the Church cannot ever become substantially corrupt and harmful to souls. ... On the other hand, no time limit for a papal interregnum has ever been taught by anyone.
It's strange how many non-sedes think sedes believe this is an issue of some pope not quite getting some detail right about the Immaculate Conception. Sedes are discussing the defection of the Catholic Church. The Catholic religion vs. the Religion of Man, the Catholic Church vs. the Ape Church of the anti-Christ (Fulton Sheen), the Catholic Chruch vs. the Conciliar Church, the Church in Eclipse spoken of by the Blessed Virgin. New Theology, New Priesthood, New Everything and a massive loss of faith to go with it. If he's a legit authority, maybe the faithful should support his local Ordinary at a legal chapel and go to his Mass. Paul VI is canonized after all.
-
... How does someone delete a post? Ran into a problem but not seeing how to correct it.
-
As for deriding the logic, it's basic Catholicism, that the Magisterium and the Public Worship of the Church cannot ever become substantially corrupt and hamful to souls.
Yes, you've correctly quoted (https://www.cathinfo.com/sspx-resistance-news/miles-christi-volume-24-discussion-fr-chazal's-newsletter/msg867612/#msg867612) the authentic, de fide papal teachings saying exactly this.
Because you disbelieve those authentic teachings you yourself posted, you keep repeating the same absurd argument.
You just need to actually believe what you say above rather than use it as an excuse for sedeism.
-
As for deriding the logic, it's basic Catholicism, that the Magisterium and the Public Worship of the Church cannot ever become substantially corrupt and hamful to souls. Would you like me to cite the Catholic Encyclopedia article to that effect? This has been taught by numerous Popes, the Church Fathers, Church Doctors, and unanimously taught by theologians before Vatican II. On the other hand, no time limit for a papal interregnum has ever been taught by anyone.
. . .
What's the point of even having a Pope, a warm body sitting on the Chair and walking around Rome in white, when said Pope can corrupt the Faith and the Deposit of Revelation and impose a Rite of Public Worship that displeases God and harms souls? This is precisely WHY Our Lord established the Papacy, to prevent the Church from going off the rails. Your notion of the Papacy makes it utterly worthless, to the point that we would have been better off without a Papacy. "Lord, you want to set up a Papacy, one which could lead the entire Church into grave error? Thanks, but no thanks. We'll go it on our own here."
You need to reconsider and repent of your heretical view of the Papacy and the Church, which is nothing more than a thinly-veiled repackaging of Old Catholicism.
Ladislaus,
For the third time I ask you questions that might advance the ball and perhaps lend some clarity to the issues and discussion - or more likely show how bankrupt and flawed your reasoning is, which is likely why you don't respond:
Ladislaus,
Father Chazal believes Francis is the pope. I asked you before how Fr. Chazal's position differs from Sean Johnson's and you never responded. How do they differ?
If Fr. Chazal is "perfectly Catholic" and believes Franics is, and Benedict XVI, JPII, Paul VI were, popes, how does that not impugn the Catholic Magisterium of corruption and a public worship that harms souls and displeases God?
https://www.cathinfo.com/sspx-resistance-news/miles-christi-volume-24-discussion-fr-chazal's-newsletter/msg868368/#msg868368
Even better, how does Fr. Chazal's position differ from Stubborn's, since Stubborn believes Francis is pope and "quarantines" or "impounds" him just as Fr. Chazal does?
https://www.cathinfo.com/sspx-resistance-news/miles-christi-volume-24-discussion-fr-chazal's-newsletter/msg868369/#msg868369
Vigano and Chazal clearly hold the Conciliar popes to be popes, thereby holding men to be popes who have, according to you, "corrupted the Faith and the Deposit of Revelation and impose[d] a Rite of Public Worship that displeases God and harms souls."
How do they not hold the "heretical view of the Papacy and the Church" of Plenus Venter, Sean, Stubborn and myself?
DR
-
How can you pretend a 65 year (and counting) “vacancy” is simply a really, really, really long “interregnum?”
So long, in fact, that all those with jurisdiction have died, and there’s no way to get out of the “interregnum,” since nobody has any authority to elect another pope.
Sedevacantism is merely a transitional migration into ecclesiavacantism.
Fr. O'Reilly On The Idea Of A Long-Term Vacancy Of The Holy See
By John Daly. Revised and edited by John Lane, October 1999.
In 1882 a book was published in England called The Relations of the Church to Society - Theological Essays, comprising twenty-nine essays by Fr. Edmund James O'Reilly S.J., one of the leading theologians of his time. The book expresses with wonderful clarity and succinctness many important theological truths and insights on subjects indirectly as well as directly related to its main theme.
For our purposes the book has in one respect an even greater relevance than it did at the time of publication, for in it Fr. O'Reilly asserts with the full weight of such authority as he possesses, the following opinions:
- that a vacancy of the Holy See lasting for an extended period of time cannot be pronounced to be incompatible with the promises of Christ as to the indefectibility of the Church; and
- that it would be exceedingly rash to set any prejudged limits as to what God will be prepared to allow to happen to the Holy See (other, of course, than that a true pope will never fall into heresy, nor in any way err).
Of course Fr. O'Reilly does not have the status of pope or Doctor of the Church; but, that said, he was certainly no negligible authority. Some idea of the esteem in which he was held can be obtained from the following facts:
Cardinal Cullen, then Bishop of Armagh, chose him as his theologian at the Synod of Thurles in 1850.
Dr. Brown, bishop of Shrewsbury, chose him as his theologian at the Synod of Shrewsbury.
Dr. Furlong, bishop of Ferns and his former colleague as professor of theology at Maynooth, chose him as his theologian at the Synod of Maynooth.
He was named professor of theology at the Catholic University in Dublin on its foundation.
The General of the Society of Jesus, Fr. Beckx, proposed to appoint him professor of theology at the Roman College in Rome, though as it turned out circuмstances unrelated to Fr. O'Reilly intervened to prevent that appointment.
At a conference held regarding the philosophical and theological studies in the Society of Jesus, he was chosen to represent all the English-speaking "provinces" of the Society - that is, Ireland, England, Maryland, and the other divisions of the United States.
In short Fr. O'Reilly was widely recognised as one of the most erudite and important theologians of his time.
Finally, the following quotation by Dr. Ward in the justly renowned Dublin Review (January 1876 issue) is worth quoting (emphasis added):
"Whatever is written by so able and solidly learned a theologian - one so docile to the Church and so fixed in the ancient theological paths - cannot but be of signal benefit to the Catholic reader in these anxious and perilous times."
Dr. Ward thought his times were anxious and perilous! Well, let us now see what "signal benefit" we, a little more than a century later, can derive from some of Fr. O'Reilly's writing.
We open with a brief passage from an early chapter of the book, called "The Pastoral Office of the Church". On page 33 Fr. O'Reilly says this (emphases added):
"If we inquire how ecclesiastical jurisdiction...has been continued, the answer is that...it in part came and comes immediately from God on the fulfilment of certain conditions regarding the persons. Priests having jurisdiction derive it from bishops or the pope. The pope has it immediately from God, on his legitimate election. The legitimacy of his election depends on the observance of the rules established by previous popes regarding such election."
Thus, if papal jurisdiction depends on a person's legitimate election, which certainly is not verified in the case of the purported election of a formal heretic to the Chair of Peter, it follows that, in the absenceof legitimate election, no jurisdiction whatever is granted, neither "de jure" nor, despite what some have tried to maintain, "de facto".
Fr. O'Reilly makes the following remark later in his book (page 287 - our emphases added):
"A doubtful pope may be really invested with the requisite power; but he has not practically in relation to the Church the same right as a certain pope - He is not entitled to be acknowledged as Head of the Church, and may be legitimately compelled to desist from his claim."
This extract comes from one of two chapters devoted by Fr. O'Reilly to the Council of Constance of 1414. It may be remembered that the Council of Constance was held to put an end to the disastrous schism which had begun thirty-six years earlier, and which by that time involved no fewer than three claimants to the Papacy, each of whom had a considerable following. Back to Fr. O'Reilly:
"The Council assembled in 1414...
"We may here stop to inquire what is to be said of the position, at that time, of the three claimants, and their rights with regard to the Papacy. In the first place, there was all through, from the death of Gregory XI in 1378, a Pope - with the exception, of course, of the intervals between deaths and elections to fill up the vacancies thereby created. There was, I say, at every given time a Pope, really invested with the dignity of Vicar of Christ and Head of the Church, whatever opinions might exist among many as to his genuineness; not that an interregnum covering the whole period would have been impossible or inconsistent with the promises of Christ, for this is by no means manifest, but that, as a matter of fact, there was not such an interregnum."
Thus one of the great theologians of the nineteenth century, writing subsequently to the 1870 Vatican Council, tells us that it is "by no means manifest" that a thirty-six year interregnum would have been impossible or inconsistent with the promises of Christ. And we can therefore legitimately ask: at what stage, if any, would such be manifest? After thirty-seven years? Or forty-seven years? Clearly, once it is established in principle that a long interregnum is not incompatible with the promises of Christ, the question of degree - how long - cannot enter into the question. That is up to God to decide, and who can know what astonishing things He may in fact decide.
And, indeed, as Fr. O'Reilly proceeds further in this remarkable chapter, written over a hundred years ago but surely fashioned by Divine Providence much more expressly for our day than for his, he makes this very point about what it can and cannot be assumed that God will permit. From page 287 (all emphases added):
"There had been anti-popes before from time to time, but never for such a continuance...nor ever with such a following...
"The great schism of the West suggests to me a reflection which I take the liberty of expressing here. If this schism had not occurred, the hypothesis of such a thing happening would appear to many chimerical. They would say it could not be; God would not permit the Church to come into so unhappy a situation. Heresies might spring up and spread and last painfully long, through the fault and to the perdition of their authors and abettors, to the great distress too of the faithful, increased by actual persecution in many places where the heretics were dominant. But that the true Church should remain between thirty and forty years without a thoroughly ascertained Head, and representative of Christ on earth, this would not be. Yet it has been; and we have no guarantee that it will not be again, though we may fervently hope otherwise. What I would infer is, that we must not be too ready to pronounce on what God may permit. We know with absolute certainty that He will fulfil His promises; not allow anything to occur at variance with them; that He will sustain His Church and enable her to triumph over all enemies and difficulties; that He will give to each of the faithful those graces which are needed for each one's service of Him and attainment of salvation, as He did during the great schism we have been considering, and in all the sufferings and trials which the Church has passed through from the beginning. We may also trust He will do a great deal more than what He has bound Himself to by His promises. We may look forward with a cheering probability to exemption for the future from some of the troubles and misfortunes that have befallen in the past. But we, or our successors in future generations of Christians, shall perhaps see stranger evils than have yet been experienced, even before the immediate approach of that great winding up of all things on earth that will precede the day of judgment. I am not setting up for a prophet, nor pretending to see unhappy wonders, of which I have no knowledge whatever. All I mean to convey is that contingencies regarding the Church, not excluded by the Divine promises, cannot be regarded as practically impossible, just because they would be terrible and distressing in a very high degree."
While Fr. O'Reilly himself disclaims any status as a prophet, nevertheless a true prophecy is clearly exactly what this passage amounts to. Moreover it is the kind of prophecy which, provided it is advanced conditionally, as in this case, both can and should be made in the light of the evidence on which he is concentrating his gaze. In respect of much that lies in the future there is no need for special revelations in order that we may know it. As Fr. O'Reilly indicates, except where God has specifically told us that something will not occur, any assumptions concerning what He will not permit are rash; and of course such assumptions will have the disastrous result that people will be misled if the events in question do occur. "For my thoughts are not your thoughts, nor your ways my ways, saith the Lord." (Isaias 55:8)
-
Fr. O'Reilly On The Idea Of A Long-Term Vacancy Of The Holy See
By John Daly. Revised and edited by John Lane, October 1999.
In 1882 a book was published in England called The Relations of the Church to Society - Theological Essays, comprising twenty-nine essays by Fr. Edmund James O'Reilly S.J., one of the leading theologians of his time. The book expresses with wonderful clarity and succinctness many important theological truths and insights on subjects indirectly as well as directly related to its main theme.
For our purposes the book has in one respect an even greater relevance than it did at the time of publication, for in it Fr. O'Reilly asserts with the full weight of such authority as he possesses, the following opinions:
- that a vacancy of the Holy See lasting for an extended period of time cannot be pronounced to be incompatible with the promises of Christ as to the indefectibility of the Church; and
- that it would be exceedingly rash to set any prejudged limits as to what God will be prepared to allow to happen to the Holy See (other, of course, than that a true pope will never fall into heresy, nor in any way err).
Of course Fr. O'Reilly does not have the status of pope or Doctor of the Church; but, that said, he was certainly no negligible authority. Some idea of the esteem in which he was held can be obtained from the following facts:
Cardinal Cullen, then Bishop of Armagh, chose him as his theologian at the Synod of Thurles in 1850.
Dr. Brown, bishop of Shrewsbury, chose him as his theologian at the Synod of Shrewsbury.
Dr. Furlong, bishop of Ferns and his former colleague as professor of theology at Maynooth, chose him as his theologian at the Synod of Maynooth.
He was named professor of theology at the Catholic University in Dublin on its foundation.
The General of the Society of Jesus, Fr. Beckx, proposed to appoint him professor of theology at the Roman College in Rome, though as it turned out circuмstances unrelated to Fr. O'Reilly intervened to prevent that appointment.
At a conference held regarding the philosophical and theological studies in the Society of Jesus, he was chosen to represent all the English-speaking "provinces" of the Society - that is, Ireland, England, Maryland, and the other divisions of the United States.
In short Fr. O'Reilly was widely recognised as one of the most erudite and important theologians of his time.
Finally, the following quotation by Dr. Ward in the justly renowned Dublin Review (January 1876 issue) is worth quoting (emphasis added):
"Whatever is written by so able and solidly learned a theologian - one so docile to the Church and so fixed in the ancient theological paths - cannot but be of signal benefit to the Catholic reader in these anxious and perilous times."
Dr. Ward thought his times were anxious and perilous! Well, let us now see what "signal benefit" we, a little more than a century later, can derive from some of Fr. O'Reilly's writing.
We open with a brief passage from an early chapter of the book, called "The Pastoral Office of the Church". On page 33 Fr. O'Reilly says this (emphases added):
"If we inquire how ecclesiastical jurisdiction...has been continued, the answer is that...it in part came and comes immediately from God on the fulfilment of certain conditions regarding the persons. Priests having jurisdiction derive it from bishops or the pope. The pope has it immediately from God, on his legitimate election. The legitimacy of his election depends on the observance of the rules established by previous popes regarding such election."
Thus, if papal jurisdiction depends on a person's legitimate election, which certainly is not verified in the case of the purported election of a formal heretic to the Chair of Peter, it follows that, in the absenceof legitimate election, no jurisdiction whatever is granted, neither "de jure" nor, despite what some have tried to maintain, "de facto".
Fr. O'Reilly makes the following remark later in his book (page 287 - our emphases added):
"A doubtful pope may be really invested with the requisite power; but he has not practically in relation to the Church the same right as a certain pope - He is not entitled to be acknowledged as Head of the Church, and may be legitimately compelled to desist from his claim."
This extract comes from one of two chapters devoted by Fr. O'Reilly to the Council of Constance of 1414. It may be remembered that the Council of Constance was held to put an end to the disastrous schism which had begun thirty-six years earlier, and which by that time involved no fewer than three claimants to the Papacy, each of whom had a considerable following. Back to Fr. O'Reilly:
"The Council assembled in 1414...
"We may here stop to inquire what is to be said of the position, at that time, of the three claimants, and their rights with regard to the Papacy. In the first place, there was all through, from the death of Gregory XI in 1378, a Pope - with the exception, of course, of the intervals between deaths and elections to fill up the vacancies thereby created. There was, I say, at every given time a Pope, really invested with the dignity of Vicar of Christ and Head of the Church, whatever opinions might exist among many as to his genuineness; not that an interregnum covering the whole period would have been impossible or inconsistent with the promises of Christ, for this is by no means manifest, but that, as a matter of fact, there was not such an interregnum."
Thus one of the great theologians of the nineteenth century, writing subsequently to the 1870 Vatican Council, tells us that it is "by no means manifest" that a thirty-six year interregnum would have been impossible or inconsistent with the promises of Christ. And we can therefore legitimately ask: at what stage, if any, would such be manifest? After thirty-seven years? Or forty-seven years? Clearly, once it is established in principle that a long interregnum is not incompatible with the promises of Christ, the question of degree - how long - cannot enter into the question. That is up to God to decide, and who can know what astonishing things He may in fact decide.
And, indeed, as Fr. O'Reilly proceeds further in this remarkable chapter, written over a hundred years ago but surely fashioned by Divine Providence much more expressly for our day than for his, he makes this very point about what it can and cannot be assumed that God will permit. From page 287 (all emphases added):
"There had been anti-popes before from time to time, but never for such a continuance...nor ever with such a following...
"The great schism of the West suggests to me a reflection which I take the liberty of expressing here. If this schism had not occurred, the hypothesis of such a thing happening would appear to many chimerical. They would say it could not be; God would not permit the Church to come into so unhappy a situation. Heresies might spring up and spread and last painfully long, through the fault and to the perdition of their authors and abettors, to the great distress too of the faithful, increased by actual persecution in many places where the heretics were dominant. But that the true Church should remain between thirty and forty years without a thoroughly ascertained Head, and representative of Christ on earth, this would not be. Yet it has been; and we have no guarantee that it will not be again, though we may fervently hope otherwise. What I would infer is, that we must not be too ready to pronounce on what God may permit. We know with absolute certainty that He will fulfil His promises; not allow anything to occur at variance with them; that He will sustain His Church and enable her to triumph over all enemies and difficulties; that He will give to each of the faithful those graces which are needed for each one's service of Him and attainment of salvation, as He did during the great schism we have been considering, and in all the sufferings and trials which the Church has passed through from the beginning. We may also trust He will do a great deal more than what He has bound Himself to by His promises. We may look forward with a cheering probability to exemption for the future from some of the troubles and misfortunes that have befallen in the past. But we, or our successors in future generations of Christians, shall perhaps see stranger evils than have yet been experienced, even before the immediate approach of that great winding up of all things on earth that will precede the day of judgment. I am not setting up for a prophet, nor pretending to see unhappy wonders, of which I have no knowledge whatever. All I mean to convey is that contingencies regarding the Church, not excluded by the Divine promises, cannot be regarded as practically impossible, just because they would be terrible and distressing in a very high degree."
While Fr. O'Reilly himself disclaims any status as a prophet, nevertheless a true prophecy is clearly exactly what this passage amounts to. Moreover it is the kind of prophecy which, provided it is advanced conditionally, as in this case, both can and should be made in the light of the evidence on which he is concentrating his gaze. In respect of much that lies in the future there is no need for special revelations in order that we may know it. As Fr. O'Reilly indicates, except where God has specifically told us that something will not occur, any assumptions concerning what He will not permit are rash; and of course such assumptions will have the disastrous result that people will be misled if the events in question do occur. "For my thoughts are not your thoughts, nor your ways my ways, saith the Lord." (Isaias 55:8)
With all due respect to Fr. O'Reilly, I doubt many non-sedes have ever heard of him, and his authority is clearly overblown by Daly and Lane. I don't believe I've ever seen him cited in any other context.
That aside, could you point me to the part where he explains how a vacancy lasting so long that the hierarchy has become extinct (and therefore apostolicity lost), could somehow restore itself?
If the answer is that you cannot, could it be because the quotes of Fr. O'Reilly are not on point (i.e., Fr. O'Reilly was speaking of a vacancy in se, and not one in which allegedly pope after pope after pope, universally accepted, is nevertheless denied, and the entire hierarchy along with them)?
I doubt very much Fr. O'Reilly would say the Church can exist for generations without a hierarchy, which would militate against apostolicity, visibility, and indefectability.
-
Since you have a problem with the 65 years, Sean, let us know what the time limit would be before the Church would defect. In order to make that assertion, you have to know how long is "too long".
-
See, SVs have a harder time with the notion that the Catholic Church could lose its Marks and become unrecognizable for 65 years.
-
See, SVs have a harder time with the notion that the Catholic Church could lose its Marks and become unrecognizable for 65 years.
More absurdity to even suggest such a thing. You do the sede cause a terrible injustice, I find it a bit odd that they don't verbally pummel you, or at least correct you.
The Catholic Church has not lost it's Marks, nor has it ever become unrecognizable, and it never will.
-
Since you have a problem with the 65 years, Sean, let us know what the time limit would be before the Church would defect. In order to make that assertion, you have to know how long is "too long".
Theoretically, for sedes the maximum vacancy time limit would be constrained by the death of the last bishop still with jurisdiction (since once he's gone, there's no way to restore apostolicity).
If I'm a sede, then that's the last bishop consecrated during the pontificate of Pius XII who still had ordinary jurisdiction, and who didn't allegedly later excommunicate himself for heresy (not who was merely still alive).
Anyone know who that was, and when he retired?
What is certain is that he is not exercising jurisdiction today.
One way or the other, sedevacantism leads to ecclesiavacantism.
-
The Catholic Church has not lost it's Marks, nor has it ever become unrecognizable, and it never will.
Interesting. The first paragraph of the latest Eleison Comments suggests otherwise -
However, by the time I left university, I had realized that the Newchurch represented a new religion, and I broke away from it.
-
Interesting. The first paragraph of the latest Eleison Comments suggests otherwise -
However, by the time I left university, I had realized that the Newchurch represented a new religion, and I broke away from it.
What are Bp. Williamson's view of the Four Marks? The above quote doesn't suffice to explain his position on it.
-
Interesting. The first paragraph of the latest Eleison Comments suggests otherwise -
However, by the time I left university, I had realized that the Newchurch represented a new religion, and I broke away from it.
It is as the EC states: "The Newchurch represents a new religion", on that account it is not the Catholic Church. There should be nothing confusing whatsoever about this.
The Catholic Church has not lost it's Marks, nor will it ever become unrecognizable. It is the way we recognize the Catholic Church still today and will till the end of time. It's also how we know Newchurch is not the Catholic Church.
-
So, tell me, genius
You need to reconsider and repent of your heretical view of the Papacy and the Church, which is nothing more than a thinly-veiled repackaging of Old Catholicism.
No genius here, Ladislaus.
No Old Catholic either.
Nor do I consider that you are a sinner in need of repentance, nor a heretic.
But I disagree with your view in this profound crisis in the Church, as obviously many more intelligent, learned and saintly than I do.
The point I meant to make, doing it rather poorly again, no doubt, was that either side can make an argument from the point of view of the Church's indefectibility. Yet I believe neither side can claim infallibility, and that is precisely the problem with the SVs arguments, always trying to say too much, always trying to make their arguments into dogmatic teachings when they are not, and drawing from them definite and extreme practical applications, like deposing Popes! This is the difference between a Ladislaus and an ABL. Please think about it. God bless.
P.S. In all honesty, I think you are far closer to the genius than I. Perhaps too much of an original thinker, which is something I could never be, I'm too dim-witted!
-
Yes, always a good idea to define the terms.
I see there is another term popping into the picture now.
I think we are all at sixes and sevens here.
I am happy for you to define the terms for me and make your point in a logical syllogism.
But as far as the authority with which I make my point, I did quote St Robert Bellarmine.
Hmm...well, I don't think we are at 6's and 7's. :)
I'm trying to keep it at 1's and 2's.
Just basic Catechism.
See, I think we could hand a reasonably well Catechized child a picture book of these popes worshipping in ѕуηαgσgυєs and mosques and witchdoctor ceremonies and pajamamama worship
and they would tell you
"Those men are heretics. They have apostatized."
The crisis is really that easy and that clear.
A child can see and understand it.
The mystery, isn't the crisis,
it's is how ABL could say these men are not heretics.
That's what is cloudy and muddled and hard to understand.
The crisis isn't hard to see or understand
it's just hard to face.
-
From memory, the way it worked in my neck of the woods I think is typical.....
The then Father Sanborn, over time, worked himself into a frenzy in order to become sede. When he was fresh out of the seminary his sermons were awesome, even spell binding (to me) and I would say all of his parishioners really loved that man as a true holy and courageous priest with a great gift of communicating to his sheep! I still have a deep respect for him to this day from sermons he gave some 45 odd years ago.
Some how the word got out and almost every week you would see a new family or new people who heard of a TLM being offered in an old school's gymnasium. His little chapel was getting crowded and growing.
Then seemingly out of the blue one day his sermons switched gears as he started preaching against the pope, before long he started calling the pope, in a totally disrespectful way, "Montini" (most people did not know who "Montini" even was at the time), blaming him for everything. Shortly thereafter he came out insisting he was not the pope. I'm only guessing because it was so long ago, but I would say the transition from R&R to sedeism took him about 3 to 4 months.
During his early ravings against the pope from the pulpit, one by one his parishioners began leaving because of his sermons against the pope, but it was only few weeks after he went full on sede that more than half of his parishioners abruptly left due to his preaching exclusively and almost obsessively, sedeism.
The sad thing is, there was no need for him to switch gears at all, none whatsoever. All it accomplished was to stop the growth, cause division among the faithful, and who knows what became of those with nowhere else to go but left due to him switching gears for no reason, who knows how many of them left the Church altogether and/or went back the the NO?
Whatever happened, this was and still is the result of sedeism, this is the divisive nature inherent in sedeism that from then till now and into the future, is repeated over and over. For whatever reason, the sedes blind themselves to this, it's only purpose.
Yes, I agree that division is a painful and sad reality. I think people should be able to disagree and still love each other but the reality is that families can be torn apart by these issues.
Is division always bad though?
Does God sometimes want division?
I mean, Noah's Ark was pretty divisive, wasn't it?
Consider that Gideon's army had 32,000 soldiers against 135,000.
So did God say, we need to make some concessions with these false god worshippers and get more troops?
No. God was divisive. He brought the number down to only 300.
How many saints had to leave or even run away from their families?
Did Jesus say it was always bad to be divisive?
51 (https://biblehub.com/catholic/luke/12-51.htm)Think ye, that I am come to give peace on earth? I tell you, no; but separation. 52 (https://biblehub.com/catholic/luke/12-52.htm)For there shall be from henceforth five in one house divided: three against two, and two against three. 53 (https://biblehub.com/catholic/luke/12-53.htm)The father shall be divided against the son and the son against his father: the mother against the daughter and the daughter against her mother: the mother-in-law against the daughter-in-law and the daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law. Luke 12:51
-
How can you pretend a 65 year (and counting) “vacancy” is simply a really, really, really long “interregnum?”
So long, in fact, that all those with jurisdiction have died, and there’s no way to get out of the “interregnum,” since nobody has any authority to elect another pope.
Sedevacantism is merely a transitional migration into ecclesiavacantism.
I'm with you on this.
I don't understand, Sean.
How can this be??? It doesn't make sense.
You mean after all the years of building Christendom and the hierarchy and the gospel being preached to all the corners of the earth
we are now left without a pope for years on end until further notice.
Why?
Yet I think about Abraham waiting allllllll those years for a son so the promise of his offspring could be fulfilled
and then God tells him to kill the boy????
That doesn't make sense!! Why??
Well, we don't have to know the answer, we just have to be obedient.
After all, God made no promise that we would always have a pope.
He did promise the Gates of Hell would not prevail against the Church.
The Church is still here even if there is no pope.
If the Church preaches heresy and false religions and idol worship and Allah worship then the Gates of Hell have prevailed and God's promise has failed.
Nope. They ain't popes. The Church is still here.
For many people, this reality is a devastating truth.
For some their priesthood wasn't valid, for others their annulment wasn't valid, for others it means leaving their chapel and beloved priest and friends, getting mocked and ostracized.
Well, like Abraham, and indeed Our Lord and Savior Himself, we have to be prepared to leave absolutely everything
in obedience to God.
-
This quote from St John is saying that a heretic is Antichrist. But it does not say that every anti-Christ is a heretic. Do you see the difference? Every boy is a male, but not every male is a boy. We ought not to make ABL say something he did not mean.
On the una cuм question, which I am guessing is what you mean by "prayers in union with theirs", we only need to pick up some classical studies on the Mass to learn what this prayer in the Canon of the Mass means. Here's a quick selection from my library:
The Holy Sacrifice of the Mass by Gihr, 1902, The First Prayer of the Canon before the Consecration:
After this manner do we, in the first place, offer our prayers and the Sacrifice for Holy Church, for she is, indeed, our greatest benefactress, our spiritual mother... The general fruit of the Sacrifice falls the more copiously to the share of the individual members of the mystical body of Christ in proportion as they contribute to the common welfare of the Church, hence we have now a special and an express offering and prayer for the Pope, and for the chief pastor of the diocese in which the Holy Mass is celebrated...
The Mass, A Study of the Roman Liturgy, by Fortesque, 1912:
The Intercession (from "in primis"), now scattered throughout the Canon, begins by praying for the Church, Pope, bishop and the faithful...in the Middle Ages the celebrant added a prayer for himself...
The Heart of the Mass, compiled from approved sources, Imprimatur 1936:
After praying for the Church in general, a special petition is added for the Sovereign Pontiff and the diocesan bishop. Great responsibilities rest upon our ecclesiastical superiors; the welfare of mankind depends largely upon their fidelity to duty; therefore, we implore the divine assistance in their behalf.
St John is saying those who deny Christ are antichrist.
Are you saying that the term antichrist only means a sinner?
As for St Robert Bellarmine also says:
St. Robert Bellarmine:
“A Pope who is a manifest heretic automatically ceases to be a Pope and head, just as he ceases automatically to be a Christian and a member of the Church. Wherefore, he can be judged and punished by the Church. This is the teaching of all the ancient Fathers who teach that manifest heretics immediately lose all jurisdiction.”
So it's automatic.
I'm not a council member and I don't need to judge and punish the guy, I just need to stop being in union with him.
And these saints say:
St. Alphonsus Liguori:
“If ever a Pope, as a private person, should fall into heresy, he should at once fall from the Pontificate. If, however, God were to permit a pope to become a notorious and contumacious heretic, he would by such fact cease to be pope, and the apostolic chair would be vacant.”
"at once"
St. Antoninus:
“In the case in which the Pope would become a heretic, he would find himself, by that very fact alone and without any other sentence, separated from the Church. A head separated from a body cannot, as long as it remains separated, be head of the same body from which it was cut off.”
"without any other sentence"
He's separated from the Church and no longer the head.
-
Yes, there's another term that she puts into the picture. She isn't interested in having her questions answered. She just wants to prove a point, and she will pretend humility, when there is none.
It should be pretty easy to provide a one sentence definition of antichrist, heretic, and apostate, so I don't think that is much to ask.
I really would like to know how PV defines these terms because he seems to have a different viewpoint that I'm not understanding.
I'm not pretending to be humble here. lol I'm quite vain and prideful so no worries on that account. :P
Yet, I am very aware of the fact that I will have to give account to God for my stance and I am willing to change it if need be for my salvation.
That's why I'm asking so many annoying questions!
If I need to remain in union with antichrist popes (ABL's description of them) in order to get to Heaven, then that's what I must do.
It appears that PV believes antichrist means simply a "sinner".
St John says it's somebody who denies Christ. (which all of these popes have done)
My understanding is that an antichrist is a fitting description of these popes because they repeatedly publicly denied Christ
by worshipping other gods.
That would also be heresy and apostasy.
That's why I can't understand why ABL says they are not heretics but are antichrists.
If antichrist simply means somebody is a sinner then perhaps that might work.
My understanding is that a pope can be a sinner. However a pope cannot be a heretic or apostate.
Do you or PV know if there a resource that can explain that an antichrist is merely a sinner?
Thanks
-
On the una cuм question, which I am guessing is what you mean by "prayers in union with theirs", we only need to pick up some classical studies on the Mass to learn what this prayer in the Canon of the Mass means. Here's a quick selection from my library:
The Holy Sacrifice of the Mass by Gihr, 1902, The First Prayer of the Canon before the Consecration:
After this manner do we, in the first place, offer our prayers and the Sacrifice for Holy Church, for she is, indeed, our greatest benefactress, our spiritual mother... The general fruit of the Sacrifice falls the more copiously to the share of the individual members of the mystical body of Christ in proportion as they contribute to the common welfare of the Church, hence we have now a special and an express offering and prayer for the Pope, and for the chief pastor of the diocese in which the Holy Mass is celebrated...
The Mass, A Study of the Roman Liturgy, by Fortesque, 1912:
The Intercession (from "in primis"), now scattered throughout the Canon, begins by praying for the Church, Pope, bishop and the faithful...in the Middle Ages the celebrant added a prayer for himself...
The Heart of the Mass, compiled from approved sources, Imprimatur 1936:
After praying for the Church in general, a special petition is added for the Sovereign Pontiff and the diocesan bishop. Great responsibilities rest upon our ecclesiastical superiors; the welfare of mankind depends largely upon their fidelity to duty; therefore, we implore the divine assistance in their behalf.
Oops. I'm sorry, but I quoted this in my last post instead of the St Robert quote from in the other post you had shared.
So from what you shared it would seem that "una cuм" means only that we are praying "for" the pope.
I wonder why they use the words "una cuм" then instead of "for"?
I wonder about this further because I know that if we ask for a priest to offer Mass for a relative and donate a stipend they ask if the person is a practicing Catholic or if they left the Church or were never a member.
If they are not practicing Catholics they cannot be named in the Mass. It cannot be offered specifically for them by name. We can only offer the Mass for a "private intention" and not name the individual at Mass since we can't pray for heretics or apostates and offer the Mass for them. Isn't that right?
And I don't need to have a council come to town and declare my dear relative who I would very much like to have named and offer the Mass "for" a heretic or apostate. It's really up to my personal judgement because frankly we usually can tell if somebody is a practicing Catholic or a heretic or apostate. So we can trust my conscience and good sense on that matter.
Yet, if the pope is a heretic or apostate we can pray publicly at Mass "for" him and offer the sacrifice "for" him?
That doesn't make sense to me.
Perhaps if he is only an antichrist we can pray for him at Mass? Is that right? Perhaps that could be if antichrist means "sinner" but I don't think so if antichrist means heretic or apostate.
Also, I may be wrong but my understanding is that the Mass is inherently offered in union with the other (valid) masses worldwide. So although I did know that we are praying "for" the pontiff and bishop, we are also praying "in union" with them. That's one of the reasons why they use the words "una cuм" isn't it? So as to show unity?
But unity with antichrists? Ugh. Well if antichrist only means sinner then maybe that works.
But it definitely shows unity because that becomes apparent in the reverse scenario. If we do not name the pope during Mass it is seen as an act of schism.
Again this is what I don't understand:
So by naming him we are only praying "for" him.
We are not praying "in union with" him.
But if we don't name him we are in schism
because we are declaring we are not "una cuм" in union with him.
Does that make sense?
How can it mean only mean "for" when we name him
but mean "in union with" (una cuм)
when we don't name him?
Here are some quotes to consider with an explanation I found helpful:
Rev. Maurice De La Taille in his book Mysterium Fidei. There are two points to be noted in this reference. The first point is: "Hence were anyone to mention by name an infidel, a heretic, a shismatic, or an excommunicated person...he would certainly violate the law of the Church."
THE CATECHISM EXPLAINED, FROM THE ORIGINAL, OF Rev. FRANCIS SPIRAGO, professor of Theology. EDITED BY Rev. RICHARD F. CLARKE, S.J. New York, Cincinnati, Chicago: BENZIGER BROTHERS, Printers to the Holy Apostolic See, 1899, Nihil Obstat, Thos. L. Kinkead, Censor Librorum, Imprimatur, +MICHAEL AUGUSTINE, Archbishop of New York, New York, August 8, 1899, p. 549.
In the Roman Mass, after Lavabo, a priest prays Suscipe sancta Trinitas... etc. Then he turns to the people, and facing them says in an audible voice "Oráte, fratres: ut meum ac vestrum sacrifícium acceptábile fiat apud Deum Patrem omnipoténtem" "Pray, brethren: that my and your sacrifice may be acceptable to God the Father Almighty".
Also, when at the words una cuм famulo tuo Papa nostro N. a priest adds the name of the reigning Pope, and at the words et antistite nostro N. he adds the name of the Ordinary of the place where he says Mass, the faithful are uniting in spirit with the priest. In other words, the faithful agree with a priest when he mentions the Pope and the Bishop, and they agree with a priest when he mentions a public heretic, or a schismatic.
By mentioning the Pope by name, the priest manifests unity with him, as the visible head of the Catholic Church upon earth. By mentioning a heretic, instead of the Pope, the priest manifests unity with a heretic as the head of the Catholic Church. Laity in attendance manifest the same unity either with a Pope or a heretic.
The Church's Teaching is very clear, that during the Holy Mass the faithful are uniting themselves in spirit to the priest both in the offering of the sacrifice and in liturgical prayers, and here are some excerpts:
THE CATECHISM EXPLAINED: 5. Not the priest alone, but all the faithful who are present at Mass, may offer the holy sacrifice for a special intention.
The people who are present when Mass is celebrated offer it with the officiating priest. The priest offers the sacrifice in his own person, the people offer it by his hands.
Some say that by mentioning the Pope in the Canon, the priest does not offer sacrifice of the Mass una cuм (together with) the Pope, but he only prays for the Pope, and that it has completely different meaning for the laity when they participate in Holy Mass.
Let us see, whether there is a matter if una cuм is translated as "together with thy servant N. our Pope" (which is literal translation) as it is in THE ROMAN MISSAL IN ENGLISH FOR THE USE OF THE LAITY, or "for thy servant N. our Pope" as it is translated by Rev. F. X. Lasance or ADRIAN FORTESCUE.
THE ROMAN MISSAL, TRANSLATED INTO THE ENGLISH LANGUAGE FOR THE USE OF THE LAITY:
"WE therefore, humbly pray and beseech thee most merciful Father, thro' Jesus Christ thy Son, our Lord, that thou wouldst vouchsafe to accept and bless these gifts, these presents, these holy unspotted sacrifices, which in the first place we offer thee for thy holy Catholic Church, to which vouchsafe to grant peace; as also to preserve, unite, and govern it throughout the world: together with thy servant N. our pope N. our Bishop, as also all ortnodox believers and professors of the catholic and apostolic Faith."
THE ROMAN MISSAL, TRANSLATED INTO THE ENGLISH LANGUAGE FOR THE USE OF THE LAITY. PUBLISHED WITH THE APPBOBATION OF THE RIGHT REV. THE BISHOP OF PHILADELPHIA, FIRST REVISED EDITION. PHILADELPHIA. PUBLISHED BY EUGENE cuмMISKEY, 1037 CHESTNUT STREET. 1865, duly approved of, and recommended by me to the faithful. Frederick James, Bishop of Philadelphia, p. xxxiii.
The New Roman Missal by Rev. F. X. Lasance:
"THEREFORE, we humbly pray and beseech Thee, most merciful Father, through Jesus Christ Thy Son, Our Lord, to receive and to bless these + gifts, these + presents, these + holy unspotted sacrifices, which we offer up to Thee, in the first place, for Thy holy Catholic Church, that it may please Thee to grant her peace, to guard, unite, and guide her, throughout the world; as also for Thy servant N., our Pope, and W., our Bishop, and for all who are orthodox in belief and who profess the Catholic and apostolic faith."
The New Roman Missal, by Rev. F. X. Lasance, p. 777
THE MASS A STUDY OF THE ROMAN LITURGY:
"The Intercession (from "in primis"), now spread throughout the Canon, begins by praying for the Church, Pope, bishop and the faithful." THE MASS A STUDY OF THE ROMAN LITURGY BY ADRIAN FORTESCUE, LONGMANS, GREEN AND CO. 39 PATERNOSTER ROW, LONDON, NEW YORK, BOMBAY AND CALCUTTA 1914, Nihil obstat: F. THOS. BERGH, O.S.B., Censor dcputatus. Imprimatur: Edm. Can. Surmont, Vic. gen. Westmonasterii, die 28 Martii, 1912, p. 329.
No matter how una cuм is translated "with our Pope", or "for our Pope", from it is clear that the emphasis in the prayer of the Canon is on the offering the sacrifice by the priest and the faithful for the holy Catholic Church in unity with Pope as the visible head of the Catholic Church upon earth. By mentioning the Pope by name the priest manifests his unity with the Pope, and the faithful attending the Mass manifest their unity with the Pope as well.
On the other hand, if the priest mentions a heretic or a schismatic instead of the Pope, he thus manifests unity with a heretic or a schismatic, and the laity do the same through the priest."
http://www.catholicmessage.org/blog/cmri-una-cuм-issues-matrimonial-decisions-jurisdiction/2022-11-04-415
Considering the above,
perhaps it would be okay to name an antichrist in the Mass and offer it in union him
but not with a heretic?
I find that hard to believe, but I tend to favor St John's definition of antichrist in Sacred Scripture.
Before going sede I asked priests how we could unite the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass in union with antichrists and they gave me no answer.
That's why I'd like to know if there is another definition that an antichrist is just a sinner but I haven't found one.
Perhaps ABL used that definition of antichrist? Did ABL think antichrist meant "sinner"?
I just can't imagine looking Jesus in the eyes and explaining why I offered his Most Precious Body and Blood
in union with antichrists who pray to strange gods.
I don't think, "Because ABL or Chazal or Lad etc...said it was okay." will do.
I mean I have in the past, but never again.
It just seems to me to be extremely offensive to the sacrifice of Our Lord Jesus and a violation of the First Commandment.
It's a way to get me (and Jesus' most adorable Body and Blood) to be a part of the nєω ωσrℓ∂ σr∂єr One World Religion.
Ugh!
Unless somebody can convince me otherwise.
I mean, I'm willing to do whatever it takes to obey God's commandments
and time is running out.
-
Yes, I agree that division is a painful and sad reality. I think people should be able to disagree and still love each other but the reality is that families can be torn apart by these issues.
Is division always bad though?
Does God sometimes want division?
I mean, Noah's Ark was pretty divisive, wasn't it?....
Division is always bad when it happens among the faithful because it divides the Church as such.
What you seem to miss here is that the priest, for no good reason was the cause of the disunity among the faithful, we call this "scattering the flock." Why was it scattered? It was scattered due to him being the cause by his scandalous preaching of his own puny opinions and ideas instead of from the Gospel. Now, if the parishioners had left due to him preaching the truth of the Gospel, which is what his duty actually is, then that would be another matter entirely and your below quote might then apply.
Did Jesus say it was always bad to be divisive?
51 (https://biblehub.com/catholic/luke/12-51.htm)Think ye, that I am come to give peace on earth? I tell you, no; but separation. 52 (https://biblehub.com/catholic/luke/12-52.htm)For there shall be from henceforth five in one house divided: three against two, and two against three. 53 (https://biblehub.com/catholic/luke/12-53.htm)The father shall be divided against the son and the son against his father: the mother against the daughter and the daughter against her mother: the mother-in-law against the daughter-in-law and the daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law. Luke 12:51
Also recall Our Lord saying "Woe to the world because of scandals. For it must needs be that scandals come: but nevertheless woe to that man by whom the scandal cometh." The scandals come to divide, to separate the sheep from the goats, to get the sheep to go with the goats, that is their purpose. Scandal "must needs be" because God uses scandal to separate the wheat from the chaff.
In your above quote, it is scandal which causes the separation and takes away the peace Our Lord speaks of. But when we have unity of faith, we have the peace Our Lord promised..."Peace I leave with you, my peace I give unto you: not as the world giveth, do I give unto you. Let not your heart be troubled, nor let it be afraid."
-
Division is always bad when it happens among the faithful because it divides the Church as such.
What you seem to miss here is that the priest, for no good reason was the cause of the disunity among the faithful, we call this "scattering the flock." Why was it scattered? It was scattered due to him being the cause by his scandalous preaching of his own puny opinions and ideas instead of from the Gospel. Now, if the parishioners had left due to him preaching the truth of the Gospel, which is what his duty actually is, then that would be another matter entirely and your below quote might then apply.
Also recall Our Lord saying "Woe to the world because of scandals. For it must needs be that scandals come: but nevertheless woe to that man by whom the scandal cometh." The scandals come to divide, to separate the sheep from the goats, to get the sheep to go with the goats, that is their purpose. Scandal "must needs be" because God uses scandal to separate the wheat from the chaff.
In your above quote, it is scandal which causes the separation and takes away the peace Our Lord speaks of. But when we have unity of faith, we have the peace Our Lord promised..."Peace I leave with you, my peace I give unto you: not as the world giveth, do I give unto you. Let not your heart be troubled, nor let it be afraid."
Well, division from joining worship with heretics, apostates and idol worshippers is a necessary form of division.
These Bishops have had a difficult time discerning the matters and it has been a process so I try to cut them some slack while they were figuring it out while still allowing for some disagreement with them.
It was the popes in Rome who were responsible for causing the scandals.
Now the dust has settled though, and things have become very, very clear.
I understand where you are coming from, though, Stubborn. Yes, we all want that peace.
For myself, I couldn't find peace in uniting the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass to the prayers of idol worshipping antichrists.
I couldn't find peace in the concept that the Church would hand me a plate of dogma and doctrine and tell me I have to pick through it and figure out what is true and what isn't.
Remaining in union with the constant drama from the Apostate Vatican provides no peace. All they are providing is heartache.
I don't find peace in speaking ill of men we recognize as true popes. That should never be. That is a scandal.
Either we should never speak ill or we should recognize what seems quite obvious: they are not true popes.
It appears that the Church is following the footsteps of Our Lord so that the Shepherd was struck and the sheep were scattered.
Perhaps this has to take place to fulfill the Scripture?
Some like AB Vigano and Bishop Williamson are wrongly looking to Moscow for the future of the Church as if the One Holy Roman Catholic Church is in ashes and they will provide the "Third Rome". The One True Faith is not there.
The true Faith and the true Church is still here. There are disagreements but the true Church is not preaching false religions, worshipping idols and sending souls to Hell. It is preserving the Apostolic Faith as best it can even though its members are sinners and the faithful are scattered.
This seems similar to the scattered faithful during the Arian crisis and the underground Church during the French Revolution and in China or during the 100's of years of persecution of the faithful in Japan.
Those were also years of great division.
-
Theoretically, for sedes the maximum vacancy time limit would be constrained by the death of the last bishop still with jurisdiction (since once he's gone, there's no way to restore apostolicity).
If I'm a sede, then that's the last bishop consecrated during the pontificate of Pius XII who still had ordinary jurisdiction, and who didn't allegedly later excommunicate himself for heresy (not who was merely still alive).
Anyone know who that was, and when he retired?
OK, so this is at leat a principle rather than a time limit. You can't just throw an arbitrary time out there. This is better.
When the Pope dies, nobody has ordinary jurisdiction in the normal manner, even if the See has been vacant for 3 hours. During an interregnum, Christ directly supplies jurisdiction. So the entire Church is in a state of supplied jurisdiction.
This assertion that there's something special about a bishop who had been appointed by the previous Pope has never been proven by R&R, and we've gone through this a dozen times.
Under the principles of sedeprivationism, the ability to make appointments remains even in a material pope, so if there's a bishop who's been appointed by a material pope, a bishop who has no impediment to the formal exercise of jurisdiction, he would in fact have jurisdiction. So your criticism clearly does not apply to sedeprivationism.
But, then, even the sedevacantists have cited theologians who hold that jurisdiction can even pass through an Antipope due to "color of title".
So whether it's for 3 hours or for 65 years, the nature of interregnum jurisdiction is that of being supplied by Christ, and that would be no different whether a bishop had been appointed by the last pope to exercise formal authority vs. an Eastern Rite bishop appointed by a material pope vs. an Eastern Rite bishop who has jurisdiction through a "color of title" appointment.
As a sedeprivationist, I used to make this criticism of straight sedevacantism, but then sedevacantists cited texts regarding "color of title" appointments, so I had to withdraw my criticism.
This notion that the Church would defect with death of the last bishop appointed by the previous pope remains entirely unproven, and in fact, the evidence is in favor of the sedeprivationists / sedevacantists.
-
OK, so this is at leat a principle rather than a time limit. You can't just throw an arbitrary time out there. This is better.
When the Pope dies, nobody has ordinary jurisdiction in the normal manner, even if the See has been vacant for 3 hours. During an interregnum, Christ directly supplies jurisdiction. So the entire Church is in a state of supplied jurisdiction.
This assertion that there's something special about a bishop who had been appointed by the previous Pope has never been proven by R&R, and we've gone through this a dozen times.
Under the principles of sedeprivationism, the ability to make appointments remains even in a material pope, so if there's a bishop who's been appointed by a material pope, a bishop who has no impediment to the formal exercise of jurisdiction, he would in fact have jurisdiction. So your criticism clearly does not apply to sedeprivationism.
But, then, even the sedevacantists have cited theologians who hold that jurisdiction can even pass through an Antipope due to "color of title".
So whether it's for 3 hours or for 65 years, the nature of interregnum jurisdiction is that of being supplied by Christ, and that would be no different whether a bishop had been appointed by the last pope to exercise formal authority vs. an Eastern Rite bishop appointed by a material pope vs. an Eastern Rite bishop who has jurisdiction through a "color of title" appointment.
As a sedeprivationist, I used to make this criticism of straight sedevacantism, but then sedevacantists cited texts regarding "color of title" appointments, so I had to withdraw my criticism.
This notion that the Church would defect with death of the last bishop appointed by the previous pope remains entirely unproven, and in fact, the evidence is in favor of the sedeprivationists / sedevacantists.
Supposing you were correct in that the entire hierarchy loses ordinary jurisdiction upon the death of the pope (a claim which I find exceedingly doubtful, but which I will need to investigate), and that in fact we have been amidst a 65 year interregnum.
It would still mean that generations have passed since any bishop had mission/office/jurisdiction in the Church, which breaks formal apostolicity, and unavoidably arrives at ecclesiavacantism.
-
Since you have a problem with the 65 years, Sean, let us know what the time limit would be before the Church would defect. In order to make that assertion, you have to know how long is "too long".
Yes, how long is too long?
Has the Church set a time limit?
Has our Lord?
-
Yes, how long is too long?
Has the Church set a time limit?
Has our Lord?
How long did the Japanese Catholics go without a shepherd?
250 years?
Is that too long in God time?
Is that too long in Sean time?
We know the Antichrist would love to provide you with a solution to your problems.
And many false christs will arise...
-
How long did the Japanese Catholics go without a shepherd?
250 years?
Is that too long in God time?
Is that too long in Sean time?
We know the Antichrist would love to provide you with a solution to your problems.
And many false christs will arise...
I think about those Japanese Catholics and wonder how they kept the faith. People told them that they should give it up. No priest is coming to save you. Many were martyrd.
Your God has abandoned you...
NO!
Do not give up your Catholic Faith in the One Holy Apostolic Church because you cannot see a solution in your inadequate human intellect!
And those French Catholics who refused to take part in the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass when the Freemasons had taken over the Church in France!
Join your cause to theirs.
St John Vianney was but a boy, but his mother continued to go to the very reverent Latin Mass nearby.
A LATIN MASS
VERY REVERENT
What more could you want???
It was not far away.
It was convenient.
But a close relative told her she should stop! That is the Mass of the Revolution!!!
Well, it was Latin. It had the smells and the bells! It was reverent! It was una cuм the pope!
But no!
St John Vianney's Mother realized the ramifications and stopped attending at once.
She was not a great theologian.
She was just a peasant woman who had the Sensus Fidelium.
She knew that staying home was better than uniting the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass with infidels and heretics who were the usurpers of Holy Mother Church.
Usurpers! She would not join una cuм with them!
For a while the Vianney family stopped attending Mass altogether. That was better than assisting in the Revolution!
Eventually the Vianney family were able to find underground masses which were not in union with the Freemasonic Revolutionaries
in barns and elsewhere by travelling great distances.
This is what we must do!
It doesn't matter if the Mass is "reverent".
If it is in union with the Freemasonic revolutionaries then we cannot assist!
If it is in union with the NWO One World Religion then we must refuse!
We must tell our priests exactly WHY we refuse.
The priests who have the Sensus Fidelium will recognize the gravity of this situation and join the cause!
-
How long did the Japanese Catholics go without a shepherd?
250 years?
What is your point? Look at the results of going so long without a shepherd, as a nation they worship Buddha - thanks to going so long without a priest.
I always wonder why trads use Japan as if to show going centuries without a priest can in some way be a good thing instead of a curse.
-
I always wonder why trads use Japan as if to show going centuries without a priest can in some way be a good thing instead of a curse.
Yes, they may have preserved some form of the faith, but did they preserve grace?
Theologically speaking, salvation without the sacraments would be considered morally impossible, and would suppose some kind of divine intervention.
I remember when Pfeiffer/Hewko used to use the example of the Japanese as reasons to "red light" all SSPX and non-Pfeiffer/Hewko Masses (which many of these poor dupes still do to this date, going years without sacraments, allegedly in order "not to compromise").
A fidelity which leads to hell is a strange fidelity!
-
What is your point? Look at the results of going so long without a shepherd, as a nation they worship Buddha - thanks to going so long without a priest.
I always wonder why trads use Japan as if to show going centuries without a priest can in some way be a good thing instead of a curse.
From the time St Francis Xavier started preaching in Japan to banning and persecution of Christianity it was less than 20 years, so there was relatively a small group of Catholics. The martyrs of Nagasaky left a huge impression on that small group. Before the last jesuits left Japan they instructed them on how to perform baptisms and clues on how to identify Catholic priests from protestant pastors in case they were permitted to return in the future.
The point with the comparison is that God does not abandon faithful souls and to avoid dispair. Generations of true Catholics passed without ever meeting a priest.
-
What is your point? Look at the results of going so long without a shepherd, as a nation they worship Buddha - thanks to going so long without a priest.
I always wonder why trads use Japan as if to show going centuries without a priest can in some way be a good thing instead of a curse.
OK, but as pertains to the Papacy, your "Shepherd" has led the way into idolatry. We had Wojtyla set up the Buddha on top of an erstwhile Catholic tabernacle at Assisi.
-
Supposing you were correct in that the entire hierarchy loses ordinary jurisdiction upon the death of the pope (a claim which I find exceedingly doubtful, but which I will need to investigate), and that in fact we have been amidst a 65 year interregnum.
It would still mean that generations have passed since any bishop had mission/office/jurisdiction in the Church, which breaks formal apostolicity, and unavoidably arrives at ecclesiavacantism.
Really, the only way the Church doesn't go into an extraordinary supplied jurisdiction mode (with jurisdiction supplied by Christ) is if you hold the (minority) opinion that the Bishops receive jurisdiction directly from Our Lord vs. through the Pope. But that opinion is mostly abandoned since the teaching of Vatican I.
I think you missed most of my post because you have some mental block, where you can't allow this strawman against sedevacantism to fall. I just stated that per the principles of sedeprivationism and/or "color of title" (for the straight sedevacantists), bishops could still formally exercise ordinary jurisdiction if they themselves have no impediment to exercising it. Surely there are some Eastern bishops who are not pertinacious heretics, perhaps a handful also in the Latin Chrch. So why are you talking again about ecclesiavacantism?
Besides that, it's not evident that the Church would defect if for time no one held ordinary jurisdiction. That's also an assumption of R&R. If during the Arian crisis, where 97-99% (based on various estimates) of the episcopal sees were in the possession of the Arians, had the Arians gotten their "Pope" elected, and he finished it off by deposing the remaning 1%-3% of Catholic bishops, the Church would have continued on in the orthodox bishops who remained true to the faith, as St. Athanasius famously taugh.
Then, what was left of the Church (as per St. Robert Bellarmine) could somehow elect or select a Pope. Once this Pope were elected, God would then confer the formal office on him, and then ordinary jurisdiction would resume. So there would be the formal continuity despite a hiatus.
-
Really, the only way the Church doesn't go into an extraordinary supplied jurisdiction mode (with jurisdiction supplied by Christ) is if you hold the (minority) opinion that the Bishops receive jurisdiction directly from Our Lord vs. through the Pope. But that opinion is mostly abandoned since the teaching of Vatican I.
I think you missed most of my post because you have some mental block, where you can't allow this strawman against sedevacantism to fall. I just stated that per the principles of sedeprivationism and/or "color of title" (for the straight sedevacantists), bishops could still formally exercise ordinary jurisdiction if they themselves have no impediment to exercising it. Surely there are some Eastern bishops who are not pertinacious heretics, perhaps a handful also in the Latin Chrch. So why are you talking again about ecclesiavacantism?
Besides that, it's not evident that the Church would defect if for time no one held ordinary jurisdiction. That's also an assumption of R&R. If during the Arian crisis, where 97-99% (based on various estimates) of the episcopal sees were in the possession of the Arians, had the Arians gotten their "Pope" elected, and he finished it off by deposing the remaning 1%-3% of Catholic bishops, the Church would have continued on in the orthodox bishops who remained true to the faith, as St. Athanasius famously taugh.
Then, what was left of the Church (as per St. Robert Bellarmine) could somehow elect or select a Pope. Once this Pope were elected, God would then confer the formal office on him, and then ordinary jurisdiction would resume. So there would be the formal continuity despite a hiatus.
The notion that bishops all lose their jurisdiction when the pope dies is ridiculous.
It would mean apostolicity was lost every time a pope died.
Bishops are only impeded from performing certain actions which require specific papal approval (e.g., consecrating bishops).
A 65 year "interregnum" eliminates formal apostolicity, and is therefore a dogmatic impossibility.
-
The notion that bishops all lose their jurisdiction when the pope dies is ridiculous.
It would mean apostolicity was lost every time a pope died.
Nonsense, Sean. You falsely define "apostolicity" with the possession of ordinary jurisdiction, which is an assumption that the R&R constantly make but it has never been proven. Who had greater "apostolicity", Archbishop Lefebvre or Cardinal Bernardin, the excommunicated St. Athanaius or Arius (in good standing)? Bishop Williamson or Bishop Barron? Those who don't teach the Apostolic faith are disqualified out of the gate. There's no more "Apostolicity" in the Conciliar Church than there would be in the sedeprivationist or sedevacantist scenario.
That's not even central to the point, Sean, as you continue to make a false strawman argument that does not apply to sedeprivationists or also to sedevacantists who hold that jurisdiction can continue under an Antipope through color of title.
-
Nonsense, Sean. You falsely define "apostolicity" with the possession of ordinary jurisdiction, which is an assumption that the R&R constantly make but it has never been proven. Who had greater "apostolicity", Archbishop Lefebvre or Cardinal Bernardin, the excommunicated St. Athanaius or Arius (in good standing)? Bishop Williamson or Bishop Barron? Those who don't teach the Apostolic faith are disqualified out of the gate. There's no more "Apostolicity" in the Conciliar Church than there would be in the sedeprivationist or sedevacantist scenario.
That's not even central to the point, Sean, as you continue to make a false strawman argument that does not apply to sedeprivationists or also to sedevacantists who hold that jurisdiction can continue under an Antipope through color of title.
Congratulations on becomming a heretic:
There is material and formal apostolicity (the former is mere episcopal succession; the latter adds to episcopal succession jurisdiction):
"This Apostolic succession (https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/01641a.htm) must be both material and formal; the material consisting in the actual succession in the Church (https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/03744a.htm), through a series of persons (https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/11726a.htm) from the Apostolic (https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/01626c.htm) age to the present; the formal adding the element of authority in the transmission of power...Regarding the Greek Church (https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/06752a.htm), it is sufficient to note that it lost apostolic succession (https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/01641a.htm) by withdrawing from the jurisdiction (https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/08567a.htm) of the lawful successors of St. Peter in the See of Rome (https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/07424b.htm). The same is to be said of the Anglican (https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/01498a.htm) claims to continuity (MacLaughlin, "Divine Plan of the Church", 213; and, Newman (https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/10794a.htm), "Diff. of Angl.", Lecture 12.) for the very fact of separation destroys their jurisdiction (https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/08567a.htm). They have based their claims on the validity of orders in the Anglican Church (https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/01491a.htm). Anglican orders (https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/01491a.htm), however, have been declared invalid. But even if they were valid, the Anglican Church (https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/01498a.htm) would not be Apostolic, for jurisdiction (https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/08567a.htm) is essential to the Apostolicity of mission."
https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/01648b.htm
Like I said, there is no apostolicity if there is no jurisdiction.
-
Congratulations on becomming a heretic:
I'll address your false allegation / accusation of heresy later, but you keep dodging the main issue at hand --
Your allegation has nothing to do with sedeprivationism, nor even sedevacantism, through the "color of title" principle, as not only a material pope but even an Antipope can be a conduit for the transmission of ordinary jurisdiction.
-
I'll address your false allegation / accusation of heresy later, but you keep dodging the main issue at hand --
Your allegation has nothing to do with sedeprivationism, nor even sedevacantism, through the "color of title" principle, as not only a material pope but even an Antipope can be a conduit for the transmission of ordinary jurisdiction.
As usual, you have it bass ackwards:
It is your color of title escape clause which has nothing to do with apostolicity.
-
As usual, you have it bass ackwards:
It is your color of title escape clause which has nothing to do with apostolicity.
What are you talking about now?
You started by throwing out the "65 years" taunt. At that point I challenged you to come up with a principle rather than a number, since if it's based on a number you'd have to be able to define the precise limit in mathematical terms. So then you stated the principle that the Church would defect if there were no more bishops out there with ordinary jurisdiction. Both sedeprivationism, in general, and sedevacantism, through the color of title principle, permit there to be bishops with ordinary jurisdiction. That puts the argument to rest. Are you claiming now that there's a different principle that you failed to articulate?
-
My initial intent was to demonstrate how easily you or anyone (including me) can preach heresy (or error), all the while believing the whole time that they are preaching de fide teachings of the Church. Your quotes that I posted is just one example.
It is only my opinion, but those teachings you refer to, they must be talking about those heretics who've never been Catholic and who've always been outside of the Church.
“For not every sin, however grave it may be, is such as of its own nature to sever a man from the Body of the Church, as does schism or heresy or apostasy.”
(Pope Pius XII, Mystici Corporis, 23)
You cannot sever something that was never attached.
-
What are you talking about now?
You started by throwing out the "65 years" taunt. At that point I challenged you to come up with a principle rather than a number, since if it's based on a number you'd have to be able to define the precise limit in mathematical terms. So then you stated the principle that the Church would defect if there were no more bishops out there with ordinary jurisdiction. Both sedeprivationism, in general, and sedevacantism, through the color of title principle, permit there to be bishops with ordinary jurisdiction. That puts the argument to rest. Are you claiming now that there's a different principle that you failed to articulate?
Yup, your 65 year interregnum, in which you say no bishops have jurisdiction, rejects apostolicity (which requires said jurisdiction, as I showed above).
-
You cannot have a pope who does not have jurisdiction.
So you agree, then, that the papal office is inextricably linked with ordinary jurisdiction. Now if you hold (as you yourself admitted) that the public sin of manifest formal heresy per se separates the heretic from the Church, then if a man who holds the papal office commits the public sin of manifest formal heresy yet retains ordinary jurisdiction despite being separated from the Church, you are also holding that the papal office can exist separated from the Church. And this is preposterous.
-
So you agree, then, that the papal office is inextricably linked with ordinary jurisdiction. Now if you hold (as you yourself admitted) that the public sin of manifest formal heresy per se separates the heretic from the Church, then if a man who holds the papal office commits the public sin of manifest formal heresy yet retains ordinary jurisdiction despite being separated from the Church, you are also holding that the papal office can exist separated from the Church. And this is preposterous.
You’re outmaneuvering yourself again.
You’re first source of confusion is that you have no idea what a publis manifest heretic is.
Your second is that, as Billuart explained, an heretical pope retains jurisdiction until such time as he’s declared deposed.
-
You’re outmaneuvering yourself again.
You’re first source of confusion is that you have no idea what a publis manifest heretic is.
Your second is that, as Billuart explained, an heretical pope retains jurisdiction until such time as he’s declared deposed.
What is a public manifest heretic?
Billuart was wrong, as both St. Robert Bellarmine and Fr. Paul Kramer stated, in that he confused ordinary jurisdiction with supplied jurisdiction.
-
What is a public manifest heretic?
Billuart was wrong, as both St. Robert Bellarmine and Fr. Paul Kramer stated, in that he confused ordinary jurisdiction with supplied jurisdiction.
Have it your way Tony (or just review pp. 1-20 of this thread to refute yourself).
-
Have it your way Tony (or just review pp. 1-20 of this thread to refute yourself).
What is a public manifest heretic? Please teach me again.
-
What is a public manifest heretic? Please teach me again.
Never heard of one. Could you please teach me again, and again?
-
Never heard of one. Could you please teach me again, and again?
I am surprised that you agreed with my following statement if I don't understand the meaning of the terms:
The public sin of manifest formal heresy per se separates one from the Church.
-
I am surprised that you agreed with my following statement if I don't understand the meaning of the terms:
The public sin of manifest formal heresy per se separates one from the Church.
Could you please explain that all to me?
-
...but not his jurisdiction over the Church, as has been repeatedly shown.
Catholic Knight wrote: "What we know for certain is that the public sin of manifest formal heresy per se separates one from the Church."
Mr. Johnson responded with the above. Why would he respond such if Catholic Knight doesn't know what a public manifest heretic is?
-
Catholic Knight wrote: "What we know for certain is that the public sin of manifest formal heresy per se separates one from the Church."
Mr. Johnson responded with the above. Why would he respond such if Catholic Knight doesn't know what a public manifest heretic is?
Could you please review that all for me again?
-
"Salza and Siscoe quote Billuart (who quotes Martin V’s Ad evitanda scandala) in a futile attempt to refute Bellarmine and the unanimous teaching of the Fathers....."
"Billuart’s error consists in his failure to make a critical distinction between those who lose their jurisdiction as a result of excommunication, and those who lose it ex natura hæresis, as a consequence of defecting from the faith and the Church, and thereby losing office and jurisdiction. Bellarmine points out that the decree only applies to excommunicates."
"The reason why Billuart’s failure to distinguish between those who lose their jurisdiction as a result of excommunication, and those who lose it ex natura hæresis, is of such great consequence, is that the ordinary and habitual jurisdiction of the officeholder is lost upon loss of office due to tacit resignation; but the excommunicates were provided with supplied jurisdiction in virtue of Ad evitanda scandala, and by the subsequent legislation that later replaced its provisions."
"Billuart erroneously deduced that 'heretics retain their jurisdiction', whereas all jurisdiction is lost by heretics, ex natura hæresis; but since heretics incur excommunication latæ sententiæ, jurisdiction was supplied by the decree Ad evitanda scandala. Billuart’s failure to distinguish between retaining jurisdiction and receiving supplied jurisdiction in virtue of the law itself led him into error on the question of loss of jurisdiction of a heretic pope."
"Billuart’s argues that since heretics retain jurisdiction 'for the benefit and tranquility of the faithful', therefore similarly, 'Christ, by a special dispensation, for the common good and tranquility of the Church, will continue to give jurisdiction even to a manifestly heretical pope, until he has been declared a manifest heretic by the Church.' Bellarmine’s words crush Billuart’s thesis: 'I say this avails to nothing. For those Fathers, when they say that heretics lose jurisdiction, do not allege any human laws which maybe did not exist then on this matter; rather, they argued from the nature of heresy.' Hence, there can be no exception by way of a 'special dispensation' from a loss of jurisdiction that results from the very nature of heresy. Heretics do not retain their jurisdiction: Jurisdiction is supplied to latæ sententiæ excommunicated heretics who not only lose all habitual jurisdiction, by their excommunication, but lose it ex natura hæresis. Billuart correctly notes that 'The pope… does not have his jurisdiction from the Church, but from Christ', but the pope would cease to be a member of the Church and lose all jurisdiction from Christ if he fell into manifest heresy; and since the pope cannot incur excommunication for so long as he remains pope, he could not receive supplied jurisdiction from such legislation as Ad evitanda scandala unless he were to fall from the Pontificate by tacit renunciation of office. Only then would he become minor quolibet catholico and accordingly incur excommunication latæ sententiæ, and straightaway receive supplied jurisdiction until his loss of office could be enforced by a declaratory sentence – but he would already have ceased to be pope."
All of the above quotes are taken from:
Kramer, Paul. To deceive the elect: The catholic doctrine on the question of a heretical Pope . Kindle Edition.
St. Robert Bellarmine and Fr. Paul Kramer refute Billuart. Ad Evitanda Scandala and Canon 2264 of the 1917 Code of Canon Law concern supplied jurisdiction and not ordinary jurisdiction. To state that a man who holds the papal office, then commits the public sin of manifest formal heresy separates him from the Church by that very public sin (i.e., per se) yet retains ordinary jurisdiction (which is inextricably linked to the papal office) is to state that the papal office can exist separated from the Church. Preposterous!
-
St. Robert Bellarmine and Fr. Paul Kramer refute Billuart. Ad Evitanda Scandala and Canon 2264 of the 1917 Code of Canon Law concern supplied jurisdiction and not ordinary jurisdiction. To state that a man who holds the papal office, then commits the public sin of manifest formal heresy separates him from the Church by that very public sin (i.e., per se) yet retains ordinary jurisdiction (which is inextricably linked to the papal office) is to state that the papal office can exist separated from the Church. Preposterous!
Could you please explain that all to me?
-
What is a public manifest heretic?
Billuart was wrong, as both St. Robert Bellarmine and Fr. Paul Kramer stated, in that he confused ordinary jurisdiction with supplied jurisdiction.
Are you certain that Fr Kramer is infallible on this and that this is the certain teaching of the Magisterium?
After all, it was not just Billuart's opinion, but the common opinion of his time, which was more than 100 years after St Robert:
BILLUART (+1757):
"The more common opinion holds that Christ, by a particular providence, for the common good and the tranquility of the Church, continues to give jurisdiction to an even manifestly heretical pontiff until such time as he should be declared a manifest heretic by the Church" - De Fide, Diss V, A III No 3 Obj 2
Are we not just dealing with opinions of theologians?
This is the problem with the SV movement in general, taking what is opinion, what is not certain, and dogmatising it.
-
What is a public manifest heretic? Please teach me again.
St Robert uses the term manifest heretic.
He explains it here:
The fourth opinion is of Cajetan. There, he teaches, that a manifestly heretical Pope is not ipso facto deposed; but can and ought to be deposed by the Church. Now in my judgement, such an opinion cannot be defended. For in the first place, that a manifest heretic would be ipso facto deposed, is proven from authority and reason. The Authority is of St Paul, who commands Titus, that after two censures, that is, after he appears manifestly perinacious, an heretic is to be shunned: and he understands this before excommunication and sentence of a judge. (On The Roman Pontiff, Bk II, Ch XXX)
So, for him, a manifest heretic is a public formal heretic, not just a material heretic; one whose pertinacity has been demonstrated after admonitions. I think it is likely, given the other quotes of St Robert provided in this thread, that he believed those admonitions should come from a Council, which would judge the heresy and convict the Pope of same. Then would come the declaration from the authority (the Council) of his heresy so that it would be manifest to the Church. Then we have a manifest heretic in the sense that St Robert Bellarmine is referring to:
"The second, whether or not it is lawful for a Council to be summoned by anyone other than the Pope when the Pope should not summon it, for the reason that he is a heretic or schismatic... To the second and third, I respond... in those two cases an imperfect Council could be gathered which would suffice to provide for the Church from the head. For the Church, without a doubt, has the authority to provide for itself from the head... Hence, that imperfect Council can happen, if either it is summoned by the college of Cardinals, or the bishops themselves come together in a place of themselves."
"...the Roman Pontiff cannot be deprived of his right to summon Councils and preside over them... unless he were first convicted by the legitimate judgement of a Council and is not the Supreme Pontiff. Moreover... the supreme prince, as long as he is not declared or judged to have legitimately been deprived of his rule, is always the supreme judge..."
"...inferiors ought not be free from the obedience to superiors, unless first he were legitimately deposed or declared not to be a superior... they do not swear that they are not going to say what they think in the Council, or that they are not going to depose him if they were to clearly prove that he is a heretic."
"...the Supreme Pontiff, does not lose jurisdiction, nor dignity, or the name of the head in the Church, until either he separates himself publicly from the Church, or being convicted of heresy is separated against his will."
-
St. Robert Bellarmine and Fr. Paul Kramer refute Billuart. Ad Evitanda Scandala and Canon 2264 of the 1917 Code of Canon Law concern supplied jurisdiction and not ordinary jurisdiction. To state that a man who holds the papal office, then commits the public sin of manifest formal heresy separates him from the Church by that very public sin (i.e., per se) yet retains ordinary jurisdiction (which is inextricably linked to the papal office) is to state that the papal office can exist separated from the Church. Preposterous!
Given the above quotes of Bellarmine, are you sure, CK, that you and Fr Kramer have the correct understanding of his position?
And still, are we not dealing with opinion, not infallible magisterial teaching?
Even as recently as last Century we had Cardinal Journet (1891-1975) opining:
"The others, as Cajetan and John of St Thomas, whose analysis seems to me more penetrating (than Bellarmine and Suarez), have considered that even after a manifest sin of heresy, the Pope is not yet deposed, but should be deposed by the Church; Papa haereticus non est depositus sed deponendus. Nevertheless, they added, the Church is not on that account above the Pope..." - L'Eglise du Verbe Incarne, vol I, p 625
-
St Robert uses the term manifest heretic.
He explains it here:
The fourth opinion is of Cajetan. There, he teaches, that a manifestly heretical Pope is not ipso facto deposed; but can and ought to be deposed by the Church. Now in my judgement, such an opinion cannot be defended. For in the first place, that a manifest heretic would be ipso facto deposed, is proven from authority and reason. The Authority is of St Paul, who commands Titus, that after two censures, that is, after he appears manifestly perinacious, an heretic is to be shunned: and he understands this before excommunication and sentence of a judge. (On The Roman Pontiff, Bk II, Ch XXX)
So, for him, a manifest heretic is a public formal heretic, not just a material heretic; one whose pertinacity has been demonstrated after admonitions. I think it is likely, given the other quotes of St Robert provided in this thread, that he believed those admonitions should come from a Council, which would judge the heresy and convict the Pope of same. Then would come the declaration from the authority (the Council) of his heresy so that it would be manifest to the Church. Then we have a manifest heretic in the sense that St Robert Bellarmine is referring to:
"The second, whether or not it is lawful for a Council to be summoned by anyone other than the Pope when the Pope should not summon it, for the reason that he is a heretic or schismatic... To the second and third, I respond... in those two cases an imperfect Council could be gathered which would suffice to provide for the Church from the head. For the Church, without a doubt, has the authority to provide for itself from the head... Hence, that imperfect Council can happen, if either it is summoned by the college of Cardinals, or the bishops themselves come together in a place of themselves."
"...the Roman Pontiff cannot be deprived of his right to summon Councils and preside over them... unless he were first convicted by the legitimate judgement of a Council and is not the Supreme Pontiff. Moreover... the supreme prince, as long as he is not declared or judged to have legitimately been deprived of his rule, is always the supreme judge..."
"...inferiors ought not be free from the obedience to superiors, unless first he were legitimately deposed or declared not to be a superior... they do not swear that they are not going to say what they think in the Council, or that they are not going to depose him if they were to clearly prove that he is a heretic."
"...the Supreme Pontiff, does not lose jurisdiction, nor dignity, or the name of the head in the Church, until either he separates himself publicly from the Church, or being convicted of heresy is separated against his will."
There is no need to depose anyone.
They never even became consecrated popes.
They were well known heretics before they were elected.
They had already left the Church.
They were no longer Catholic.
Somebody outside the Church cannot become pope.
Can a Muslim or a Protestant or Hindu become pope? No.
They are outside the Church.
You can elect them, dress them up, say the prayers, but no consecration can take place.
Well, it's the same with a heretic. They are not Catholic just like a Muslim or Hindu is not Catholic.
A priest could put a twinkie on the altar and say the prayers but it can't be consecrated because it is invalid matter.
In the same way, a heretic who is outside the Church can be dressed up, and they say the prayers, but it is invalid matter and no papal consecration takes place.
The Holy Fathers teach unanimously not only that heretics are outside of the Church, but also that they are “ipso facto” deprived of all ecclesiastical jurisdiction and dignity. St. Cyprian (lib. 2, epist. 6) says: “We affirm that absolutely no heretic or schismatic has any power or right”; and he also teaches (lib. 2, epist. 1) that the heretics who return to the Church must be received as laymen, even though they have been formerly priests or bishops in the Church. St. Optatus (lib. 1 cont. Parmen.) teaches that heretics and schismatics cannot have the keys of the kingdom of heaven, nor bind nor loose. St. Ambrose (lib. 1 de poenit., ca. 2), St. Augustine (in Enchir., cap 65), St. Jerome (lib. cont. Lucifer.) teach the same.
https://cmri.org/articles-on-the-traditional-catholic-faith/on-the-roman-pontiff/
If a heretic, somebody outside the Church, was to somehow magically be consecrated as pope
and teach heresy and guide souls to worship false gods
sending souls to eternal damnation
then the Gates of Hell have prevailed against the Church.
Is that possible?
Our Lord Jesus Christ said NO.
He said that is not possible.
So what happened then?
These men were never consecrated popes in the first place.
The Gates of Hell have not prevailed.
The Church is still here holding fast to the Apostolic Traditions of the
One True Religion
yet without a pope.
-
St Robert uses the term manifest heretic.
He explains it here:
The fourth opinion is of Cajetan. There, he teaches, that a manifestly heretical Pope is not ipso facto deposed; but can and ought to be deposed by the Church. Now in my judgement, such an opinion cannot be defended. For in the first place, that a manifest heretic would be ipso facto deposed, is proven from authority and reason. The Authority is of St Paul, who commands Titus, that after two censures, that is, after he appears manifestly perinacious, an heretic is to be shunned: and he understands this before excommunication and sentence of a judge. (On The Roman Pontiff, Bk II, Ch XXX)
So, for him, a manifest heretic is a public formal heretic, not just a material heretic; one whose pertinacity has been demonstrated after admonitions. I think it is likely, given the other quotes of St Robert provided in this thread, that he believed those admonitions should come from a Council, which would judge the heresy and convict the Pope of same. Then would come the declaration from the authority (the Council) of his heresy so that it would be manifest to the Church. Then we have a manifest heretic in the sense that St Robert Bellarmine is referring to:
"The second, whether or not it is lawful for a Council to be summoned by anyone other than the Pope when the Pope should not summon it, for the reason that he is a heretic or schismatic... To the second and third, I respond... in those two cases an imperfect Council could be gathered which would suffice to provide for the Church from the head. For the Church, without a doubt, has the authority to provide for itself from the head... Hence, that imperfect Council can happen, if either it is summoned by the college of Cardinals, or the bishops themselves come together in a place of themselves."
"...the Roman Pontiff cannot be deprived of his right to summon Councils and preside over them... unless he were first convicted by the legitimate judgement of a Council and is not the Supreme Pontiff. Moreover... the supreme prince, as long as he is not declared or judged to have legitimately been deprived of his rule, is always the supreme judge..."
"...inferiors ought not be free from the obedience to superiors, unless first he were legitimately deposed or declared not to be a superior... they do not swear that they are not going to say what they think in the Council, or that they are not going to depose him if they were to clearly prove that he is a heretic."
"...the Supreme Pontiff, does not lose jurisdiction, nor dignity, or the name of the head in the Church, until either he separates himself publicly from the Church, or being convicted of heresy is separated against his will."
PV, in fairness let me quote the whole pertinent section from De Romano Pontifice regarding a heretic pope:
On the Roman Pontiff
an extract from
St Robert Bellarmine, De Romano Pontifice, lib. II, cap. 30.
While it is true that St. Robert Bellarmine thought it impossible that a pope could ever lose the faith and hence the papacy, he considered this opinion not theologically certain. For this reason he proceeded to examine the question of what would happen were a pope to become a heretic. The following extract from his treatise on the papacy deals with this question. It should be noted that in the spirit of Christian humility we ought not to go against the mind of any Doctor of the Universal Church without very grave reasons (if ever). Hence it is preferable to hold that the manifest heretics John Paul II and Paul VI were never popes at all, being non-Catholics from before their "election" and thus not valid matter for the papacy to begin with. Please note that this translation was done by Mr. Jim Larrabee, who also provided the comments at the end.
"The fourth opinion is that of Cajetan, for whom (de auctor. papae et con., cap. 20 et 21) the manifestly heretical Pope is not "ipso facto" deposed, but can and must be deposed by the Church. To my judgment, this opinion cannot be defended. For, in the first place, it is proven with arguments from authority and from reason that the manifest heretic is "ipso facto" deposed. The argument from authority is based on St. Paul (Titus, c. 3), who orders that the heretic be avoided after two warnings, that is, after showing himself to be manifestly obstinate - which means before any excommunication or judicial sentence. And this is what St. Jerome writes, adding that the other sinners are excluded from the Church by sentence of excommunication, but the heretics exile themselves and separate themselves by their own act from the body of Christ. Now, a Pope who remains Pope cannot be avoided, for how could we be required to avoid our own head? How can we separate ourselves from a member united to us?
"This principle is most certain. The non-Christian cannot in any way be Pope, as Cajetan himself admits (ib. c. 26). The reason for this is that he cannot be head of what he is not a member; now he who is not a Christian is not a member of the Church, and a manifest heretic is not a Christian, as is clearly taught by St. Cyprian (lib. 4, epist. 2), St. Athanasius (Scr. 2 cont. Arian.), St. Augustine (lib. de great. Christ. cap. 20), St. Jerome (contra Lucifer.) and others; therefore the manifest heretic cannot be Pope.
"To this Cajetan responds (in Apol. pro tract. praedicto cap. 25 et in ipso tract. cap. 22) that the heretic is not a Christian "simpliciter" [i.e. without qualification, or absolutely], but is one "secundum quid" [i.e. in a qualified or relative sense]. For, granted that two things constitute the Christian - the faith and the [baptismal] character - the heretic, having lost the faith, is still in some way united to the Church and is capable of jurisdiction; therefore, he is also Pope, but ought to be removed, since he is disposed, with ultimate disposition, to cease to be Pope: as the man who is still not dead but is "in extremis" [at the point of death].
"Against this: in the first place, if the heretic remained, "in actu" [actually], united to the Church in virtue of the character, he would never be able to be cut or separated from her "in actu", for the character is indelible. But there is no one who denies that some people may be separated "in actu" from the Church. Therefore, the character does not make the heretic be "in actu" in the Church, but is only a sign that he was in the Church and that he must return to her. Analogously, when a sheep wanders lost in the mountains, the mark impressed on it does not make it be in the fold, but indicates from which fold it had fled and to which fold it ought to be brought back. This truth has a confirmation in St. Thomas who says (Summ. Theol. III, q. 8, a. 3) that those who do not have the faith are not united "in actu" to Christ, but only potentially - and St. Thomas here refers to the internal union, and not to the external which is produced by the confession of faith and visible signs. Therefore, as the character is something internal, and not external, according to St. Thomas the character alone does not unite a man, "in actu," to Christ.
"Further against the argument of Cajetan: either faith is a disposition necessary "simpliciter" for someone to be Pope, or it is only necessary for someone to be a good Pope ["ad bene esse," to exist well, to be good, as opposed to simply existing]. In the first hypothesis, in case this disposition be eliminated by the contrary disposition, which is heresy, the Pope immediately ceases to be Pope: for the form cannot maintain itself without the necessary dispositions. In the second hypothesis, the Pope cannot be deposed by reason of heresy, for otherwise he would also have to be deposed for ignorance, immorality, and other similar causes, which impede the knowledge, the morality, and the other dispositions necessary for him to be a good Pope ("ad bene esse papae"). In addition to this, Cajetan recognises (tract. praed., ca. 26) that the Pope cannot be deposed for the lack of dispositions necessary, not "simpliciter", but only "ad bene esse."
"To this, Cajetan responds that faith is a disposition necessary "simpliciter", but partial, and not total; and that, therefore, even if his faith disappears he can still continue being Pope, by reason of the other part of the disposition, the character, which still endures.
"Against this argument: either the total disposition, constituted by the character and by faith, is necessary "simpliciter," or it is not, the partial disposition then being sufficient. In the first hypothesis, the faith disappearing there no longer remains the disposition "simpliciter" necessary, for the disposition "simpliciter" necessary was the total, and the total no longer exists. In the second hypothesis, the faith is only necessary "ad bene esse", and therefore its absence does not justify the deposition of the Pope. In addition to this, what finds itself in the ultimate disposition to death, immediately thereafter ceases to exist, without the intervention of any other external force, as is obvious; therefore, also the Pope heretic ceases to be Pope by himself, without any deposition.
"Finally, the Holy Fathers teach unanimously not only that heretics are outside of the Church, but also that they are "ipso facto" deprived of all ecclesiastical jurisdiction and dignity. St. Cyprian (lib. 2, epist. 6) says: 'We affirm that absolutely no heretic or schismatic has any power or right'; and he also teaches (lib. 2, epist. 1) that the heretics who return to the Church must be received as laymen, even though they have been formerly priests or bishops in the Church. St. Optatus (lib. 1 cont. Parmen.) teaches that heretics and schismatics cannot have the keys of the kingdom of heaven, nor bind nor loose. St. Ambrose (lib. 1 de poenit., ca. 2), St. Augustine (in Enchir., cap 65), St. Jerome (lib. cont. Lucifer.) teach the same.
"Pope St. Celestine I (epist. ad Jo. Antioch., which appears in Conc. Ephes., tom. I, cap. 19) wrote: 'It is evident that he [who has been excommunicated by Nestorius] has remained and remains in communion with us, and that we do not consider destituted [i.e. deprived of office, by judgment of Nestorius], anyone who has been excommunicated or deprived of his charge, either episcopal or clerical, by Bishop Nestorius or by the others who followed him, after they commenced preaching heresy. For he who had already shown himself as deserving to be excommunicated, could not excommunicate anyone by his sentence.'
"And in a letter to the clergy of Constantinople, Pope St. Celestine I says: 'The authority of Our Apostolic See has determined that the bishop, cleric, or simple Christian who had been deposed or excommunicated by Nestorius or his followers, after the latter began to preach heresy shall not be considered deposed or excommunicated. For he who had defected from the faith with such preachings, cannot depose or remove anyone whatsoever.'
"St. Nicholas I (epist. ad Michael) repeats and confirms the same. Finally, St. Thomas also teaches (S. Theol., II-II, q. 39, a. 3) that schismatics immediately lose all jurisdiction, and that anything they try to do on the basis of any jurisdiction will be null.
"There is no basis for that which some respond to this: that these Fathers based themselves on ancient law, while nowadays, by decree of the Council of Constance, they alone lose their jurisdiction who are excommunicated by name or who assault clerics. This argument, I say, has no value at all, for those Fathers, in affirming that heretics lose jurisdiction, did not cite any human law, which furthermore perhaps did not exist in relation to the matter, but argued on the basis of the very nature of heresy. The Council of Constance only deals with the excommunicated, that is, those who have lost jurisdiction by sentence of the Church, while heretics already before being excommunicated are outside the Church and deprived of all jurisdiction. For they have already been condemned by their own sentence, as the Apostle teaches (Tit. 3:10-11), that is, they have been cut off from the body of the Church without excommunication, as St. Jerome affirms.
"Besides that, the second affirmation of Cajetan, that the Pope heretic can be truly and authoritatively deposed by the Church, is no less false than the first. For if the Church deposes the Pope against his will it is certainly above the Pope; however, Cajetan himself defends, in the same treatise, the contrary of this. Cajetan responds that the Church, in deposing the Pope, does not have authority over the Pope, but only over the link that unites the person to the pontificate. In the same way that the Church in uniting the pontificate to such a person, is not, because of this, above the Pontiff, so also the Church can separate the pontificate from such a person in case of heresy, without saying that it is above the Pope.
"But contrary to this it must be observed in the first place that, from the fact that the Pope deposes bishops, it is deduced that the Pope is above all the bishops, though the Pope on deposing a bishop does not destroy the episcopal jurisdiction, but only separates it from that person. In the second place, to depose anyone from the pontificate against the will of the deposed, is without doubt punishing him; however, to punish is proper to a superior or to a judge. In the third place, given that according to Cajetan and the other Thomists, in reality the whole and the parts taken as a whole are the same thing, he who has authority over the parts taken as a whole, being able to separate them one from another, has also authority over the whole itself which is constituted by those parts.
"The example of the electors, who have the power to designate a certain person for the pontificate, without however having power over the Pope, given by Cajetan, is also destitute of value. For when something is being made, the action is exercised over the matter of the future thing, and not over the composite, which does not yet exist, but when a thing is destroyed, the action is exercised over the composite, as becomes patent on consideration of the things of nature. Therefore, on creating the Pontiff, the Cardinals do not exercise their authority over the Pontiff for he does not yet exist, but over the matter, that is, over the person who by the election becomes disposed to receive the pontificate from God. But if they deposed the Pontiff, they would necessarily exercise authority over the composite, that is, over the person endowed with the pontifical power, that is, over the Pontiff.
"Therefore, the true opinion is the fifth, according to which the Pope who is manifestly a heretic ceases by himself to be Pope and head, in the same way as he ceases to be a Christian and a member of the body of the Church; and for this reason he can be judged and punished by the Church. This is the opinion of all the ancient Fathers, who teach that manifest heretics immediately lose all jurisdiction, and outstandingly that of St. Cyprian (lib. 4, epist. 2) who speaks as follows of Novatian, who was Pope [i.e. antipope] in the schism which occurred during the pontificate of St. Cornelius: 'He would not be able to retain the episcopate [i.e. of Rome], and, if he was made bishop before, he separated himself from the body of those who were, like him, bishops, and from the unity of the Church.'
According to what St. Cyprian affirms in this passage, even had Novatian been the true and legitimate Pope, he would have automatically fallen from the pontificate, if he separated himself from the Church.
"This is the opinion of great recent doctors, as John Driedo (lib. 4 de Script. et dogmat. Eccles., cap. 2, par. 2, sent. 2), who teaches that only they separate themselves from the Church who are expelled, like the excommunicated, and those who depart by themselves from her or oppose her, as heretics and schismatics. And in his seventh affirmation, he maintains that in those who turn away from the Church, there remains absolutely no spiritual power over those who are in the Church. Melchior Cano says the same (lib. 4 de loc., cap. 2), teaching that heretics are neither parts nor members of the Church, and that it cannot even be conceived that anyone could be head and Pope, without being member and part (cap. ult. ad argument. 12). And he teaches in the same place, in plain words, that occult heretics are still of the Church, they are parts and members, and that therefore the Pope who is an occult heretic is still Pope. This is also the opinion of the other authors whom we cite in book I De Ecclesia.
"The foundation of this argument is that the manifest heretic is not in any way a member of the Church, that is, neither spiritually nor corporally, which signifies that he is not such by internal union nor by external union. For even bad Catholics [i.e. who are not heretics] are united and are members, spiritually by faith, corporally by confession of faith and by participation in the visible sacraments; the occult heretics are united and are members although only by external union; on the contrary, the good catechumens belong to the Church only by an internal union, not by the external; but manifest heretics do not pertain in any manner, as we have already proved."
-
“For not every sin, however grave it may be, is such as of its own nature to sever a man from the Body of the Church, as does schism or heresy or apostasy.”
(Pope Pius XII, Mystici Corporis, 23)
You cannot sever something that was never attached.
This sentence needs to be understood in context. I will say that if you can do away with the sentences immediately before and immediately after it, and also change the opening words of that sentence to “For no other sin," then I would agree with the implications you are trying to convey.
But the pope starts by explaining that not all of her members are holy or predestined to heaven, and referencing Scripture (Luke 15:2) he explains that sinners are not excluded from being members. He then warns against all sin, particularly schism, heresy and apostacy, because the nature of those sins make them the worst of all mortal sins.
The sentence you are quoting is saying that every sin severs, but due to their nature none severs as does schism, heresy or apostacy. If he would have begun your sentence by saying: “For no other sin," then the implications you are trying to convey might have merit.
He then, without excluding heresy etc., goes on to explain the conditions that occur within sinners which move them to repentance and confession.
Aside from all of that, I wish the Church could depose this heretical pope, but it cannot.
-
St. Robert Bellarmine and Fr. Paul Kramer refute Billuart. Ad Evitanda Scandala and Canon 2264 of the 1917 Code of Canon Law concern supplied jurisdiction and not ordinary jurisdiction. To state that a man who holds the papal office, then commits the public sin of manifest formal heresy separates him from the Church by that very public sin (i.e., per se) yet retains ordinary jurisdiction (which is inextricably linked to the papal office) is to state that the papal office can exist separated from the Church. Preposterous!
Fr Kramer is misrepresenting Billuart, presuming to read his mind and tell us why he said what he said, and both you and he are putting your opinions above the opinion of this highly respected theologian who came after Bellarmine, and whose opinion (unless he was a liar or ignorant) was the common opinion of the day:
In the Treaty on the Rules of Faith (De regulis fidei, diss IV, VIII a, § 2, obj 2 and 6) Billuart defends the following thesis: The sovereign Pontiff is superior to any council by authority and jurisdiction.
It is objected that the Pontiff is subject to the judgment of the Church in the case of heresy. Why then he would not be subject also in other cases?
He replies:
This is because in the case of heresy, and not in other cases, he loses the pontificate by the fact itself of his heresy: how could remain head of the Church he who is no longer a member? This is why he is subject to the judgment of the Church, not in order to be removed, since he is already deposed himself by heresy and he rejected the Pontificate (pontificatum abjecerit), but in order to be declared a heretic, and thus that he will be known to the Church that he is not anymore Pontiff: before this statement [of the Church] it is not permitted to refuse him obedience, because he keeps jurisdiction until then, not by right, as if he were still Pontiff, but in fact, by the will of God and accordingly disposing it for the common good of the Church. (Cursus theologiœ, Pars II-II, Brescia, 1838, p. 123)
Another objector remarked that the Church would be deprived of a remedy if she could not subject the Pope to the Council in the case that he would be harmful and would seek to subvert her.
Billuart replied that:
If the pope sought to harm her in the faith, he would be manifestly heretical, and he would thereby lose the Pontificate: however it should be necessary a declaration of the Church in order to deny him obedience, as we have said above. (Cursus theologiœ, Pars II-II, Brescia, 1838, p. 125)
If the Pope would harm the Church otherwise than in the faith, some say that one could resist him by the force of arms, however without losing his superiority. St. Thomas Aquinas said it would be necessary to appeal to God in order to correct him or taking him away from this world (4 Sent. D. 19, q. 2, a. 2 q.1a 3, ad 2).
Billuart prefers to think that:
Whereas God governs and sustains his Church with a special Providence, he will not permit, as he has not permitted it so far, that this situation will happen, and if he permits it, he will not fail to give the means and the help appropriate. (Cursus theologiœ, Pars II-II, Brescia, 1838, p. 125)
-
I'm confused here.
Stubborn, PV, Meg, Sean
do you guys really believe a non Catholic can become pope?
If the Dalai Lama was elected would you give him obedience?
-
I'm confused here.
Stubborn, PV, Meg, Sean
do you guys really believe a non Catholic can become pope?
If the Dalai Lama was elected would you give him obedience?
Would you offer the Holy Sacrifice of Our Dear Lord's Body and Blood in union with the Dalai Lama?
If not, then why is it any different with these non Catholic Antichrist "popes"?
-
Fr Kramer is misrepresenting Billuart, ...
Blah blah blah. Catholic Magisterium and Catholic Public Worship (i.e. the Mass) can never become corrupt or harmful. Besides that, whatever theory you want to hold is fine.
-
Blah blah blah. Catholic Magisterium and Catholic Public Worship (i.e. the Mass) can never become corrupt or harmful. Besides that, whatever theory you want to hold is fine.
Lad-
You should write a book called "Where they all went wrong: Correcting the errors of the classic theologians," wherein you announce that you are correcting the errors of all those eminent theologians who didn't have the prescience or foresight to know they would be contradicting you, and in which you announce that because they opposed you in ignorance, you are absolving them all of their manifest formal pertinacious blasphemous schismatic apostate heresies.
-
Would you offer the Holy Sacrifice of Our Dear Lord's Body and Blood in union with the Dalai Lama?
If not, then why is it any different with these non Catholic Antichrist "popes"?
Sorry, I meant to make that small "a".
That's the term used by ABL:
"antichrist popes".
-
Blah blah blah. Catholic Magisterium and Catholic Public Worship (i.e. the Mass) can never become corrupt or harmful. Besides that, whatever theory you want to hold is fine.
I agree Ladislaus, provided you hold your belief as a theory. There lies the problem.
With my theory, Catholic Magisterium has never become corrupt, nor could it ever, in the very sense that the Church infallibly teaches, and in the very sense that the Fathers and Doctors have always taught.
Nor has Catholic worship become harmful, it exists as it has always done.
-
Blah blah blah.
I was hoping, now that I have progressed from Newbie to Junior Member (I notched up two yellow squares in this past week for those of you who didn't notice!!!) that I might get a little more respect from Lad.
I realise now I'm deceiving myself. Sean has five of those golden stars and he doesn't get any respect either...
-
I was hoping, now that I have progressed from Newbie to Junior Member (I notched up two yellow squares in this past week for those of you who didn't notice!!!) that I might get a little more respect from Lad.
I realise now I'm deceiving myself. Sean has five of those golden stars and he doesn't get any respect either...
No worries, mate. I have four of those little yellow squares
and yet people don't answer my questions.
I'm not a theologian or anything
so they are very simple questions.
Why won't people answer?
Here are the last few that were skipped over in this thread, PV:
I'm confused here.
Stubborn, PV, Meg, Sean
do you guys really believe a non Catholic can become pope?
If the Dalai Lama was elected would you give him obedience?
Would you offer the Holy Sacrifice of Our Dear Lord's Body and Blood in union with the Dalai Lama?
If not, then why is it any different with these non Catholic Antichrist "popes"?
(Again, the term antichrist should have been written with a small "a" in the same way ABL called these popes antichrists so I apologize for that error.)
Do you have an explanation that will help me understand this conundrum, PV? Or Lad or Sean?
Do I need to stop assisting at non Una cuм Masses and
join in with Masses united to non Catholic antichrists?
How did these antichrists get elected and consecrated
when they were known heretics beforehand?
-
I agree Ladislaus, provided you hold your belief as a theory. There lies the problem.
With my theory, Catholic Magisterium has never become corrupt, nor could it ever, in the very sense that the Church infallibly teaches, and in the very sense that the Fathers and Doctors have always taught.
Nor has Catholic worship become harmful, it exists as it has always done.
Curious if you follow the +Williamson track that the New Order Service produces miracles and comes from a legitimate authority? And/or is it the product of a Freemason (Bugnini), liberals and six Protestant ministers designed to build up the Catholic Church in the world?
-
Curious if you follow the +Williamson track that the New Order Service produces miracles and comes from a legitimate authority? Or is it the product of a Freemason (Bugnini), liberals and six Protestant ministers?
"Freemason", "liberal", "Protestant" or
a non Catholic heretic dressed up as "pope"
who was not a member of the Catholic Church when they elected and consecrated him
(meaning that no election or consecration took place)?
Somebody who according to the unanimous authority of the early Church Fathers was outside the Church?
Not a member.
Not Catholic.
An "antichrist" in the words of ABL?
-
I'm confused here.
Stubborn, PV, Meg, Sean
do you guys really believe a non Catholic can become pope?
If the Dalai Lama was elected would you give him obedience?
Actually, to be precise, the pope is a heretic, and the last 60 years proves a heretic can indeed be pope - it just does not prove it to you and the other sedes.
Deo Gratias that fact does not mean we have lost our hope for salvation.
-
I was hoping, now that I have progressed from Newbie to Junior Member (I notched up two yellow squares in this past week for those of you who didn't notice!!!) that I might get a little more respect from Lad.
I realise now I'm deceiving myself. Sean has five of those golden stars and he doesn't get any respect either...
You need to post a lot more and notch more yellow squares, the sooner the better please!
And pay no attention to Lad's disrespect, he's the same way with everyone who does not agree with him and does not doubt everything.
-
No worries, mate. I have four of those little yellow squares
and yet people don't answer my questions.
I'm not a theologian or anything
so they are very simple questions.
Why won't people answer?
Here are the last few that were skipped over in this thread, PV:
I'm confused here.
Stubborn, PV, Meg, Sean
do you guys really believe a non Catholic can become pope?
If the Dalai Lama was elected would you give him obedience?
Would you offer the Holy Sacrifice of Our Dear Lord's Body and Blood in union with the Dalai Lama?
If not, then why is it any different with these non Catholic Antichrist "popes"?
(Again, the term antichrist should have been written with a small "a" in the same way ABL called these popes antichrists so I apologize for that error.)
Do you have an explanation that will help me understand this conundrum, PV? Or Lad or Sean?
Do I need to stop assisting at non Una cuм Masses and
join in with Masses united to non Catholic antichrists?
How did these antichrists get elected and consecrated
when they were known heretics beforehand?
Why do you say your questions go unanswered when that is not true. They've been answered alright (https://www.cathinfo.com/crisis-in-the-church/benedict-xvi-dead-at-95/msg864578/#msg864578), you just do not like the answers.
You gave the reason why you're a sede (essentially that you cannot stomach una cuм) so I stopped asking. I do not like that answer and certainly disagree, but at least you answered. We could argue over your reason but to what end? Nothing will not change your mind - your mind was already changed when you decided sedeism is the only way to go.
-
You need to post a lot more and notch more yellow squares, the sooner the better please!
And pay no attention to Lad's disrespect, he's the same way with everyone who does not agree with him and does not doubt everything.
Thanks, Stubborn, I need encouragement. I'm not sure I have the stomach for this!
-
Thanks, Stubborn, I need encouragement. I'm not sure I have the stomach for this!
Yes, PV, stick around and hang in there. You contribute real substance; you support your posts with abundant references, which provide good material for other members to digest.
Stay, stay, PV!!!
-
Actually, to be precise, the pope is a heretic, and the last 60 years proves a heretic can indeed be pope - it just does not prove it to you and the other sedes.
Deo Gratias that fact does not mean we have lost our hope for salvation.
Thanks for responding, Stubborn. :)
So a pope can be a heretic and an antichrist.
So, Stubborn, do you believe that the papal consecration took place?
-
Thanks, Stubborn, I need encouragement. I'm not sure I have the stomach for this!
Just keep posting truth mainly for those who may be on the fence and who happen by to read this forum.
I attached a short snip about sedeism from Who Shall Ascend? you can maybe use as a reference in your travels.
-
Thanks for responding, Stubborn. :)
So a pope can be a heretic and an antichrist.
So, Stubborn, do you believe that the papal consecration took place?
Because it did take place, of course I believe it. If I am wrong, so what? It does not affect my hope of getting to heaven, and either way there is nothing I can do about it, so I do not waste my time concerning myself with it. Not sure why anyone would.
-
Because it did take place, of course I believe it. If I am wrong, so what? It does not affect my hope of getting to heaven, and either way there is nothing I can do about it, so I do not waste my time concerning myself with it. Not sure why anyone would.
Well, see that's what I don't understand.
How is it possible for a non Catholic to be consecrated as pope?
Can you explain it?
-
PV-
You just have to understand that CI is the de facto sedevacantist HQ, and that guys like you and I are posting in enemy territory.
While it may seem like a waste of time to post here at all, there’s tons of lurkers who never post, but follow the threads, and it’s for them that we really post, not the apologist/polemicist members.
For example, whatever Lad might say about Billuart, or Catholic Knight about “formal public manifest heresy,” the lurkers saw rr score major points in this thread (many posted by yourself), and that’s the invisible reward that justifies posting in enemy territory:
You do it for them.
-
In his book Contra Cekadam, Fr. Chazal notes what he refers to as the traditional Dominican distinction between "per se" and "quoad nos," and says "[t]hings that have happened before God may not have yet happened before men" (page 93).
A heretical pope both "per se," ipso facto, falls out of the Church and ceases to be pope, and yet at the same time, "quoad nos" and in the external realm, in the body, remains in the seat until removed. This should be obvious. A pope who has fallen "per se" or ipso facto from the Church, and hence from the headship of the Church, remains where he is unless either he voluntarily leaves or someone declares him to have left and removes him. This is just what happens among men, "quoad nos."
It's somewhat similar to the case of an occult heretic, who has "per se" or "ipso facto" fallen from the Catholic Church through loss of the necessary, vital bond with God of possession of the Catholic faith, but remains part of the body unless removed by the authority upon external manifestation of his heresy. But not only the occult heretic. You can now think of many heretics, open and manifest, who remain members of the Church externally - Biden, etc.
And if one says, but that's only in the Conciliar Church, you'd be wrong. There have been "manifest" heretics who have not been excluded by excommunication from the body, a prominent example being Erasmus. Here's what John Daly noted about Erasmus:
On the subject of Erasmus of Rotterdam, St. Alphonsus Liguori tells us that he called the invocation of Our Lady and of the saints idolatry; he condemned monasteries and religious vows and rules, opposed the celibacy of the clergy, jeered at indulgences, relics, feasts, fasts and even auricular confession. He went so far as to claim that man is justified by faith alone and to call into doubt the authority of the Scriptures and of the Councils. St. Alphonsus adds that Erasmus accused of audacity the granting of the name of “God” to the Holy Ghost! So it is not surprising to see St. Alphonsus quote the proverb according to which Luther hatched out the egg that Erasmus had laid. Nor is it surprising to learn from him that “several writers openly accuse Erasmus of heresy”.
But was Erasmus for all that a heretic? He was esteemed by several popes, one of whom asked him to refute Luther. He remained a close friend of St. Thomas More. St. Alphonsus concludes in his own name, with Bernini, that Erasmus died with the character of an unsound Catholic, but not of a heretic, as he submitted all his writings to the judgement of the Church. (History of Heresies and their Refutation)
What is quite certain is that notwithstanding his doctrines, which even before the Council of Trent could scarcely be considered excusable from the censure of heresy, notwithstanding numerous contemporary complaints and refutations, and notwithstanding his great learning, which diminished the possibility of blameless ignorance, it was and is permissible to consider Erasmus a Catholic. Were one to hold him definitely a heretic, it would follow that Pope Paul III, St. Thomas More and many other excellent Catholics remained in communion with a heretic.
https://romeward.com/articles/239752007/heresy-in-history
Was Erasmus a member of the Church "per se" and in the eyes of God? Did he have the internal bond with Christ which only exists with the Catholic faith? By his "manifest" beliefs and actions, he appears to have been a heretic. But he died "in communion" with popes and saints, and an external member of the Church.
There are real examples of heretics "per se" - occult and public manifest - who remain members of the Church "quoad nos." And couple that with the practical truth, the fact, that a "heretic" pope may be elected according to prescribed law and procedure and remains in the seat with his "heresy" - occult or public manifest - until removed, voluntarily or by declaration and action by the Church upon the preexisting heresy, the reality of both "per se" heresy being there and membership "quoad nos" exisiting in the body at the same time should not be a source of these endless disputes and battles among us - R & R and Sedes, etc.
A heretic pope is both ipso facto removed from his seat ("per se") and yet still sitting in the seat until his rear is extricated "quoad nos." If one says a pope is "ipso facto" fallen from the papacy and remains pope "quoad nos" until removed, that simply accords with the reality of what happens with a pope, or popes as it may be, who are heretics.
As Fr. Chazal notes, there are two realities, the "per se" and the "quoad nos," and there is no inherent or logical contradiction between their simultaneous coexistence, and hence in the conceptual acknowledgement of the same.
But let the wars continue . . .
-
Well, see that's what I don't understand.
How is it possible for a non Catholic to be consecrated as pope?
Can you explain it?
The same way it is possible for Erasmus the "heretic" (therefore necessarily non-Catholic) to receive Catholic burial and remain "in communion" with popes, saints and the external body of the Catholic Church while living.
-
The same way it is possible for Erasmus the "heretic" (therefore necessarily non-Catholic) to receive Catholic burial and remain "in communion" with popes, saints and the external body of the Catholic Church while living.
Thanks, DR.
Wow! That's very strange.
So now I'm confused how that can square with what the Church Fathers unanimously declared.
Posting it again for clarity:
The Holy Fathers teach unanimously not only that heretics are outside of the Church, but also that they are “ipso facto” deprived of all ecclesiastical jurisdiction and dignity. St. Cyprian (lib. 2, epist. 6) says: “We affirm that absolutely no heretic or schismatic has any power or right”; and he also teaches (lib. 2, epist. 1) that the heretics who return to the Church must be received as laymen, even though they have been formerly priests or bishops in the Church. St. Optatus (lib. 1 cont. Parmen.) teaches that heretics and schismatics cannot have the keys of the kingdom of heaven, nor bind nor loose. St. Ambrose (lib. 1 de poenit., ca. 2), St. Augustine (in Enchir., cap 65), St. Jerome (lib. cont. Lucifer.) teach the same.
https://cmri.org/articles-on-the-traditional-catholic-faith/on-the-roman-pontiff/
DR, do you think if they elected Erasmus the consecration would take place? Would he have been valid matter for the consecration?
They could elect him but the consecration simply wouldn't work would it?
Perhaps we are not to judge if somebody is a heretic or not even when it's blatantly obvious such as if they elected and "consecrated" the Dalai Lama or Bozo the Clown?
Well, if a priest put a twinkie on the altar and told me he "consecrated" it and tried to give it to me
I would skiddadle out of there!
Wouldn't you? Would you receive a "consecrated" twinkie?
And aren't you and the others here very, very careful to determine if your priest had a "valid consecration"?
Why are you (and others) so concerned about your priests "valid consecration"
but not concerned about whether or not the pope's consecration was valid?
Is there something I'm missing?
Also, if the pope's consecration wasn't valid then how can we be sure the bishops and priests in his lineage were validly consecrated?
Thanks for your help on this!
-
Well, see that's what I don't understand.
How is it possible for a non Catholic to be consecrated as pope?
Can you explain it?
We've been through this, tho I think it was with QVD...
According to the law established by Pope St. Pius X, he explains it like this:
29. None of the Cardinals, on the pretext or cause of any excommunication, suspension, interdict or other
ecclesiastical hindrance, can be excluded from the active and passive election of the Supreme Pontiff in any
way; indeed, we suspend such censures and excommunications only for the effect of this election, to those
who will otherwise continue in their strength....
88. This consent having been granted within the term, as far as is necessary, to be determined by the prudent
discretion of the Cardinals by a majority of votes, the true Pope is immediately elected, and actually acquires
and can exercise full and absolute jurisdiction over the whole world. Hence, if any one dares to attack the
letters concerning the affairs of any kind, which have been emanated from the Roman Pontiff before his
coronation, we are subject to the sentence of excommunication.
If there are cardinals voting who are heretics, then a heretic can be elected and consecrated pope. Very simple actually.
-
We've been through this, tho I think it was with QVD...
According to the law established by Pope St. Pius X, he explains it like this:If there are cardinals voting who are heretics, then a heretic can be elected and consecrated pope. Very simple actually.
No, Stubborn. That's a reference to ecclesiastical impediments that are lifted. Divine Law impediments are not lifted. If the Orthodox Bishop Kirill were somehow elected by some "woke" conclave, he would not be eligible to be Pope. Non-Catholics are prevented by Divine Law from being pope, just as a female could not be elected, etc. So this quote from St. Pius X is not relevant. What's at issue is at what point an individual ceases to be a Catholic. St. Robert unequivocally states that a manifest heretic is not a Catholic. So then the issue boils down to when and under what conditions one becomes a manifest heretic. Go ahead and argue that all you want, but the quote from St. Pius X is completely irrelevant.
Some argue that one only becomes a manifest heretic if one either formally / officially leaves the Church or else gets declared a manifest heretic by the Church. That's the S&S line. Is Joe Biden a Catholic? Nancy Peℓσѕι? ... even though the two of them still claim to be "Catholic". If declarations are key, as S&S claim, then those two are Catholic, but Traditional Catholics are not Catholic. That's the absurdity to which the S&S legalistic view of being Catholic has led.
-
Thanks, DR.
Wow! That's very strange.
So now I'm confused how that can square with what the Church Fathers unanimously declared.
Posting it again for clarity:
The Holy Fathers teach unanimously not only that heretics are outside of the Church, but also that they are “ipso facto” deprived of all ecclesiastical jurisdiction and dignity. St. Cyprian (lib. 2, epist. 6) says: “We affirm that absolutely no heretic or schismatic has any power or right”; and he also teaches (lib. 2, epist. 1) that the heretics who return to the Church must be received as laymen, even though they have been formerly priests or bishops in the Church. St. Optatus (lib. 1 cont. Parmen.) teaches that heretics and schismatics cannot have the keys of the kingdom of heaven, nor bind nor loose. St. Ambrose (lib. 1 de poenit., ca. 2), St. Augustine (in Enchir., cap 65), St. Jerome (lib. cont. Lucifer.) teach the same.
https://cmri.org/articles-on-the-traditional-catholic-faith/on-the-roman-pontiff/
DR, do you think if they elected Erasmus the consecration would take place? Would he have been valid matter for the consecration?
They could elect him but the consecration simply wouldn't work would it?
Perhaps we are not to judge if somebody is a heretic or not even when it's blatantly obvious such as if they elected and "consecrated" the Dalai Lama or Bozo the Clown?
Well, if a priest put a twinkie on the altar and told me he "consecrated" it and tried to give it to me
I would skiddadle out of there!
Wouldn't you? Would you receive a "consecrated" twinkie?
And aren't you and the others here very, very careful to determine if your priest had a "valid consecration"?
Why are you (and others) so concerned about your priests "valid consecration"
but not concerned about whether or not the pope's consecration was valid?
Is there something I'm missing?
Also, if the pope's consecration wasn't valid then how can we be sure the bishops and priests in his lineage were validly consecrated?
Thanks for your help on this!
Hi, Miser.
Do you dispute the distinction between "per se" and "quoad nos"? It's clear in the case of an occult heretic, and even you would accept an occult heretic as a member of the Church, right?
We're not going to get anywhere by just throwing quotes at each other, like two camps behind their walls of big snowballs throwing their little snow balls at each other. Think. Use analogy. Let's have a constructive discussion and try to make some progress. I'm going to try to forgo the snowball fights. Call it a belated New Year's resolution.
Is the case of the occult heretic (who is accepted as an external member) possible also with a public, manifest heretic? I gave the historical example of Erasmus. If you were in a parish where Erasmus was, and had no other Mass to go to, and the pope recognized Erasmus as a member of the Church in good standing, as did your bishop, and the priest gave him communion at Mass, would you refuse to go to Mass because Erasmus was there? We are told to hold heretics anathema and not commune with them. Does that only apply to hierarchs? Does the pope's, bishop's, priest's acceptance of Erasmus get you off the hook or not if you were to go to Mass with heretic Erasmus, whose heresy was apparently brooked by the pope, bishop, priest?
I don't have all the answers, but the pat snowball throwing at each other of each camp hasn't worked and it's not going to work ever.
I'm trying to use the brain God gave me to make sense of this crisis, guided by Scripture, the teachings of the Church and its theologians, common sense, logic, reason, prayer . . . hope you're with me, as deo gratias it appears you are.
Why are you (and others) so concerned about your priests "valid consecration"
but not concerned about whether or not the pope's consecration was valid?
Is there something I'm missing?
Yes, you have something missing. You have the wrong guy. I accept Novus Ordo consecrations.
As to the "twinkie" consecration, no, I wouldn't accept that. Neither does the Church. When the Church allows a "twinkie" consecration, let's talk about the what then, but not until: the Church elected Francis, the Church has not removed Francis, etc. And so that is the issue we discuss.
-
We've been through this, tho I think it was with QVD...
According to the law established by Pope St. Pius X, he explains it like this:If there are cardinals voting who are heretics, then a heretic can be elected and consecrated pope. Very simple actually.
Yet if the one elected is invalid matter would the consecration take place?
For consecration you have to have
(a) the correct formula of words
(b) the correct matter
(c) the right intention on the part of the minister of the sacrament who has the authority to administer it.
So a non Catholic would be invalid matter, right?
Also, the right intention is required.
Since VII states that we worship the same god as Muslims (Allah)
anyone who intends to implement VII
would not have the intention of implementing the Catholic Faith.
Is that correct?
-
Hi, Miser.
Do you dispute the distinction between "per se" and "quoad nos"? It's clear in the case of an occult heretic, and even you would accept an occult heretic as a member of the Church, right?
We're not going to get anywhere by just throwing quotes at each other, like two camps behind their walls of big snowballs throwing their little snow balls at each other. Think. Use analogy. Let's have a constructive discussion and try to make some progress. I'm going to try to forgo the snowball fights. Call it a belated New Year's resolution.
Is the case of the occult heretic (who is accepted as an external member) possible also with a public, manifest heretic? I gave the historical example of Erasmus. If you were in a parish where Erasmus was, and had no other Mass to go to, and the pope recognized Erasmus as a member of the Church in good standing, as did your bishop, and the priest gave him communion at Mass, would you refuse to go to Mass because Erasmus was there? We are told to hold heretics anathema and not commune with them. Does that only apply to hierarchs? Does the pope's, bishop's, priest's acceptance of Erasmus get you off the hook or not if you were to go to Mass with heretic Erasmus, whose heresy was apparently brooked by the pope, bishop, priest?
I don't have all the answers, but the pat snowball throwing at each other of each camp hasn't worked and it's not going to work ever.
I'm trying to use the brain God gave me to make sense of this crisis, guided by Scripture, the teachings of the Church and its theologians, common sense, logic, reason, prayer . . . hope you're with me, as deo gratias it appears you are.
Yes, you have something missing. You have the wrong guy. I accept Novus Ordo consecrations.
As to the "twinkie" consecration, no, I wouldn't accept that. Neither does the Church. When the Church allows a "twinkie" consecration, let's talk about the what then, but not until: the Church elected Francis, the Church has not removed Francis, etc. And so that is the issue we discuss.
Oh my. I must not be communicating very well if you are given the impression I'm trying to wage a snowball fight. :/
I'm sorry, because that is not my intention at all. I'm sincere in my statement that I will change my position and I truly am trying to fully understand.
The reason I provided the quote was because I had posted it several posts back and it was in light of that quote I wasn't understanding things so I posted it again for clarity.
And I appreciate the quote you provided. I didn't know that story about Erasmus. Very interesting!
"Think. Use analogy."
I'm sorry. I am trying to think :)
That's why I am asking questions.
And no I don't think I understand the distinction of an occult heretic vs a manifest heretic.
And I was trying to make an analogy with the twinkie as invalid matter for consecration. Perhaps I should explain it better.
See whether the heretic is occult or manifest, my understanding is that he would be barred for any office (according to the unanimous opinion of the Church Fathers as I posted above).
Plus
For consecration you have to have
(a) the correct formula of words
(b) the correct matter
(c) the right intention on the part of the minister of the sacrament who has the authority to administer it.
If somebody is a heretic, occult or manifest, they are not valid matter and even if you say the prayers
no consecration takes place.
This is my analogy.
It's the same as placing a twinkie on the altar and saying prayers over it.
The consecration simply doesn't happen.
Now with an occult heretic you might not know the consecration didn't happen.
Yet we aren't dealing with occult heretics.
We are dealing with blatant, public, in you face heretics
(ABL calls them antichrists)
before
the attempted consecration.
So just like the twinkie
we can see very plainly with our own eyes
these men were not Catholic before they were "consecrated".
"As to the "twinkie" consecration, no, I wouldn't accept that."
Okay. Neither would I. :)
In the same way if they put a blatant in your face heretic antichrist
in the robes and in the chair and say the prayers
no consecration can take place.
They can tell us it took place
but we can see with our eyes
that's a blatant lie.
Isn't it?
It's gaslighting.
Just as they could say, this twinkie is fine. I consecrated it. Take it.
The pope and all the bishops could say that to me and I would say
nope
that's a lie.
Wouldn't you?
Our Lord told us not to be deceived.
-
Yet if the one elected is invalid matter would the consecration take place?
For consecration you have to have
(a) the correct formula of words
(b) the correct matter
(c) the right intention on the part of the minister of the sacrament who has the authority to administer it.
So a non Catholic would be invalid matter, right?
Also, the right intention is required.
Since VII states that we worship the same god as Muslims (Allah)
anyone who intends to implement VII
would not have the intention of implementing the Catholic Faith.
Is that correct?
I've already explained your dilemma here (https://www.cathinfo.com/sspx-resistance-news/miles-christi-volume-24-discussion-fr-chazal's-newsletter/msg868085/?topicseen#msg868085). I understand that you cannot accept this answer and why, so if you want to dispute my explanation then feel free.
V2 is full of heresies, i.e. preaches a different Gospel. That's why, per Our Lord who told us to "Beware..." and St. Paul and etc. said the same. We Catholics do not listen to what V2 teaches, it is enough to know what it preaches is full of heresies - which is why we do not listen. Very simple.
I have quoted Fr. Wathen saying: "We can judge for our own sake that a heresy has been publicly pronounced, that is not questionable, that’s just a matter of observing what has been said, and we can judge that matter as easily as we can judge the pronouncements of a protestant minister. I mean, if a protestant minster says something that is contrary to the faith, it’s not crime or anything for us to say, “That’s heresy”. It does not matter who says it, if it’s contrary to the faith, its heresy."
See, I know it does not matter who says it, but sedes insist it does matter, to the point that they feel some over powering need to insist all the way up to popes, that popes are not popes when they preach heresy. But his status really does not matter, all that really matters is what he says and when it's heresy we do not listen, and ell others to not listen.
-
Oh my. I must not be communicating very well if you are given the impression I'm trying to wage a snowball fight. :/
I'm sorry, because that is not my intention at all. I'm sincere in my statement that I will change my position and I truly am trying to fully understand.
The reason I provided the quote was because I had posted it several posts back and it was in light of that quote I wasn't understanding things so I posted it again for clarity.
And I appreciate the quote you provided. I didn't know that story about Erasmus. Very interesting!
"Think. Use analogy."
I'm sorry. I am trying to think :)
That's why I am asking questions.
And no I don't think I understand the distinction of an occult heretic vs a manifest heretic.
And I was trying to make an analogy with the twinkie as invalid matter for consecration. Perhaps I should explain it better.
See whether the heretic is occult or manifest, my understanding is that he would be barred for any office (according to the unanimous opinion of the Church Fathers as I posted above).
Plus
For consecration you have to have
(a) the correct formula of words
(b) the correct matter
(c) the right intention on the part of the minister of the sacrament who has the authority to administer it.
If somebody is a heretic, occult or manifest, they are not valid matter and even if you say the prayers
no consecration takes place.
This is my analogy.
It's the same as placing a twinkie on the altar and saying prayers over it.
The consecration simply doesn't happen.
Now with an occult heretic you might not know the consecration didn't happen.
Yet we aren't dealing with occult heretics.
We are dealing with blatant, public, in you face heretics
(ABL calls them antichrists)
before
the attempted consecration.
So just like the twinkie
we can see very plainly with our own eyes
these men were not Catholic before they were "consecrated".
"As to the "twinkie" consecration, no, I wouldn't accept that."
Okay. Neither would I. :)
In the same way if they put a blatant in your face heretic antichrist
in the robes and in the chair and say the prayers
no consecration can take place.
They can tell us it took place
but we can see with our eyes
that's a blatant lie.
Isn't it?
It's gaslighting.
Just as they could say, this twinkie is fine. I consecrated it. Take it.
The pope and all the bishops could say that to me and I would say
nope
that's a lie.
Wouldn't you?
Our Lord told us not to be deceived.
Hi, Miser. I don't have time to respond to this , but I wanted you to know, I must emphatically do not hold you in the "snowball throwing" camp. As I said, I'm trying to understand what's going on using all means available to me, "as deo gratias it appears you are."
Thanks for your questions and probing. Questions and probing are constructive, and much appreciated.
God Bless,
DR
-
I don't disagree that sometimes the line into manifest heresy can be a bit blurry. There has to be pertinacity.
Pope: I think [some heretical proposition].
Cardinal: Hey, that's heresy.
Pope: Oh, sorry. I retract that.
...or
Pope: Oh, sorry. I just misspoke.
Mere utterance of a heretical proposition doesn't constitute manifest heresy. So there has to be pertinacity.
Here's where it gets blurry.
Pope: I think [some heretical? proposition].
Cardinal: That's heresy.
Pope: No it's not.
Cardinal: Yes it is.
Pope: No it's not, because [this distinction] and [that distinction].
Cardinal: Those distinctions are wrong.
Pope: I stand by it.
Now what happens? At that point, the other Cardinals would get together and if many/most agree, they would approach said Pope and confront him about it. If he remains pertinacious, they might issue a declaration that they consider him a heretic. But what then if half the Cardinals think he is and half don't? What if many of the same Cardinals are themselves infected with the same heresy? What if 90% of the Cardinals think he's a heretic, and 10% think he's not?
While I don't believe in the S&S nonsense that heresy must be declared to be knowable by us, i.e. quoad nos, I also think that in some cases it's just pretty obvious: Joe Biden, Nancy Peℓσѕι, and Jorge Bergoglio. I think these are obvious cases that don't even require any kind of process to determine.
There's a bit of a "phenomenological" aspect to quoad nos thinking. I see a giraffe. But I don't know it's a giraffe until someone in authority declare it to me? If someone is a flaming, foaming-at-the-mouth, heretic, like Joe Biden or Nancy Peℓσѕι, there's no need for any kind of "declaration". I don't PRETEND that I don't know they're heretics until there's some official legal pronouncement to that effect. So I reject this in principle.
Where it becomes blurry, however, is when a Pope denies that he's a heretic, and both sides are making arguments. If a Pope argues that his doctrine is consistent with Tradition, then that's prima facie evidence that it matters to him that his doctrine is reconcilable with Tradition, which suggests that he's not a pertinacious or formal heretic. Of course, Bergoglio has made statements to the effect that, "This might be heretical." while chuckling about it.
While S&S are clearly wrong IN PRINCIPLE, where heretics CAN (often) be known without any kind of legal/formal declaration, IN PRACTICE, most cases are these borderline ones that make it very sticky in practice to sort out who's a heretic and who isn't, and would require some kind of declaration or determination or finding by the Church to make it obvious.
That's why I don't spend a ton of time on it. At the end of the day, only the Church can decide, except for in obvious cases. And the real issue is the indefectibility of the Church, and the integrity of the Church's Magisterium and Public Worship of God. If these can become corrupt, displeasing to God, and harmful to souls, then it undermines the Catholic Church completely. If these men, these papal claimants, did these things of their free will, then they are not popes. As to why they're not popes, whether it's because they're heretics, or their elections were illegitimate (my position, the Siri theory), at the end of the day it doesn't really matter.
But if you assert these men are certainly legitimate popes and that they freely did these things and that these things are displeasing to God and harmful to souls, that's where there's a problem, where you become more an Old Catholic than an actual Catholic. People could try to argue that these were not THAT bad, mostly consisting of ambiguities, etc., that were then abused in practice. People could argue that Montini et al. were blackmailed. People could argue the Siri theory, as I do. People could argue that these men are heretics. Whatever the reason, it doesn't matter to us in the practical order, and the Church will sort it out, and God will sort it out. But we can't throw nearly 2,000 years of Catholic ecclesiology under the bus to maintain our assertion that Bergoglio is the legitimate pope.
-
I don't disagree that sometimes the line into manifest heresy can be a bit blurry. There has to be pertinacity.
Pope: I think [some heretical proposition].
Cardinal: Hey, that's heresy.
Pope: Oh, sorry. I retract that.
...or
Pope: Oh, sorry. I just misspoke.
Mere utterance of a heretical proposition doesn't constitute manifest heresy. So there has to be pertinacity.
Here's where it gets blurry.
Pope: I think [some heretical? proposition].
Cardinal: That's heresy.
Pope: No it's not.
Cardinal: Yes it is.
Pope: No it's not, because [this distinction] and [that distinction].
Cardinal: Those distinctions are wrong.
Pope: I stand by it.
Now what happens? At that point, the other Cardinals would get together and if many/most agree, they would approach said Pope and confront him about it. If he remains pertinacious, they might issue a declaration that they consider him a heretic. But what then if half the Cardinals think he is and half don't? What if many of the same Cardinals are themselves infected with the same heresy? What if 90% of the Cardinals think he's a heretic, and 10% think he's not?
While I don't believe in the S&S nonsense that heresy must be declared to be knowable by us, i.e. quoad nos, I also think that in some cases it's just pretty obvious: Joe Biden, Nancy Peℓσѕι, and Jorge Bergoglio. I think these are obvious cases that don't even require any kind of process to determine.
There's a bit of a "phenomenological" aspect to quoad nos thinking. I see a giraffe. But I don't know it's a giraffe until someone in authority declare it to me? If someone is a flaming, foaming-at-the-mouth, heretic, like Joe Biden or Nancy Peℓσѕι, there's no need for any kind of "declaration". I don't PRETEND that I don't know they're heretics until there's some official legal pronouncement to that effect. So I reject this in principle.
Where it becomes blurry, however, is when a Pope denies that he's a heretic, and both sides are making arguments. If a Pope argues that his doctrine is consistent with Tradition, then that's prima facie evidence that it matters to him that his doctrine is reconcilable with Tradition, which suggests that he's not a pertinacious or formal heretic. Of course, Bergoglio has made statements to the effect that, "This might be heretical." while chuckling about it.
While S&S are clearly wrong IN PRINCIPLE, where heretics CAN (often) be known without any kind of legal/formal declaration, IN PRACTICE, most cases are these borderline ones that make it very sticky in practice to sort out who's a heretic and who isn't, and would require some kind of declaration or determination or finding by the Church to make it obvious.
That's why I don't spend a ton of time on it. At the end of the day, only the Church can decide, except for in obvious cases. And the real issue is the indefectibility of the Church, and the integrity of the Church's Magisterium and Public Worship of God. If these can become corrupt, displeasing to God, and harmful to souls, then it undermines the Catholic Church completely. If these men, these papal claimants, did these things of their free will, then they are not popes. As to why they're not popes, whether it's because they're heretics, or their elections were illegitimate (my position, the Siri theory), at the end of the day it doesn't really matter.
But if you assert these men are certainly legitimate popes and that they freely did these things and that these things are displeasing to God and harmful to souls, that's where there's a problem, where you become more an Old Catholic than an actual Catholic. People could try to argue that these were not THAT bad, mostly consisting of ambiguities, etc., that were then abused in practice. People could argue that Montini et al. were blackmailed. People could argue the Siri theory, as I do. People could argue that these men are heretics. Whatever the reason, it doesn't matter to us in the practical order, and the Church will sort it out, and God will sort it out. But we can't throw nearly 2,000 years of Catholic ecclesiology under the bus to maintain our assertion that Bergoglio is the legitimate pope.
But what I'm trying to focus on is the fact that these guys were blatant public pertinacious heretical apostates
ie outside the Church
non Catholic
before
they were elected.
Does that make them invalid matter for the consecration?
-
This is what my goal is to prepare my self, my husband. To try to save my family, friends, and neighbors. And mail the pope and bishops an open letter of correction. When the churches were closing down, it was under Benedict.
-
I don't disagree that sometimes the line into manifest heresy can be a bit blurry. There has to be pertinacity.
Pope: I think [some heretical proposition].
Cardinal: Hey, that's heresy.
Pope: Oh, sorry. I retract that.
...or
Pope: Oh, sorry. I just misspoke.
Mere utterance of a heretical proposition doesn't constitute manifest heresy. So there has to be pertinacity.
Here's where it gets blurry.
Pope: I think [some heretical? proposition].
Cardinal: That's heresy.
Pope: No it's not.
Cardinal: Yes it is.
Pope: No it's not, because [this distinction] and [that distinction].
Cardinal: Those distinctions are wrong.
Pope: I stand by it.
Now what happens? At that point, the other Cardinals would get together and if many/most agree, they would approach said Pope and confront him about it. If he remains pertinacious, they might issue a declaration that they consider him a heretic. But what then if half the Cardinals think he is and half don't? What if many of the same Cardinals are themselves infected with the same heresy? What if 90% of the Cardinals think he's a heretic, and 10% think he's not?
While I don't believe in the S&S nonsense that heresy must be declared to be knowable by us, i.e. quoad nos, I also think that in some cases it's just pretty obvious: Joe Biden, Nancy Peℓσѕι, and Jorge Bergoglio. I think these are obvious cases that don't even require any kind of process to determine.
There's a bit of a "phenomenological" aspect to quoad nos thinking. I see a giraffe. But I don't know it's a giraffe until someone in authority declare it to me? If someone is a flaming, foaming-at-the-mouth, heretic, like Joe Biden or Nancy Peℓσѕι, there's no need for any kind of "declaration". I don't PRETEND that I don't know they're heretics until there's some official legal pronouncement to that effect. So I reject this in principle.
Where it becomes blurry, however, is when a Pope denies that he's a heretic, and both sides are making arguments. If a Pope argues that his doctrine is consistent with Tradition, then that's prima facie evidence that it matters to him that his doctrine is reconcilable with Tradition, which suggests that he's not a pertinacious or formal heretic. Of course, Bergoglio has made statements to the effect that, "This might be heretical." while chuckling about it.
While S&S are clearly wrong IN PRINCIPLE, where heretics CAN (often) be known without any kind of legal/formal declaration, IN PRACTICE, most cases are these borderline ones that make it very sticky in practice to sort out who's a heretic and who isn't, and would require some kind of declaration or determination or finding by the Church to make it obvious.
That's why I don't spend a ton of time on it. At the end of the day, only the Church can decide, except for in obvious cases. And the real issue is the indefectibility of the Church, and the integrity of the Church's Magisterium and Public Worship of God. If these can become corrupt, displeasing to God, and harmful to souls, then it undermines the Catholic Church completely. If these men, these papal claimants, did these things of their free will, then they are not popes. As to why they're not popes, whether it's because they're heretics, or their elections were illegitimate (my position, the Siri theory), at the end of the day it doesn't really matter.
But if you assert these men are certainly legitimate popes and that they freely did these things and that these things are displeasing to God and harmful to souls, that's where there's a problem, where you become more an Old Catholic than an actual Catholic. People could try to argue that these were not THAT bad, mostly consisting of ambiguities, etc., that were then abused in practice. People could argue that Montini et al. were blackmailed. People could argue the Siri theory, as I do. People could argue that these men are heretics. Whatever the reason, it doesn't matter to us in the practical order, and the Church will sort it out, and God will sort it out. But we can't throw nearly 2,000 years of Catholic ecclesiology under the bus to maintain our assertion that Bergoglio is the legitimate pope.
Also, Lad, wondering how blurry is it really?
Since VII is a false religion
anyone intending to implement VII
is a heretic. Isn't that right?
So again with regards to form, matter, and intention...
wouldn't these guys from John XXIII on
having the intention to implement VII
a false religion
be both
invalid matter
and have invalid intention?
So would the consecration take place?
-
Oh my. I must not be communicating very well if you are given the impression I'm trying to wage a snowball fight. :/
I'm sorry, because that is not my intention at all. I'm sincere in my statement that I will change my position and I truly am trying to fully understand.
The reason I provided the quote was because I had posted it several posts back and it was in light of that quote I wasn't understanding things so I posted it again for clarity.
And I appreciate the quote you provided. I didn't know that story about Erasmus. Very interesting!
"Think. Use analogy."
I'm sorry. I am trying to think :)
That's why I am asking questions.
And no I don't think I understand the distinction of an occult heretic vs a manifest heretic.
And I was trying to make an analogy with the twinkie as invalid matter for consecration. Perhaps I should explain it better.
See whether the heretic is occult or manifest, my understanding is that he would be barred for any office (according to the unanimous opinion of the Church Fathers as I posted above).
Plus
For consecration you have to have
(a) the correct formula of words
(b) the correct matter
(c) the right intention on the part of the minister of the sacrament who has the authority to administer it.
If somebody is a heretic, occult or manifest, they are not valid matter and even if you say the prayers
no consecration takes place.
This is my analogy.
It's the same as placing a twinkie on the altar and saying prayers over it.
The consecration simply doesn't happen.
Now with an occult heretic you might not know the consecration didn't happen.
Yet we aren't dealing with occult heretics.
We are dealing with blatant, public, in you face heretics
(ABL calls them antichrists)
before
the attempted consecration.
So just like the twinkie
we can see very plainly with our own eyes
these men were not Catholic before they were "consecrated".
"As to the "twinkie" consecration, no, I wouldn't accept that."
Okay. Neither would I. :)
In the same way if they put a blatant in your face heretic antichrist
in the robes and in the chair and say the prayers
no consecration can take place.
They can tell us it took place
but we can see with our eyes
that's a blatant lie.
Isn't it?
It's gaslighting.
Just as they could say, this twinkie is fine. I consecrated it. Take it.
The pope and all the bishops could say that to me and I would say
nope
that's a lie.
Wouldn't you?
Our Lord told us not to be deceived.
Yes. Our Lord us not to be deceived.
churches have become dens of thieves.
-
I also think that in some cases it's just pretty obvious: Joe Biden,
If you don't mind my asking, why do you believe Joe Biden is an obvious heretic? Have you heard him publicly deny a dogma with pertinacity? Has he done so in writing? I am just curious how you arrived at your judgment.
-
I don't disagree that sometimes the line into manifest heresy can be a bit blurry. There has to be pertinacity.
Pope: I think [some heretical proposition].
Cardinal: Hey, that's heresy.
Pope: Oh, sorry. I retract that.
...or
Pope: Oh, sorry. I just misspoke.
Mere utterance of a heretical proposition doesn't constitute manifest heresy. So there has to be pertinacity.
Not just pertinacity. There has to be contumacy. Pertinacity is what makes heresy a sin. It's what cuts a person off from the internal union with the Church. Contumacy is what cuts a person off from the external union with the Church, and being cut off from external union is how the person loses their office.
-
I've already explained your dilemma here (https://www.cathinfo.com/sspx-resistance-news/miles-christi-volume-24-discussion-fr-chazal's-newsletter/msg868085/?topicseen#msg868085). I understand that you cannot accept this answer and why, so if you want to dispute my explanation then feel free.
V2 is full of heresies, i.e. preaches a different Gospel. That's why, per Our Lord who told us to "Beware..." and St. Paul and etc. said the same. We Catholics do not listen to what V2 teaches, it is enough to know what it preaches is full of heresies - which is why we do not listen. Very simple.
I have quoted Fr. Wathen saying: "We can judge for our own sake that a heresy has been publicly pronounced, that is not questionable, that’s just a matter of observing what has been said, and we can judge that matter as easily as we can judge the pronouncements of a protestant minister. I mean, if a protestant minster says something that is contrary to the faith, it’s not crime or anything for us to say, “That’s heresy”. It does not matter who says it, if it’s contrary to the faith, its heresy."
See, I know it does not matter who says it, but sedes insist it does matter, to the point that they feel some over powering need to insist all the way up to popes, that popes are not popes when they preach heresy. But his status really does not matter, all that really matters is what he says and when it's heresy we do not listen, and ell others to not listen.
So I'm not sure I understand the explanation in the other post you are linking to. Are you saying that these men were forgiven for their heresies if they went to confession even if they didn't confess them or publicly denounce them? Therefore they are not really heretics?
Also, we have to be very careful about making sure our priests were properly consecrated, right?
In the same way we need to make sure the pope was properly consecrated. So many things depend on that so that's why it matters.
If they weren't properly consecrated neither were the cardinals, bishops, priests under them right?
Plus, if they weren't properly consecrated it invalidates their decrees.
This would actually be a great blessing! Since these men have decreed a false religion it would be a great blessing if we can say with certainty their consecration was invalid and the Church would be saved from that false religion!
The requirements for consecration are form, matter and intention, right?
So even if these men were absolved for their heresies, we know they intended to implement VII right?
As you say, "V2 is full of heresies, i.e. preaches a different Gospel"
So these men from John XXIII on,
intended to preach a different gospel, a different religion.
With that intention, how could their consecration be valid?
As for Father Wathen's statement that "We can judge for our own sake that a heresy has been publicly pronounced..."
And: "It does not matter who says it, if it’s contrary to the faith, its heresy."
This I don't understand, because the Church does not teach heresy. If it does then the Gates of Hell have prevailed against it.
I was just saying an Act of Faith and it declares:
"I believe these and all the truths which the Holy Catholic Church teaches, because Thou hast revealed them, Who canst neither deceive nor be deceived."
-
If you don't mind my asking, why do you believe Joe Biden is an obvious heretic? Have you heard him publicly deny a dogma with pertinacity? Has he done so in writing? I am just curious how you arrived at your judgment.
Seriously? Next you're going to ask me how I know that water is wet. Even a Novus Ordo "bishop" can spot a heretic.
https://www.cnsnews.com/article/national/michael-w-chapman/catholic-bishop-retweets-time-truth-post-joe-biden-heretic
Biden holds that the government should fund abortion, euthanasia, and infanticide. Even if you want to claim that he distinguishes between public and private, he regularly argues that there should be a civil, legal, constitutional right to abortion. That too is heretical. On top of that, the man clearly does not believe that there's no salvation outside the Church.
This quoad nos nonsense (phenomenological to begin with) is being taken to the point of absurdity.
Biden claims that Bergoglio told him he's a "good Catholic" ... which I have no reason to doubt other than because Biden lies like it's going out of style.
-
Also, Lad, wondering how blurry is it really?
Since VII is a false religion
anyone intending to implement VII
is a heretic. Isn't that right?
With Bergoglio, there's very little blur. It gets more complicated with someone like Ratzinger due to his "hermeneutic of continuity" approach.
Nevertheless, mere adherence to Vatican II doesn't constitute heresy. I know lots of people who will say that V2 can be reconciled with Tradition, and, even though I think they're wrong, that would be a material error not a formal one. People hold that that NOM isn't so bad per se but that it has been abused; they might point to one of the EWTN NOMs where they do it in Latin, ad orientem, use Gregorian chant, etc. so that in some sense it outwardly resembles a Catholic Mass.
-
With Bergoglio, there's very little blur. It gets more complicated with someone like Ratzinger due to his "hermeneutic of continuity" approach.
Nevertheless, mere adherence to Vatican II doesn't constitute heresy. I know lots of people who will say that V2 can be reconciled with Tradition, and, even though I think they're wrong, that would be a material error not a formal one. People hold that that NOM isn't so bad per se but that it has been abused; they might point to one of the EWTN NOMs where they do it in Latin, ad orientem, use Gregorian chant, etc. so that in some sense it outwardly resembles a Catholic Mass.
Well, isn't VII implementing a false religion?
Plus it's ecuмenical stance and statement that we worship the same god as the Muslims etc.?
The primary doctrinal error of this false council is religious indifferentism; to demonstrate this, we quote from the very docuмents which it promulgated. In the Declaration on the Relationship of the Church to Non-Christian Religions, Nostra Aetate, (October 28, 1965) we find the clear contradiction of the first Commandment of God, “I am the Lord, thy God, thou shalt not have strange gods before me”:
“From ancient times down to the present, there has existed among divers peoples a certain perception of the hidden power that hovers over the course of things and over the events of human life; at times, indeed, recognition can be found of a Supreme Divinity, and of a Supreme Father, too. Such a perception and such a recognition instill the lives of these peoples with a profound religious sense.
“Thus, in Hinduism men contemplate the divine mystery and express it through an inexhaustible fruitfulness of myths and a searching philosophical inquiry. They seek release from the anguish of our condition through ascetical practices or deep meditation or a loving, trusting flight toward God.”
Hinduism is a pantheistic (the world is god) as well as a polytheistic (many gods) religion. It recognizes various gods in the created world. The world and everything in it, including man, is god. Among the various Hindu divinities, there are three of great importance — Brahma, the creator; Vishnu, the preserver; and Shiva, the destroyer. Hindus worship many animals as gods. Cows are the most sacred, but they also worship monkeys, snakes and other animals. How can Hindus make a “loving, trusting flight to God” when they worship false gods?
Continuing from the Declaration Nostra Aetate:
“Buddhism in its multiple forms acknowledges the radical insufficiency of this shifting world. It teaches a path by which men, in a devout and confident spirit, can either reach a state of absolute freedom or attain supreme enlightenment by their own efforts or by higher assistance.”
Buddhism teaches nothing about God; all beings are essentially equal; all things are changing constantly, except the Law alone by force of which good actions produce a reward, and bad actions bring forth punishment; therefore man does not differ essentially from other beings; he is subjected to a metempsychosis (the rebirth of the soul at death into the body of either a human or an animal form — reincarnation) until he acquires perfection in nirvana.
How can the Conciliar Church speak of “supreme enlightenment” in Buddhism? How can there be any enlightenment without knowledge of the true God and with the false belief of reincarnation?
Also from Nostra Aetate:
“Upon the Muslims, too, the church looks with esteem. They adore one God, living and enduring, merciful and all-powerful, Maker of heaven and earth and Speaker to men…. Though they do not acknowledge Jesus as God, they revere Him as a prophet.”
Once again we can recognize the utterly contradictory position of the Council. It praises the Muslims because “they revere Him (Jesus) as a prophet;” yet, they deny His divinity which Jesus Christ openly declared and most powerfully demonstrated by His miracles (especially His Resurrection). If the Muslims revere Jesus as a prophet, how can they claim that He is not divine. Prophets speak the truth from God, and Jesus Christ proclaimed Himself the Son of God!
Again, from Nostra Aetate:
“Likewise, other religions to be found everywhere strive variously to answer the restless searchings of the human heart by proposing ‘ways,’ which consist of teachings, rules of life and sacred ceremonies.
“The Catholic Church rejects nothing that is true and holy in these religions… The Church therefore has this exhortation for her sons: prudently and lovingly, through dialogue and collaboration with the followers of other religions, and in witness of Christian faith and life, acknowledge, preserve and promote the spiritual and moral goods found among these men, as well as the values in their society and culture.”
Here we find the apostasy from the Catholic Church to the Conciliar Church of Vatican II! No longer will the Conciliar Church seek to convert the world to Christ; it will now promote the “good” found in those other religions; yet, what good is in the worship of false gods? The Declaration does not list any particular area of goodness of these false religions. How can one witness to the Christian faith while he promotes the “good” of false religions? This is an impossibility!
https://cmri.org/articles-on-the-traditional-catholic-faith/the-doctrinal-errors-of-the-second-vatican-council/
There is no "hermeneutic of continuity"! lol :P
Reconcile that with tradition?? Lad??
-
So I'm not sure I understand the explanation in the other post you are linking to. Are you saying that these men were forgiven for their heresies if they went to confession even if they didn't confess them or publicly denounce them? Therefore they are not really heretics?
Heresy is a sin, if a Catholic commits that sin and wants to repent, he has to go to confession - something only members of the Church can do. No, public abjuration is not necessary for the forgiveness of the sin of heresy, apostacy or schism unless public abjuration is attached to the censure, or the bishop or priest requires it.
Also, we have to be very careful about making sure our priests were properly consecrated, right?
In the same way we need to make sure the pope was properly consecrated. So many things depend on that so that's why it matters.
If they weren't properly consecrated neither were the cardinals, bishops, priests under them right?
Plus, if they weren't properly consecrated it invalidates their decrees.
No, once he accepts his election "he is the true pope" and has "full and absolute jurisdiction over the whole world." I'm quoting the law, not making this up.
WE do not "make sure" of anything. Whomsoever chooses to disbelieve this, then per the law: "Hence, if anyone dares to challenge the docuмents prepared in regard to any business whatsoever that comes from the Roman Pontiff before the coronation, We bind him with the censure of excommunication to be incurred ipso facto."
Which is to say he is pope prior to his coronation, or as you say "consecration."
This means that by you needing to "make sure," you are "daring to challenge" "any business whatsoever that comes from the Roman Pontiff before the coronation" what he is saying is that by law this is forbidden, the penalty attached to "making sure" is "the censure of excommunication to be incurred ipso facto."
So these men from John XXIII on,
intended to preach a different gospel, a different religion.
With that intention, how could their consecration be valid?
No, unlike sedes, the conciliar popes, being fully NO, actually, really and truly do believe with all of their being that V2 was infallible. And that they are preaching the Gospel, that their infallibility covers all their teachings, all of their laws and directives, and their infallibility is not limited to defining doctrines ex cathedra, and that they can never harm the Church, and that all who obey them can never be spiritually harmed. This is what they really and truly believe more strongly than you believe they're not popes.
As for Father Wathen's statement that "We can judge for our own sake that a heresy has been publicly pronounced..."
And: "It does not matter who says it, if it’s contrary to the faith, its heresy."
This I don't understand, because the Church does not teach heresy. If it does then the Gates of Hell have prevailed against it.
The Church does not teach heresy, the conciliar popes have taught heresy but popes are not the Church.
-
Well, isn't VII implementing a false religion?
Plus it's ecuмenical stance and statement that we worship the same god as the Muslims etc.?
...
Reconcile that with tradition?? Lad??
Yes, it is my judgment that V2 / Conciliar Church constitute another religion. But it's not another religion in the sense that it calls itself somethin else. That's the difference. If someone joins the Orthodox Church, since it's formally outside the Church, then they belong to a new religion. But the Conciliar Church claims to be Catholic, and many who belong to it do so precisely because they believe that it's the Catholic Church. That's the very definition of material error.
Why do I need to reconcile V2 with Tradition? I can't and don't [although the quote you selected there can easily be hermeneutic-ed into conformity with Tradition if I tried]. I'm saying, however, that some people claim that it can be reconciled ... even if they don't know the details. 95% of Novus Ordites don't even know what's in Vatican II and what it taught.
-
Seriously? Next you're going to ask me how I know that water is wet. Even a Novus Ordo "bishop" can spot a heretic.
https://www.cnsnews.com/article/national/michael-w-chapman/catholic-bishop-retweets-time-truth-post-joe-biden-heretic
Biden holds that the government should fund abortion, euthanasia, and infanticide. Even if you want to claim that he distinguishes between public and private, he regularly argues that there should be a civil, legal, constitutional right to abortion. That too is heretical. On top of that, the man clearly does not believe that there's no salvation outside the Church.
You made a lot of allegations, but you didn't provide any evidence that Biden has publicly denied a dogma, much less did you show that he has done so with pertinacity. If Biden is your example of an obvious heretic, you should be able to provide sufficient evidence to show how you arrived at your conclusion.
-
You made a lot of allegations, but you didn't provide any evidence that Biden has publicly denied a dogma, much less did you show that he has done so with pertinacity. If Biden is your example of an obvious heretic, you should be able to provide sufficient evidence to show how you arrived at your conclusion.
Can you not read? It's right there in the second paragraph that you cite from my post. He promotes the notion that murder (aka abortion) is a civl right that should be protected and funded by government. That's heresy. Do you think that the only heresy is doctrinal, like denial of the Holy Trinity? There's moral heresy as well.
-
Can you not read? It's right there in the second paragraph that you cite from my post. He promotes the notion that murder (aka abortion) is a civl right that should be protected and funded by government. That's heresy. Do you think that the only heresy is doctrinal, like denial of the Holy Trinity? There's moral heresy as well.
I read your allegations, but you didn't provide any evidence to support it. Show us what Biden actually said, in context, and then we can determine if it constitutes a direct denial of a dogma with evidence of pertinacity.
And yes, heresy is ONLY doctrinal. It involves the rejection of a proposition. Some doctrines have a practical or moral application, but heresy itself pertains to the doctrinal judgment. It is a dogma that adultery is a sin, but if a man cheats on his wife it doesn't prove that he's a heretic.
-
. . .
And no I don't think I understand the distinction of an occult heretic vs a manifest heretic.
And I was trying to make an analogy with the twinkie as invalid matter for consecration. Perhaps I should explain it better.
See whether the heretic is occult or manifest, my understanding is that he would be barred for any office (according to the unanimous opinion of the Church Fathers as I posted above).
. . .
An occult heretic is a heretic whose heresy is unknown to others, and hence not "public" or "manifest." Interestingly, Msg. Fenton wrote an article about a fellow priest/theologian who argued, using Mystici Corporis in fact, that not even an occult heretic was a member of the Church, and Fenton had nice things to say about him and, while disagreeing, said it was an open question. More food for thought.
Anyway, since we are talking about office, Card. Newman is an even better example than Erasmus:
In 1845 an Anglican minister became a Catholic — John Henry Newman. Already learned in patristics, he did not equip himself with an adequate formation in Catholic theology. Ordained priest, he wrote on theological questions, admitting errors in Holy Scripture, salvation outside the Church, etc. One of the propositions later condemned by St. Pius X’s Lamentabili (Prop. 25) appears three times verbatim in different writings of Newman. Naturally in the prelude to the 1870 Vatican Council he opposed papal infallibility. His writings were attacked and refuted by Cardinals Franzelin, Lépicier and Billot, by Perrone and Brownson among others. Cardinal Manning reproached him with ten distinct heresies to be found in his writings. Other bishops spoke of his heresies also. Detailed refutations appeared which he could hardly have been unaware of. Nonetheless he retracted nothing.
So was he a heretic? Far from being excommunicated ... he was raised to the cardinalate! The whole Church remained in communion with him. The only explanation for this must be that, despite appearances, his errors were not deemed to be directly and explicitly heretical ... or else that the Catholics of the day, from the pope down, had a conception of pertinacity considerably more demanding than that in circulation among members of that sedevacantist school which hurls its anathemas so lightly in our days.
(Richard Sartino: Another Look at John Henry Cardinal Newman)
https://romeward.com/articles/239752007/heresy-in-history
Not only must we hold heretics "anathema" per Scripture, but also those who communicate with them:
2 John
[10] If any man come to you, and bring not this doctrine, receive him not into the house nor say to him, God speed you. [11] For he that saith unto him, God speed you, communicateth with his wicked works.
Not only the good, legitimate Catholic popes who elevated Newman, but the good, Catholic cardinals, Franzelin, Lépicier, Billot and Manning - none of them denied communing with Newman, despite his heresy clearly being public, since those cardinals knew about it and called it out.
So what's the upshot of the Newman and Erasmus cases? They can't - or shouldn't be - dismissed on this question of being "ipso facto" outside the Church by "public, manifest" heresy.
Does the "ipso facto" loss of membership not apply to Newman and Erasmus, and just apply to the pope?
-
And no I don't think I understand the distinction of an occult heretic vs a manifest heretic.
That's an important distinction since only manifest heretics lose their office. Occult heresy is the sin of heresy that is either entirely hidden, or has been manifested externally, but not sufficiently to be considered as proof in court. That's how Fr. Berry defines it. The following is taken from his book, The Church of Christ, 1955. He explains how a person enters the Church, what it means to "profess the true faith," and the meaning of manifest heretics (formal and material) and manifest schismatics:
Art. II. True Conditions of Membership.
.
INITIATION. The first condition for membership is deduced from the social nature of the Church. No one becomes a member of any society unless he is received into it by proper authority, and made a participant in its benefits according to his capacity. The official act of receiving a person into a society must be manifested externally in some manner. This is usually done by a symbolic act, known as the rite of initiation. The initiatory rite of the Church was instituted by Christ himself… Baptism, therefore, is the rite of initiation into the Church; …
.
PROFESSION OF FAITH. Every member of a society must accept its end and aims according to his ability, and he must strive, at least in some degree, to realize those aims. He that rejects the purposes of a society thereby rejects the society itself; he can neither become a member, nor remain one if already received into the society.
.
The practice of the Christian religion, which consists in the external profession of Christian faith, is the proximate end to be obtained in the Church. Therefore, external profession of faith is an essential condition for membership. Moreover, the Church must be one in the external profession of faith, consequently he that severs this bond of unity is separated from the body of the Church, i.e., he ceases to be a member.
.
SUBJECTION TO AUTHORITY. The very existence of a society depends upon the subjection of its members to authority; therefore he that rejects the authority of a society, rejects the society itself and ceases to be a member. Neither can the end of a society be realized unless the members be directed by its authority in their common endeavors to that end. Therefore, rejecting the authority of a society is tantamount to rejecting its end and aims, which is to reject the society itself. Consequently no one can be a member of any society unless he submits to its authority according to his ability, furthermore, in regard to the Church, there must be unity m the external profession of the true faith, which Christ committed to the teaching authority of the Church. Therefore, the profession of faith necessary for membership in the Church practically revolves itself into submission to her teaching authority.
.
SUMMARY OF CONDITIONS 1. FOR ADULTS. The above considerations show that three conditions are absolutely necessary and of themselves sufficient for membership in the Church; viz:
.
(a) Initiation by baptism;
(b) External profession of the true Faith which is had by submission to the teaching authority of the Church.
(c) Submission to the ruling authority of the Church.
.
These conditions may be briefly summarized in one phrase: the reception of Baptism, and the preservation of the unities – unity of faith, unity of worship, and unity of government; or in other words, reception of Baptism and submission to the teaching and ruling authority of the Church. It should be noted, however, that perfect observance of the unities is not required for mere membership in the Church; a person need not make an explicit profession of faith at all times; nor conform all his actions to it. He need not make a diligent use of the Sacraments at all times, neither must he be free from all infractions of Church laws and precepts. His transgressions will not exclude from membership unless they amount to a rejection of authority.
.
From the principles just established it follows that the adult membership of the Church comprises all those who have been baptized and have not rejected her teaching or ruling authority. …
.
Article III. Persons excluded from membership.
.
Only those who fulfill the three conditions mentioned above, enjoy the privilege of membership in the Church; therefore all unbaptized persons, whether infant or adults, and all manifest heretics and schismatics, and those excommunicated as vitandi are excluded. …
.
A heretic is usually defined as a Christian, i.e., a baptized person, who holds a doctrine contrary to a revealed truth; but this definition is inaccurate, since it would make heretics of a large portion of the faithful. A doctrine contrary to a revealed truth is usually stigmatized as heretical, but a person who professes an heretical doctrine is not necessarily a heretic. Heresy, from the Greek hairesis, signifies a choosing; therefore a heretic is one who chooses for himself in matters of faith, thereby rejecting the authority of the Church established by Christ to teach all men the truths of revelation. He rejects the authority of the Church by following his own judgment or by submitting to an authority other than that established by Christ. A person who submits to the authority of the Church and wishes to accept all her teachings, is not a heretic, even though he profess heretical doctrines through ignorance of what the Church really teaches; he implicitly accepts the true doctrine in his general intention to accept all that the Church teaches.
.
A person may reject the teaching authority of the Church knowingly and willingly, or he may do it through ignorance. In the first case he is a formal heretic, guilty of grievous sin; in the second case, he is a material heretic, free from guilt. Both formal and material heresy may be manifest or occult. Heresy is manifest when publicly known to such an extent that its existence could be proved in a court of law; it is occult if not externally manifested by word or act, or if not sufficiently public to allow proof of its existence in court.
.
The word schism is derived from the Greek which means a division or separation; hence a schismatic is a Christian who separates from the Church by rejecting her authority. He may do this by refusing submission to his bishop, no less than by rejecting the supreme authority of the Roman Pontiff. It is evident however, that a person does not become a schismatic by a mere act of disobedience; there must be some word or act that involves rejection of authority. Schism, like heresy, may be formal or material, manifest or occult.
.
EXCLUDED FROM MEMBERSHIP. Manifest heretics and schismatics are excluded from membership in the Church. Heretics separate themselves from unity of faith and worship: schismatics from the unity of government; and both reject the authority of the Church. So far as exclusion from the Church is concerned, it matters not whether the heresy or schism be formal or material. Those born and reared in heresy or schism may be sincere in their belief and practice, yet they publicly and willingly reject the Church and attach themselves to sects opposed to her; they are not guilty of sin in the matter, but they are not members of the Church. For this reason, the Church makes no distinction between formal and material heresy when receiving converts into her fold.
.
There is no need to adduce arguments from Scripture or tradition for a truth that is practically self-evident. St. Jerome says: “An adulterer, a homicide, and other sinners are driven from the Church by the priests (i.e., by excommunication): but heretics pass sentence upon themselves, leaving the Church by their own free will.” St. Augustine gives expression to the same doctrine: “If you do not wish to belong to the Church … separate yourself from her members, put yourself off from her body. But why should I now urge them to leave the Church, since they have already done this? They are heretics, and therefore already out.” (Fr. E. Sylvester Berry, The Church of Christ, 1955)
-
I read your allegations, but you didn't provide any evidence to support it. Show us what Biden actually said, in context, and then we can determine if it constitutes a direct denial of a dogma with evidence of pertinacity.
And yes, heresy is ONLY doctrinal. It involves the rejection of a proposition. Some doctrines have a practical or moral application, but heresy itself pertains to the doctrinal judgment. It is a dogma that adultery is a sin, but if a man cheats on his wife it doesn't prove that he's a heretic.
So you need me to find and cite a wall of text where Biden says the abortion should be protected by law and funded by the government and that it's a right? You can Google that for yourself. By doctrinal I mean vs. having to do with moral theology, perhaps dogmatic would have been a better choice of words. There's a distinction, academically, between dogmatic theology and moral, and holding erroneous propositions about morality are also heresy. So, if someone held that sodomy is not sinful, that would be heresy.
Simple Google search on "Biden defends right to abortion" or "Biden calls abortion a fundamental right" ... will get you all the evidence you need. Biden isn't merely doing evil, he's upholding it in principle, and that makes it heresy.
https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/statements-releases/2022/07/08/fact-sheet-president-biden-to-sign-executive-order-protecting-access-to-reproductive-health-care-services/
-
So you need me to find and cite a wall of text where Biden says the abortion should be protected by law and funded by the government and that it's a right?
That's not what I asked for. What I asked you to cite is evidence that Biden has publicly denied a dogma with pertinacity. Since he was your example of an obvious heretic, that shouldn't be difficult for you to do.
And heresy requires a direct denial a dogma, not merely sinful behavior and sinful acts. Promoting abortion and/or committing adultery are evil acts, but neither act is proof of heresy.
-
That's not what I asked for. What I asked you to cite is evidence that Biden has publicly denied a dogma with pertinacity. Since he was your example of an obvious heretic, that shouldn't be difficult for you to do.
And heresy requires a direct denial a dogma, not merely sinful behavior and sinful acts. Promoting abortion and/or committing adultery are evil acts, but neither act is proof of heresy.
Having an abortion would be sinful behavior. Declaring that abortion is a fundamental right is heresy. Wow, the disgraceful depths to which some of you R&R have fallen, where even the Conciliars recognize that Biden is a non-Catholic, but you cling to absurdity in defense of your heretical ecclesiology.
https://www.catholic.org/news/hf/faith/story.php?id=83579
In the case of Catholics who persevere in public, manifest grave sin, their dissent from Church teaching is known to all. It's public. Which means their lack of full communion with the Church is known to all. When Catholic politicians who openly support intrinsic evils such as abortion, same-sex "marriage," and the use of contraceptives to frustrate the marital act, argue in the public square that these evils are "rights" people have and therefore must be enshrined in the positive law, they place themselves at odds with Christ and the belief of his Church.
-
Having an abortion would be sinful behavior. Declaring that abortion is a fundamental right is heresy. Wow, the disgraceful depths to which some of you R&R have fallen, where even the Conciliars recognize that Biden is a non-Catholic, but you cling to absurdity in defense of your heretical ecclesiology.
https://www.catholic.org/news/hf/faith/story.php?id=83579
You haven't provided any evidence that Biden publicly denies a dogma with pertinacity. The quote you provided from the Novus Ordo Deacon saying Biden is no longer in "full communion" doesn't suffice. Neither does it suffice to show that Biden can be denied communion, since the same applied to all public sinners. But a public sinner doesn't = a public heretic.
Why are you having such a difficult time providing a shred of evidence that Biden publicly denies a dogma with pertinacity, when he was the example that you gave of an obvious heretic? Do you know why you can't do it? Because you a think bad Catholic = public heretic.
Let's see what you can come up with post factum to prove the "obvious" judgment that you reached before you had any actual evidence.
-
Wow, the disgraceful depths to which some of you R&R have fallen, where even the Conciliars recognize that Biden is a non-Catholic, but you cling to absurdity in defense of your heretical ecclesiology.
Actually, it looks like the Novus Ordos consider Biden to be a Catholic after all, the quote you cited about him not being "in full communion" not withstanding. In the following article, they qualify him as a Catholic, but "dissenting Catholic," not a heretic.
Joe Biden is Not a Heretic | Mark Wilson (patheos.com)
(https://www.patheos.com/blogs/catholicbard/2021/02/joe-biden-is-not-a-heretic/)(All the bold and underlines are in the original)
Joe Biden is Not a Heretic
Something Catholics tend to do quite frequently in online discourse is read a headline of an article and not the article itself.
They then make a judgement, reach a verdict and pronounce a sentence and then proceed to carry it out. These internet warriors think their the Catholic Judge Dredd.
This was recently done to Fr. Casey Cole which you can read about In Defence of Father Casey Cole. (https://www.patheos.com/blogs/catholicbard/2021/02/in-defence-of-fr-casey-cole/)
So I ask readers to actually read all the way through so we don’t end up with comments like…
“Again pathetic patheos fools.
"Calling BS on the sanctimonious hypocrisy of this author’s pathetic pontification.
"This is one of the many leftist modernists who write for this website. Not to be trusted.”
There is a good overall point in this post, so keep reading and find out why Joe Biden is NOT A HERETIC.
The article rewards close reading. It is not a defense, but a call for understanding precise terms used by the Church. …
Is Joe Biden a Heretic? …
I think that it is important for Catholics to get their definitions correct.
Words have meaning and if we get the definitions of words wrong we distort the truth. …
APOSTASY?
HERESY?
AUTOMATIC EXCOMMUNICATION?
NOT BEING A (PRACTICING) CATHOLIC? (On frequently misused/misunderstood terms and concepts)
Someone who dissents from Catholic teaching may be called a dissident.
For example, President Biden dissents from Church teaching on a number of points. Perhaps most notoriously, on the subject of abortion, although he professes to affirm the Church’s teaching regarding the immorality of abortion, he strongly dissents from the Church’s teaching regarding the moral obligation of states to protect the lives of all members of the human community, including the unborn. This makes him a dissident.
(N.b. The cogency of Mr. Biden’s professed position is not my topic here. I am considering only how his position should be characterized in the legal categories of Church thought.)
As a dissident, Mr. Biden is in an impaired state of communion with the Church. Because of this, per canon 916, he is morally obliged to refrain from presenting himself for communion.
Furthermore, my understanding of canon 915 is that he should be advised of this obligation and exhorted to repent—and if, in spite of this, he continues to present himself for communion without repenting, at some point he should be denied communion. (More from canonist Ed Peters (https://thehill.com/opinion/campaign/468335-catholic-priest-was-correct-to-deny-communion-to-joe-biden-heres-why?fbclid=IwAR3bOHHZLKjhxvXB1tTBvlqpLj-wnKfRZjOHrUXcCfPmpdDXKHPKFnthhnM) Cardinal Gregory, unfortunately in my view, is of a different view.)
This is very different from other ways of characterizing Mr. Biden’s standing in the Church that one hears bandied about, for example on Catholic social media.
For example, I have seen claims to the effect that Mr. Biden is an “apostate,” a “heretic,” or “not a (practicing) Catholic.” The idea that Mr. Biden’s public pro-choice stance means that he is automatically excommunicate (a penalty known as latae sententiae excommunication), or at any rate that he should be excommunicated by competent authority (ferendae sententiae excommunication), is also circulating in Catholic social media.
First things first.
The word “apostasy” is widely misused today as a synonym for “heresy” (or an intensified form of heresy, like really bad heresy). In fact, heresy and apostasy are very different things.
Apostasy refers to “total repudiation of the Christian faith” (CCL 751). In other words, an apostate is a baptized person who plainly disowns the name of Christian and all allegiance to Jesus Christ. This is different from a heretic, who claims to be a Christian, but distorts the faith in a specific way. (I find that some people are helped on this point by the observation that the emperor Julian the Apostate was an apostate, while Arius the Arch-heretic was only a heretic.)
Clearly Mr. Biden, who identifies as Catholic and goes to Mass, is not an apostate.
Is he then a heretic? Heresy is a specific type of deformation of the Christian faith, namely, “the obstinate denial or obstinate doubt after the reception of baptism of some truth which is to be believed by divine and Catholic faith” (CCL 751).
This describes what is properly called dogma — that is, “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” (CCL 750).
The teaching that states are morally obliged to protect the lives of all members of the human community, including the unborn, belongs to the social teaching of the Church. It is not a divinely revealed dogma which must be believed with divine and catholic faith. So Mr. Biden’s dissent on this point does not rise to the level of heresy.
What about the oft-repeated slogan that “You can’t be Catholic and support abortion”? It is certainly true that someone who supports legal abortion can’t claim to be a Catholic “in good standing,” (i.e., in unimpaired communion with the Church).
Yet this does not remove them from membership in the Church. Even excommunicated Catholics are still Catholic; contrary to popular belief, excommunication does not place you outside the Catholic Church or take away your membership in the Church. (More from Dr. Peters (https://www.catholicworldreport.com/2018/11/20/excommunicated-catholics-are-still-catholic/?fbclid=IwAR3I6IjlO-tfimJImX_MD-csB5pP3o3I2zkZqyTEd_JN3tCnRQ3zW3gffQ4))
“(It) is the mistaken idea that, upon excommunication, a “person is no longer a member of the Catholic Church.” Actually an excommunicated Catholic is still a Catholic in rather the same way that a convicted felon is still a citizen. An excommunicated Catholic is simply (sadly, but simply) a Catholic who is excommunicated.
“Canon 205 recognizes as Catholic any baptized person who is joined with the Church “in its visible structure by the bonds of profession of faith, of the sacraments, and of ecclesiastical governance.”
So Mr. Biden is definitely Catholic. Is he a practicing Catholic? “Practicing” isn’t a canonical or theological term, but it seems to me that, as the term is commonly used, if a person goes to Mass with any regularity, they can reasonably claim to be “practicing.”
Is Mr. Biden excommunicate? Or *could he be* excommunicated by Church authority on the basis of his dissent from Church teaching on the moral obligation of states to protect the lives of the unborn? Again, the answer is no”. (Dr. Peters (http://www.canonlaw.info/2007/05/primer-for-those-who-prefer-knowing-to_4375.html?fbclid=IwAR0lxuTBb9rpQr_7_gslbCefc-RH7TE-LDro2V-MSMV7lzVplsnxsboJaTE) again)
“First, Canon 916. There are lots of mortal sins out there; if you commit any one of them, you’re not supposed to go to Communion. It’s your obligation to stay away. Next, Canon 915. Some mortal sins are committed under circuмstances that, if the Church finds out about them, not only are you supposed to the stay away from Communion, but the Church is supposed to turn you away if you try to receive. Finally, Canon 1331. A few mortal sins are serious crimes under canon law; if you commit one of those, you can suffer the penalty of excommunication, and one of the consequences of excommunication is, you can’t go to Communion.”
In short: Mr. Biden is in dissent, and that is quite serious enough. He should refrain from receiving communion, and I believe it would be just to deny him communion.
But his pro-choice position does not make him apostate or a heretic; it does not make him not a Catholic (or not practicing); it does not make him automatically excommunicate or qualify him for excommunication.
The extent of each of these words (“practicing” aside) and penalties is carefully defined. We should take care not to throw them about recklessly.
I want to add these further resources that add some worthy commentary to the topic at hand.
“A person who has committed heresy, apostasy, or schism may no longer identify himself as a Catholic, but he’s still bound by the Church’s laws—including, for example, the obligation to attend Mass every Sunday (without receiving Holy Communion, of course).This brings to mind the old saying, “Once a Catholic, always a Catholic.” There’s a sense in which that’s true, since the legal obligations we acquire upon being baptized or received into the Church continue to exist even if we renounce the Faith and no longer regard ourselves as Catholic.
“It is even more clear that someone who still professes to be Catholic—even unfaithfully—remains so, even if it is purely in a ‘bodily’ way and not ‘in his heart’.” (END)
.
It looks like the author of this article couldn't find any evidence of Biden denying a dogma with pertinacity either. So you're not alone.
-
Heresy is a sin, if a Catholic commits that sin and wants to repent, he has to go to confession - something only members of the Church can do. No, public abjuration is not necessary for the forgiveness of the sin of heresy, apostacy or schism unless public abjuration is attached to the censure, or the bishop or priest requires it.
No, once he accepts his election "he is the true pope" and has "full and absolute jurisdiction over the whole world." I'm quoting the law, not making this up.
WE do not "make sure" of anything. Whomsoever chooses to disbelieve this, then per the law: "Hence, if anyone dares to challenge the docuмents prepared in regard to any business whatsoever that comes from the Roman Pontiff before the coronation, We bind him with the censure of excommunication to be incurred ipso facto."
Which is to say he is pope prior to his coronation, or as you say "consecration."
This means that by you needing to "make sure," you are "daring to challenge" "any business whatsoever that comes from the Roman Pontiff before the coronation" what he is saying is that by law this is forbidden, the penalty attached to "making sure" is "the censure of excommunication to be incurred ipso facto."
No, unlike sedes, the conciliar popes, being fully NO, actually, really and truly do believe with all of their being that V2 was infallible. And that they are preaching the Gospel, that their infallibility covers all their teachings, all of their laws and directives, and their infallibility is not limited to defining doctrines ex cathedra, and that they can never harm the Church, and that all who obey them can never be spiritually harmed. This is what they really and truly believe more strongly than you believe they're not popes.
The Church does not teach heresy, the conciliar popes have taught heresy but popes are not the Church.
So do you believe these men went to confession and confessed their heresies before they were elected?
There is no evidence for that because they showed no signs of repentance and continued in their heretical beliefs and practices with the intention to establish a new religion.
Plus, as you say they believe they truly are "preaching the Gospel" with all their being. If they truly believe that then why would they confess it? They don't believe they are heretics so they certainly wouldn't believe they have anything to confess.
Also, how can they believe with all their heart and mind that VII is the Gospel when it preaches worship of false gods among other things that are in 100% opposition to the Catholic faith?
You would have to be mentally ill since it is denying reality. It's no different than those who believe they are a man when they are a woman or a cat when they are a human. The mentally ill are also barred from election to the papacy.
I can't find the source for this quote. Would you please help me with a reference?
"Hence, if anyone dares to challenge the docuмents prepared in regard to any business whatsoever that comes from the Roman Pontiff before the coronation, We bind him with the censure of excommunication to be incurred ipso facto."
-
An occult heretic is a heretic whose heresy is unknown to others, and hence not "public" or "manifest." Interestingly, Msg. Fenton wrote an article about a fellow priest/theologian who argued, using Mystici Corporis in fact, that not even an occult heretic was a member of the Church, and Fenton had nice things to say about him and, while disagreeing, said it was an open question. More food for thought.
Anyway, since we are talking about office, Card. Newman is an even better example than Erasmus:
Not only must we hold heretics "anathema" per Scripture, but also those who communicate with them:
Not only the good, legitimate Catholic popes who elevated Newman, but the good, Catholic cardinals, Franzelin, Lépicier, Billot and Manning - none of them denied communing with Newman, despite his heresy clearly being public, since those cardinals knew about it and called it out.
So what's the upshot of the Newman and Erasmus cases? They can't - or shouldn't be - dismissed on this question of being "ipso facto" outside the Church by "public, manifest" heresy.
Does the "ipso facto" loss of membership not apply to Newman and Erasmus, and just apply to the pope?
So I'm not sure why occult heretics matter to the discussion of the VII popes since they were most definitely not occult. :confused:
That's what I meant when I said I don't understand the distinction. I should have said I don't understand how that distinction applies to the topic at hand.
These men were blatant, in your face, public, pertinacious heretics with the intention of creating a false religion. (antichrists according to ABL)
The allowances made for Newman and Erasmus are tragic.
Two wrongs don't make a right.
Does their example overturn the unanimous opinion of the Church Fathers or the following quotes?
Pope Pius XII lifted all ecclesiastical penalties during the conclave to elect the pope. So even if the Vatican II popes were heretics before their elections, they would still be validly elected.
Answer: Heretics and schismatics are barred by DIVINE LAW from the election to the Papal Office. Pope Pius XII lifted ecclesiastical penalties; he did not, would not, could not dispense from Divine Law.
Proof:
A. Institutiones Iuris Canonici [1950], Coronata
— “Appointment to the Office of the Primacy — What is required by DIVINE LAW for this appointment… Also required for validity is that the one elected be a member of the Church; hence, heretics and apostates (at least public ones) are excluded…”
B. Institutiones luris Canonici [1921], Marato
— “Heretics and schismatics are barred from the Supreme Pontificate by the Divine Law itself, because, although by divine law they are not considered incapable of participating in a certain type of ecclesiastical jurisdiction, nevertheless, they must certainly be regarded as excluded from occupying the throne of the Apostolic See, which is the infallible teacher of the truth of the faith and the center of ecclesiastical unity.
C. Bull cuм Ex Apostolatus [16 Feb. 1559], Pope Paul IV
— “Further, if ever it should appear that any bishop (even one acting as an archbishop, patriarch or primate), or a cardinal of the Roman Church, or a legate (as mentioned above), or even the Roman Pontiff (whether prior to his promotion to cardinal, or prior to his election as Roman Pontiff), has beforehand deviated from the Catholic faith or fallen into any heresy, We enact, decree, determine and define:
— “Such promotion or election in and of itself, even with the agreement and unanimous consent of all the cardinals, shall be null, legally invalid and void.
— “It shall not be possible for such a promotion or election to be deemed valid or to be valid, neither through reception of office, consecration, subsequent administration, or possession, nor even through the putative enthronement of a Roman Pontiff himself, together with the veneration and obedience accorded him by all.
— “Such promotion or election, shall not through any lapse of time in the foregoing situation, be considered even partially legitimate in any way….
— “Each and all of their words, acts, laws, appointments of those so promoted or elected — and indeed, whatsoever flows therefrom — shall be lacking in force, and shall grant no stability and legal power to anyone whatsoever.
— “Those so promoted or elected, by that very fact and without the need to make any further declaration, shall be deprived of any dignity, position, honor, title, authority, office and power.”
D. Institutiones luris Canonici [1921], C. Baldii
— “The law now in force for the election of the Roman Pontiff is reduced to these points:…
— “Barred as incapable of being validly elected are the following: women, children who have not reached the age of reason, those suffering from habitual insanity, the unbaptized, heretics and schismatics….”
-
The Church does not teach heresy, the conciliar popes have taught heresy but popes are not the Church.
‘He who heareth you, heareth Me’ (Luke 10:16)
-
Yes, it is my judgment that V2 / Conciliar Church constitute another religion. But it's not another religion in the sense that it calls itself somethin else. That's the difference. If someone joins the Orthodox Church, since it's formally outside the Church, then they belong to a new religion. But the Conciliar Church claims to be Catholic, and many who belong to it do so precisely because they believe that it's the Catholic Church. That's the very definition of material error.
Why do I need to reconcile V2 with Tradition? I can't and don't [although the quote you selected there can easily be hermeneutic-ed into conformity with Tradition if I tried]. I'm saying, however, that some people claim that it can be reconciled ... even if they don't know the details. 95% of Novus Ordites don't even know what's in Vatican II and what it taught.
I'm not sure what you are saying. Just because some people or many people or Ratzinger himself believed that V2 can be reconciled with tradition it does not make it true.
The reality is that it can't be reconciled.
The religious indifferentism, false ecuмenism, and religious liberty proclaimed by VII were all previously condemned.
The point I was making is that not only were these men invalid matter for the office of pope because they were already outside the Church and a non Catholic cannot become pope,
they also had invalid intention because they intended to implement a false religion.
Here are two 4 minute videos that explain how even if their election was valid they clearly had invalid intention and therefore are false popes:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7WkXs90TySk
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iQQMdVotfCw
-
I'm not sure what you are saying. Just because some people or many people or Ratzinger himself believed that V2 can be reconciled with tradition it does not make it true.
What part of my saying that this is not my opinion but that of others who remain in the Conciliar Church did you not understand? You're fighting here with windmills. What's at issue is that there are many in the Conciliar Church who are in material error.
-
So do you believe these men went to confession and confessed their heresies before they were elected?
I have no idea and neither do you and neither does anyone else - except for them and their confessor. The point I was trying to drive home to you was in order to correct your error of belief that Catholics who've fallen into the mortal sin of heresy are outside of the Church. As I said, I understand why this truth is practically impossible for you to accept, yet being that this is a Catholic truth it is must be accepted regardless of our own puny ideas to the contrary.
There is no evidence for that because they showed no signs of repentance and continued in their heretical beliefs and practices with the intention to establish a new religion.
Plus, as you say they believe they truly are "preaching the Gospel" with all their being. If they truly believe that then why would they confess it? They don't believe they are heretics so they certainly wouldn't believe they have anything to confess.
Also, how can they believe with all their heart and mind that VII is the Gospel when it preaches worship of false gods among other things that are in 100% opposition to the Catholic faith?
You would have to be mentally ill since it is denying reality. It's no different than those who believe they are a man when they are a woman or a cat when they are a human. The mentally ill are also barred from election to the papacy.
Again, the conciliar popes actually and truly believe everything sedes only say they (sedes) believe. If by the grace of God you ever accept this simple fact, then Deo Gratias and no doubt you will rejoice!
It is because the conciliar popes actually, truly and wholly do believe that V2 was infallible, that popes being divinely protected cannot preach anything or make any laws that harm the faithful, and that all who obey them can never be spiritually harmed that they're heretical eccuмaniacs. They really, truly and wholly believe this with every fiber of their being. In short, being divinely protected they can do no wrong. That is what they believe.
The way we know this is so, is by what they've all said and done, one pope after the other are all reading from the same V2 script.
The sedes base their belief of sedeism on the same, exact and identical beliefs the conciliar popes' have concerning their office, what the sedes won't accept is that both are wrong, which explains why the conciliar popes will always do what they've done, and the sedes will always do what they do. It can never end.
I can't find the source for this quote. Would you please help me with a reference?
"Hence, if anyone dares to challenge the docuмents prepared in regard to any business whatsoever that comes from the Roman Pontiff before the coronation, We bind him with the censure of excommunication to be incurred ipso facto."
I don't know how long it's been removed from online, but I have a PDF I made a long time ago of Pope Pius XII's Vacantis Apostolicae Sedis attached. The above quote is found in item #102 on the attached pdf
-
So I'm not sure why occult heretics matter to the discussion of the VII popes since they were most definitely not occult. :confused:
That's what I meant when I said I don't understand the distinction. I should have said I don't understand how that distinction applies to the topic at hand.
These men were blatant, in your face, public, pertinacious heretics with the intention of creating a false religion. (antichrists according to ABL)
The allowances made for Newman and Erasmus are tragic.
Two wrongs don't make a right.
Does their example overturn the unanimous opinion of the Church Fathers or the following quotes?
Pope Pius XII lifted all ecclesiastical penalties during the conclave to elect the pope. So even if the Vatican II popes were heretics before their elections, they would still be validly elected.
Answer: Heretics and schismatics are barred by DIVINE LAW from the election to the Papal Office. Pope Pius XII lifted ecclesiastical penalties; he did not, would not, could not dispense from Divine Law.
Proof:
A. Institutiones Iuris Canonici [1950], Coronata
— “Appointment to the Office of the Primacy — What is required by DIVINE LAW for this appointment… Also required for validity is that the one elected be a member of the Church; hence, heretics and apostates (at least public ones) are excluded…”
B. Institutiones luris Canonici [1921], Marato
— “Heretics and schismatics are barred from the Supreme Pontificate by the Divine Law itself, because, although by divine law they are not considered incapable of participating in a certain type of ecclesiastical jurisdiction, nevertheless, they must certainly be regarded as excluded from occupying the throne of the Apostolic See, which is the infallible teacher of the truth of the faith and the center of ecclesiastical unity.
C. Bull cuм Ex Apostolatus [16 Feb. 1559], Pope Paul IV
— “Further, if ever it should appear that any bishop (even one acting as an archbishop, patriarch or primate), or a cardinal of the Roman Church, or a legate (as mentioned above), or even the Roman Pontiff (whether prior to his promotion to cardinal, or prior to his election as Roman Pontiff), has beforehand deviated from the Catholic faith or fallen into any heresy, We enact, decree, determine and define:
— “Such promotion or election in and of itself, even with the agreement and unanimous consent of all the cardinals, shall be null, legally invalid and void.
— “It shall not be possible for such a promotion or election to be deemed valid or to be valid, neither through reception of office, consecration, subsequent administration, or possession, nor even through the putative enthronement of a Roman Pontiff himself, together with the veneration and obedience accorded him by all.
— “Such promotion or election, shall not through any lapse of time in the foregoing situation, be considered even partially legitimate in any way….
— “Each and all of their words, acts, laws, appointments of those so promoted or elected — and indeed, whatsoever flows therefrom — shall be lacking in force, and shall grant no stability and legal power to anyone whatsoever.
— “Those so promoted or elected, by that very fact and without the need to make any further declaration, shall be deprived of any dignity, position, honor, title, authority, office and power.”
D. Institutiones luris Canonici [1921], C. Baldii
— “The law now in force for the election of the Roman Pontiff is reduced to these points:…
— “Barred as incapable of being validly elected are the following: women, children who have not reached the age of reason, those suffering from habitual insanity, the unbaptized, heretics and schismatics….”
Miser,
The point I was making about "occult" heretics is that they remain, quoad nos, members of the Church, when in fact, having fallen ipso facto from the Church by their heresy and loss of the Catholic faith, they are not members of Christ. Therefore, using analogy and following a possible insight into the quandary we are dealing with, a "public, manifest" heretic, it may be so with them, quoad nos, that they may remain members of the external body despite ipso facto having fallen from the Catholic faith and the bond with Christ which it brings.
Then I mentioned Newman and Erasmus, since they were not merely occult heretics, but "public and manifest" heretics, and yet, none were dismissed by the hierarchy from communion; in fact, the "dispensers of the mysteries of God" not only did not treat them as outside of the communion of faith (despite 2 John 11), but Newman was even promoted and elevated among the hierarchy. So it is not only "occult heretics" who have remained members of the church externally despite heresy and its "ipso facto" removal from the Church.
So what's the upshot of the Newman and Erasmus cases? They can't - or shouldn't be - dismissed on this question of being "ipso facto" outside the Church by "public, manifest" heresy.
Does the "ipso facto" loss of membership not apply to Newman and Erasmus, and just apply to the pope?
You respond: "two wrongs don't make a right." Seriously? (smile). I have faith that you will not dismiss the point thus in your more considered judgment.
You can mine all the quotes you want but they don't change the above facts. And this is what you see in how many Sedes deal with the reality of the crisis: the reality is God has seen fit to elevate the Conciliar pontiffs to the seat, and allowed them to continue in it, with full approbation of the hierarchy of cardinals and bishops, despite the "ipso facto" loss of office, despite the loss of the Catholic faith, despite heresy by word and deed - a situation similar to the cases of Newman and Erasmus, who continued in the Church with all access to the sacraments and even rule in the Church in Newman's case. Apparently the "ipso facto" loss of office and membership for heresy does not encompass exclusion from the external communion in some cases. This is just not a quirk or peculiarity of the false Conciliar Church, but happened under legitimate pontiffs and a legitimate hierarchy - according to sensible Sedes and all Trads. There is a lesson there I think.
Whatever the theory, dogma or doctrine, it has to correspond with the reality, the facts. It may be satisfying to bend the facts to jive with your doctrine or theory, but truth is a correspondence of the theory, dogma or doctrine with reality, satisfying or not.
And the facts suggest to me that these heretic hieararchs are not members of Christ and the Church per se or in the eyes of God, but they certainly rule in the Church Militant on earth, quoad nos. That appears to satisfy the ultimate requirement of correspondence between doctrine and facts, the demand of truth.
-
What part of my saying that this is not my opinion but that of others who remain in the Conciliar Church did you not understand? You're fighting here with windmills. What's at issue is that there are many in the Conciliar Church who are in material error.
Yes, many windmills enter this discussion. :)
Well, what I'm saying is that it doesn't matter what the beliefs of many in the Concilliar Church are or if "they" are in error. That is not important to the discussion so why even bring that up?
What matters is if somebody elected to the papal office has the intention of implementing a false religion.
If they have the intention of implementing VII which includes the worship of false gods
they cannot be true popes
because their intention is invalid.
-
I have no idea and neither do you and neither does anyone else - except for them and their confessor. The point I was trying to drive home to you was in order to correct your error of belief that Catholics who've fallen into the mortal sin of heresy are outside of the Church. As I said, I understand why this truth is practically impossible for you to accept, yet being that this is a Catholic truth it is must be accepted regardless of our own puny ideas to the contrary.
Again, the conciliar popes actually and truly believe everything sedes only say they (sedes) believe. If by the grace of God you ever accept this simple fact, then Deo Gratias and no doubt you will rejoice!
It is because the conciliar popes actually, truly and wholly do believe that V2 was infallible, that popes being divinely protected cannot preach anything or make any laws that harm the faithful, and that all who obey them can never be spiritually harmed that they're heretical eccuмaniacs. They really, truly and wholly believe this with every fiber of their being. In short, being divinely protected they can do no wrong. That is what they believe.
The way we know this is so, is by what they've all said and done, one pope after the other are all reading from the same V2 script.
The sedes base their belief of sedeism on the same, exact and identical beliefs the conciliar popes' have concerning their office, what the sedes won't accept is that both are wrong, which explains why the conciliar popes will always do what they've done, and the sedes will always do what they do. It can never end.
I don't know how long it's been removed from online, but I have a PDF I made a long time ago of Pope Pius XII's Vacantis Apostolicae Sedis attached. The above quote is found in item #102 on the attached pdf
The point I was trying to drive home to you was in order to correct your error of belief that Catholics who've fallen into the mortal sin of heresy are outside of the Church.
Thanks, Stubborn!
So I just wonder why unanimously the Church Fathers, and all those saints and popes
spent all that time saying that heretics are outside the Church and barred from office
when it's simply not true?
That seems like a waste of a lot of time and energy when the point is moot.
Why spill all that ink?
Were they just killing time until dinner?
Maybe we should take their words off the internet so they don't confuse people anymore?
If people can worship other gods and officially proclaim the worship of other gods and still be a member of the Church then why have a Church?
What's the point?
If non Catholic heretics can be pope and proclaim the worship of false gods
then why do we need them anyway?
They really, truly and wholly believe this with every fiber of their being. In short, being divinely protected they can do no wrong. That is what they believe.
The way we know this is so, is by what they've all said and done, one pope after the other are all reading from the same V2 script.
So they all proclaim that you can worship false gods
and still be Catholic
and as long as they believe it with every fiber of their being
it's not a heresy that puts them outside the Church?
Does that work for me too?
Does that work for Novus Ordo folks?
Are there any heresies that put people outside the Church?
If not, then why have a Church?
Thanks
-
Miser,
The point I was making about "occult" heretics is that they remain, quoad nos, members of the Church, when in fact, having fallen ipso facto from the Church by their heresy and loss of the Catholic faith, they are not members of Christ. Therefore, using analogy and following a possible insight into the quandary we are dealing with, a "public, manifest" heretic, it may be so with them, quoad nos, that they may remain members of the external body despite ipso facto having fallen from the Catholic faith and the bond with Christ which it brings.
Then I mentioned Newman and Erasmus, since they were not merely occult heretics, but "public and manifest" heretics, and yet, none were dismissed by the hierarchy from communion; in fact, the "dispensers of the mysteries of God" not only did not treat them as outside of the communion of faith (despite 2 John 11), but Newman was even promoted and elevated among the hierarchy. So it is not only "occult heretics" who have remained members of the church externally despite heresy and its "ipso facto" removal from the Church.
You respond: "two wrongs don't make a right." Seriously? (smile). I have faith that you will not dismiss the point thus in your more considered judgment.
You can mine all the quotes you want but they don't change the above facts. And this is what you see in how many Sedes deal with the reality of the crisis: the reality is God has seen fit to elevate the Conciliar pontiffs to the seat, and allowed them to continue in it, with full approbation of the hierarchy of cardinals and bishops, despite the "ipso facto" loss of office, despite the loss of the Catholic faith, despite heresy by word and deed - a situation similar to the cases of Newman and Erasmus, who continued in the Church with all access to the sacraments and even rule in the Church in Newman's case. Apparently the "ipso facto" loss of office and membership for heresy does not encompass exclusion from the external communion in some cases. This is just not a quirk or peculiarity of the false Conciliar Church, but happened under legitimate pontiffs and a legitimate hierarchy - according to sensible Sedes and all Trads. There is a lesson there I think.
Whatever the theory, dogma or doctrine, it has to correspond with the reality, the facts. It may be satisfying to bend the facts to jive with your doctrine or theory, but truth is a correspondence of the theory, dogma or doctrine with reality, satisfying or not.
And the facts suggest to me that these heretic hieararchs are not members of Christ and the Church per se or in the eyes of God, but they certainly rule in the Church Militant on earth, quoad nos. That appears to satisfy the ultimate requirement of correspondence between doctrine and facts, the demand of truth.
Thanks for explaining it further for me, DR!
I agree with you. We have to examine reality and make sure our explanation for reality corresponds to facts.
We have a conundrum on our hands and are looking for ways to explain it.
Let me tease this out and correct me if I get anything wrong, okay?
Please know that when I reword your statements in plain language, I am in no way being sarcastic or mocking, just trying to make the situation plain enough for my little brain to understand. :)
So there is debate on Newman's heresies and I understand Pope Pius X praised him but others condemn him.
Let's just say he's a heretic for sake of argument.
The Erasmus and Newman situations reflect the gradual infiltration and takeover of the Church. I don't know enough about their cases but from what you say, it appears that some members of the Church failed to do their duty in deposing and anathematizing them.
Yet even if that were the case, they do not reflect total apostasy of the entire Church.
Infiltrate to the very top. That's the plan. Then when they get there apostatize the WHOLE CHURCH with it.
Okay, I will apply your analogy but let me set the table so to speak.
So my understanding is that there are two ways to explain this situation:
Either:
1.God allowed heretics to take over the Church and proclaim the worship of false gods (the nwo one world religion of the Antichrist)
or
2. The seat is vacant and the Church is still here but without a pope.
The second one sounds difficult to accept and deal with, but vastly preferable. It saves the Church from total apostasy!
Yet, it doesn't matter what I prefer of course.
Are both of these explanations feasible?
No.
Number 1 is not feasible but number 2 is.
Why?
For several reasons.
If we choose to believe that since Newman and Erasmus were heretics and therefore in actuality "outside the Church"
somehow proves heretics actually can be members in good standing on earth while secretly God knows they are truly heretics
and therefore
it's also a possible reality that the concilliar popes can be "outside the Church" in the eyes of God while still in charge down below,
we still have problems.
The fact that if some members of the Church failed to anathematize Newman and Erasmus when they should have
does not cause the apostasy of the WHOLE Church.
It does not make Jesus a liar.
If the popes officially proclaim the worship of false gods
that does make Jesus a liar
and the Gates of Hell have prevailed.
Erasmus and Newman did not possess the keys.
Also, if the concilliar popes can be "outside the Church" in the eyes of God while still in charge of Church Militant down below, that would be contrary to
"I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven; whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven."
and
"He who hears you hears me."
That would mean when we hear a heretics' official proclamations
that worshipping false gods is good
we are hearing the voice of Jesus.
Plus, that would mean God is binding in Heaven but nothing is happening down below.
That contradicts Jesus promise to St Peter and
makes Jesus a liar.
So if:
"these heretic hieararchs are not members of Christ and the Church per se or in the eyes of God, but they certainly rule in the Church Militant on earth, quoad nos."
Jesus is a liar
even if it keeps a warm body on the Chair.
So we have to deal with that reality.
The other possibilty is that a few Church members failed their duty with Erasmus and Newman
and the concilliar popes who are officially declaring
the worship of false gods (*see bottom of post for one example)
are not popes
so they do not rule the One True Church.
They are only rulers of a false church.
Jesus is not a liar.
The ENTIRE CHURCH has not apostatized.
The Four Marks of the One Holy Apostolic Church remain
just without pope.
Jesus never promised a pope would always be on the chair
so Jesus is not a liar.
He did promise the One True Church would always remain
so Jesus is not a liar.
To me that is the preferred explanation for the situation and the one that best conforms to reality
because
"The Pope is the Teacher and Shepherd of the whole Church, thus, the whole Church is so bound to hear and follow him that if he would err, the whole Church would err."
St. Robert Bellarmine, On the Roman Pontiff, Book IV, Chapter 3; Grant translation (https://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0692678751/interregnumnow-20), p. 160; underlining added
(*footnote)
False god worship binding on earth as in heaven?
Acta Apostolicae Sedis is the “only official publication of the Holy See … in which all official acts and laws in whatever form are promulgated” (p. 155).
Freedom is a right of every person: each individual enjoys the freedom of belief, thought, expression and action. The pluralism and the diversity of religions, color, sex, race and language are willed by God in His wisdom, through which He created human beings. This divine wisdom is the source from which the right to freedom of belief and the freedom to be different derives.
(Antipope Francis and Grand Imam Ahmad Al-Tayyib, “A Docuмent on Human Fraternity for World Peace and Living Together” (http://press.vatican.va/content/salastampa/it/bollettino/pubblico/2019/02/04/0097/00199.html#tradinglese), Vatican.va, Feb. 4, 2019; underlining added.)
https://novusordowatch.org/2022/02/human-fraternity-declaration-becomes-papal-act/
-
Thanks, Stubborn!
So I just wonder why unanimously the Church Fathers, and all those saints and popes
spent all that time saying that heretics are outside the Church and barred from office
when it's simply not true?
I do not say it is simply not true, I say if the conciliar popes are not or were never popes, only a future pope can decide the matter and that, scheme tho some of us may, we can do absolutely nothing about it - by divine design.
I say the conciliar popes are not manifest heretics, I say their belief is that they cannot spiritually harm the faithful and that whatever they teach is divinely protected. I say this belief is error or heresy, but what it is not, it is not manifest or formal heresy. IOW, they do what they do because they believe this is what the Church teaches, not to intentionally contradict the Church - this they, like the sedes, believe is impossible anyway. The difference is that they *really* believe it.
I say the the sedes also wrongfully believe the same as the conciliar popes, i.e. that popes cannot spiritually harm the faithful and whatever they teach is divinely protected. Which is to say the sedes belief is error or heresy, likely heresy. IOW, the sedes do what they do because they believe this is what the Church teaches, not to intentionally contradict the Church. So when sedes see popes preaching heresy, they wrongfully believe this is impossible for popes to do and on that account decide popes are not popes.
All of this is to say that the sedes and the conciliar popes share the exact same wrong beliefs as regards Divine protection/guidance for popes. This wrong belief makes popes modernist eccuмainiacs and the sedes, sedes.
So they all proclaim that you can worship false gods
and still be Catholic
and as long as they believe it with every fiber of their being
it's not a heresy that puts them outside the Church?
Does that work for me too?
Does that work for Novus Ordo folks?
Are there any heresies that put people outside the Church?
If not, then why have a Church?
The conciliar popes all wrongfully believe that all Councils are infallible ipso facto, just the same as sedes believe. The conciliar popes believe those errors and heretical teachings of V2 are in fact de fide truths of the Church because those teachings came from a Council.
Their foundation is the premise that all councils are infallible, ergo V2 was infallible. The conciliar popes do what they do because they understand that V2 was infallible and that everything popes preach is divinely protected. This is of course altogether wrong, but it is based on the false premise that all councils are infallible ipso facto.
No, it does not work for you, NOers, popes or anyone. All those who do not find the truth and live it will not make it to heaven.
My opinion is that when the popes, fathers, saints etc., say that all heretics are outside of the Church, they can only mean those heretics who've never been members of the Church, such as prots and all other non-Catholics who've never had the Catholic faith.
The one thing no one can dispute is that if ever a Catholic loses the Catholic faith (which is a sin in and of itself) and becomes a raving heretic (this is of course another sin) then comes to his senses and wants to repent, he must go to confession the same as all Catholics - and only Catholics are permitted to do.
-
I say the the sedes also wrongfully believe the same as the conciliar popes, i.e. that popes cannot spiritually harm the faithful and whatever they teach is divinely protected. Which is to say the sedes belief is error or heresy, likely heresy. IOW, the sedes do what they do because they believe this is what the Church teaches, not to intentionally contradict the Church. So when sedes see popes preaching heresy, they wrongfully believe this is impossible for popes to do and on that account decide popes are not popes.
All of this is to say that the sedes and the conciliar popes share the exact same wrong beliefs as regards Divine protection/guidance for popes. This wrong belief makes popes modernist eccuмainiacs and the sedes, sedes.
The conciliar popes all wrongfully believe that all Councils are infallible ipso facto, just the same as sedes believe. The conciliar popes believe those errors and heretical teachings of V2 are in fact de fide truths of the Church because those teachings came from a Council.
Their foundation is the premise that all councils are infallible, ergo V2 was infallible. The conciliar popes do what they do because they understand that V2 was infallible and that everything popes preach is divinely protected. This is of course altogether wrong, but it is based on the false premise that all councils are infallible ipso facto.
Stubborn,
In light of the divine prophecy of the end times shortly before the return of Our Lord of 2 Thess. 2:4, very insightful, especially considering that the Conciliar popes literally sit in the seat of the Vicar of Christ on earth, and claim what you rightly refer to as the claim of "divine protection" in what they speak. Of course, they have the divine perogative of speaking on behalf of God in virtue of their ministry and charism: at times of course popes literally speak the words of God. But they have applied it, as you say, overbroadly to almost everything they or councils teach.
As I said, it's insightful and thought generating to consider this in light of 2 Thess. 2:4 -
Who opposeth and is lifted up above all that is called God or that is worshipped, so that he sitteth in the temple of God, shewing himself as if he were God.
-
Stubborn,
In light of the divine prophecy of the end times shortly before the return of Our Lord of 2 Thess. 2:4, very insightful, especially considering that the Conciliar popes literally sit in the seat of the Vicar of Christ on earth, and claim what you rightly refer to as the claim of "divine protection" in what they speak. Of course, they have the divine perogative of speaking on behalf of God in virtue of their ministry and charism: at times of course popes literally speak the words of God. But they have applied it, as you say, overbroadly to almost everything they or councils teach.
As I said, it's insightful and thought generating to consider this in light of 2 Thess. 2:4 -
Who opposeth and is lifted up above all that is called God or that is worshipped, so that he sitteth in the temple of God, shewing himself as if he were God.
I hadn't thought of that, I've never considered it in light of that Scripture, but what you say sure as heck makes a lot of sense. For me tho, I'm more of a Jeremias 23:1-4 kinda prophesy guy myself lol...
"Woe to the pastors, that destroy and tear the sheep of my pasture, saith the Lord. [2] Therefore thus saith the Lord the God of Israel to the pastors that feed my people: You have scattered my flock, and driven them away, and have not visited them: behold I will visit upon you for the evil of your doings, saith the Lord. [3] And I will gather together the remnant of my flock, out of all the lands into which I have cast them out: and I will make them return to their own fields, and they shall increase and be multiplied. [4] And I will set up pastors over them, and they shall feed them: they shall fear no more, and they shall not be dismayed: and none shall be wanting of their number, saith the Lord."
I think this is what we're living now, and have been since V2.
-
Thanks for explaining it further for me, DR!
I agree with you. We have to examine reality and make sure our explanation for reality corresponds to facts.
We have a conundrum on our hands and are looking for ways to explain it.
Let me tease this out and correct me if I get anything wrong, okay?
Please know that when I reword your statements in plain language, I am in no way being sarcastic or mocking, just trying to make the situation plain enough for my little brain to understand. :)
So there is debate on Newman's heresies and I understand Pope Pius X praised him but others condemn him.
Let's just say he's a heretic for sake of argument.
The Erasmus and Newman situations reflect the gradual infiltration and takeover of the Church. I don't know enough about their cases but from what you say, it appears that some members of the Church failed to do their duty in deposing and anathematizing them.
Yet even if that were the case, they do not reflect total apostasy of the entire Church.
Infiltrate to the very top. That's the plan. Then when they get there apostatize the WHOLE CHURCH with it.
Okay, I will apply your analogy but let me set the table so to speak.
So my understanding is that there are two ways to explain this situation:
Either:
1.God allowed heretics to take over the Church and proclaim the worship of false gods (the nwo one world religion of the Antichrist)
or
2. The seat is vacant and the Church is still here but without a pope.
The second one sounds difficult to accept and deal with, but vastly preferable. It saves the Church from total apostasy!
Yet, it doesn't matter what I prefer of course.
Are both of these explanations feasible?
No.
Number 1 is not feasible but number 2 is.
Why?
For several reasons.
If we choose to believe that since Newman and Erasmus were heretics and therefore in actuality "outside the Church"
somehow proves heretics actually can be members in good standing on earth while secretly God knows they are truly heretics
and therefore
it's also a possible reality that the concilliar popes can be "outside the Church" in the eyes of God while still in charge down below,
we still have problems.
The fact that if some members of the Church failed to anathematize Newman and Erasmus when they should have
does not cause the apostasy of the WHOLE Church.
It does not make Jesus a liar.
If the popes officially proclaim the worship of false gods
that does make Jesus a liar
and the Gates of Hell have prevailed.
Erasmus and Newman did not possess the keys.
Also, if the concilliar popes can be "outside the Church" in the eyes of God while still in charge of Church Militant down below, that would be contrary to
"I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven; whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven."
and
"He who hears you hears me."
That would mean when we hear a heretics' official proclamations
that worshipping false gods is good
we are hearing the voice of Jesus.
Plus, that would mean God is binding in Heaven but nothing is happening down below.
That contradicts Jesus promise to St Peter and
makes Jesus a liar.
So if:
"these heretic hieararchs are not members of Christ and the Church per se or in the eyes of God, but they certainly rule in the Church Militant on earth, quoad nos."
Jesus is a liar
even if it keeps a warm body on the Chair.
So we have to deal with that reality.
The other possibilty is that a few Church members failed their duty with Erasmus and Newman
and the concilliar popes who are officially declaring
the worship of false gods (*see bottom of post for one example)
are not popes
so they do not rule the One True Church.
They are only rulers of a false church.
Jesus is not a liar.
The ENTIRE CHURCH has not apostatized.
The Four Marks of the One Holy Apostolic Church remain
just without pope.
Jesus never promised a pope would always be on the chair
so Jesus is not a liar.
He did promise the One True Church would always remain
so Jesus is not a liar.
To me that is the preferred explanation for the situation and the one that best conforms to reality
because
"The Pope is the Teacher and Shepherd of the whole Church, thus, the whole Church is so bound to hear and follow him that if he would err, the whole Church would err."
St. Robert Bellarmine, On the Roman Pontiff, Book IV, Chapter 3; Grant translation (https://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0692678751/interregnumnow-20), p. 160; underlining added
(*footnote)
False god worship binding on earth as in heaven?
Acta Apostolicae Sedis is the “only official publication of the Holy See … in which all official acts and laws in whatever form are promulgated” (p. 155).
Freedom is a right of every person: each individual enjoys the freedom of belief, thought, expression and action. The pluralism and the diversity of religions, color, sex, race and language are willed by God in His wisdom, through which He created human beings. This divine wisdom is the source from which the right to freedom of belief and the freedom to be different derives.
(Antipope Francis and Grand Imam Ahmad Al-Tayyib, “A Docuмent on Human Fraternity for World Peace and Living Together” (http://press.vatican.va/content/salastampa/it/bollettino/pubblico/2019/02/04/0097/00199.html#tradinglese), Vatican.va, Feb. 4, 2019; underlining added.)
https://novusordowatch.org/2022/02/human-fraternity-declaration-becomes-papal-act/
Miser,
Good stuff. A lot to think about. Now that we're engaged in some serious, thoughtful discussion, I'll take a few days or so before engaging this.
Thank you,
DR
-
I hadn't thought of that, I've never considered it in light of that Scripture, but what you say sure as heck makes a lot of sense. For me tho, I'm more of a Jeremias 23:1-4 kinda prophesy guy myself lol...
"Woe to the pastors, that destroy and tear the sheep of my pasture, saith the Lord. [2] Therefore thus saith the Lord the God of Israel to the pastors that feed my people: You have scattered my flock, and driven them away, and have not visited them: behold I will visit upon you for the evil of your doings, saith the Lord. [3] And I will gather together the remnant of my flock, out of all the lands into which I have cast them out: and I will make them return to their own fields, and they shall increase and be multiplied. [4] And I will set up pastors over them, and they shall feed them: they shall fear no more, and they shall not be dismayed: and none shall be wanting of their number, saith the Lord."
I think this is what we're living now, and have been since V2.
That verse is appropriate, for sure. How about Ezekiel 13? That one always grabs me in application to what's going on since V2.
-
Thanks for explaining it further for me, DR!
I agree with you. We have to examine reality and make sure our explanation for reality corresponds to facts.
We have a conundrum on our hands and are looking for ways to explain it.
Let me tease this out and correct me if I get anything wrong, okay?
Please know that when I reword your statements in plain language, I am in no way being sarcastic or mocking, just trying to make the situation plain enough for my little brain to understand. :)
So there is debate on Newman's heresies and I understand Pope Pius X praised him but others condemn him.
Let's just say he's a heretic for sake of argument.
The Erasmus and Newman situations reflect the gradual infiltration and takeover of the Church. I don't know enough about their cases but from what you say, it appears that some members of the Church failed to do their duty in deposing and anathematizing them.
Yet even if that were the case, they do not reflect total apostasy of the entire Church.
No, of course not. But the relevance of their cases, as you know, is to show how one can be a public, manifest heretic and yet still a member of the external body of the Church. If, in fact, they held to heresies publicly, and in Newman's case other cardinals accused him of such in print, and did not recant, then they would have "ipso facto" fallen from the Church and yet still been a member of the external body, part of the external communion. That is precisely - that possibility - what we are talking about.
The whole Catholic Church has not apostasized. For example, are not most of us here Catholics? I would hope so. Anyway, I'll pick up on the whole apostasize thing later.
Infiltrate to the very top. That's the plan. Then when they get there apostatize the WHOLE CHURCH with it.
Okay, I will apply your analogy but let me set the table so to speak.
So my understanding is that there are two ways to explain this situation:
Either:
1.God allowed heretics to take over the Church and proclaim the worship of false gods (the nwo one world religion of the Antichrist)
or
2. The seat is vacant and the Church is still here but without a pope.
No, not either. Both. Francis is pope and head of the Church, and a heretic who has "ipso facto" fallen.
There is such a visceral recoil at that that some, Sedes, will say heretics have not taken over the Church. Yet there they sit, in the papal chair, in all the dioceses all over the world, all united with Francis, a "governing body" of heretics.
If you say they have not taken over the Church, then where is the successor of Peter? All of the cardinals chose Francis, and they presented him to the world as pope; you say he is a non-pope, but there he is, with no cognizable rival. If you say it is a long interregnum at the highest level, despite Francis sitting in that chair you say is empty, well then, where are the true Catholic bishops with ordinary jurisdiction, where is the visible, governing hierarchy?
The indefectibility of the Church, under the same understanding and definition that the Sedes use to say that the Conciliar Church is not the Catholic Church because of error in its teaching, also entails a visible "governing body," readily identifiable to the world. This ongoing structure is as integral to the Church's indefectibility, as it has hitherto been understood before V2, as its being free from error in its Magisterial teachings.
The Sedes retain the necessity of free from teaching error in the definition, but toss the necessity of an ongoing, visible governing body in the integral structure. That's cherry picking and too convenient, and not true to the definition.
If the visible, governing body of pope, cardinals, and bishops is gone, the indefectibility of the church is gone. If that group teaches error, indefectibility is gone. The indefectibility of the Church is tied to its governing body under the definition the Sedes hold to, the traditional definition.
Here it is again from the First Draft of the Dogmatic Constitution on the Church prepared for Vatican I, similar to the schema prepared for Vatican II under Cardinal Ottaviani's supervision - The Indefectibility of the Church:
We declare, moreover, that, whether one considers its existence or its constitution, the Church of Christ is an everlasting and indefectible society, and that, after it, no more complete nor more perfect economy of salvation is to be hoped for in this world. For, to the very end of the world the pilgrims of this earth are to be saved through Christ. Consequently, his Church, the only society of salvation, will last until the end of the world ever unchangeable and unchanged in its constitution. Therefore, although the Church is growing—and We wish that it may always grow in faith and charity for the upbuilding of Christ's body—although it evolves in a variety of ways according to the changing times and circuмstances in which it is constantly displaying activity, nevertheless, it remains unchangeable in itself and in the constitution it received from Christ. Therefore, Christ's Church can never lose its properties and its qualities, its sacred teaching authority, priestly office, and governing body, so that through his visible body, Christ may always be the way, the truth, and the life for all men.
Jesuit Fathers of St. Mary's College. The Church Teaches: Docuмents of the Church in English Translation . TAN Books. Kindle Edition.
Sedes give us the nonsense of the Church remaining "indefectible" at the same time its visible, governing body is gone. This is nonsense.
Here are your two alternatives:
1) The Magisterium is the perennial teaching handed down in Scripture and Tradition, and not simply what the hierarchy of the moment says it is (this is the view held among us by Stubborn); or,
2) The traditional notion of an indefectible Church, of a "visible, governing body" that teaches free from error, held for the Church Age and the period when the Church spread the Gospel to all nations of the earth. This "indefectible Church" under its head, the pontiff, after it achieved its purpose of spreading the Gospel throughout the earth, was "taken out of the way" (2 Thess. 2), and the power of evil which it once "bound" through its indefectible teaching authority has been "loosed" upon the face and the earth (Apoc. 20)(this is my view at present, though I respect and share Stubborn's view, which is not necessarily inconsistent with it).
The second one sounds difficult to accept and deal with, but vastly preferable. It saves the Church from total apostasy!
Yet, it doesn't matter what I prefer of course.
Are both of these explanations feasible?
No.
Number 1 is not feasible but number 2 is.
Why?
For several reasons.
If we choose to believe that since Newman and Erasmus were heretics and therefore in actuality "outside the Church"
somehow proves heretics actually can be members in good standing on earth while secretly God knows they are truly heretics
and therefore
it's also a possible reality that the concilliar popes can be "outside the Church" in the eyes of God while still in charge down below,
we still have problems.
Well, Miser, again, they are in the Church, ruling it; again, they are both - spiritually outside, bodily inside.
The fact that if some members of the Church failed to anathematize Newman and Erasmus when they should have
does not cause the apostasy of the WHOLE Church.
It does not make Jesus a liar.
If the popes officially proclaim the worship of false gods
that does make Jesus a liar
and the Gates of Hell have prevailed.
I think Cardinal Manning got it right here, and in much of his reflecting on the end times that he saw approaching. Prevail means to win, to achieve victory in the end. Victors in a war - and we are in a war - may lose a battle or two, may not "prevail" in a battle, but win the war. Cardinal Manning noted, without contradiction, that a time would come when the force of evil would prevail in the sense of winning a battle, a temporary success (and this was forecast by God in Scripture) - but that is all, and it will lose the war:
No man could break through that circle of omnipotence until the hour came, when by His own will He opened the way for the powers of evil. For this reason He said in the garden, “This is your hour, and the power of darkness.” [60] For this reason, before He gave Himself into the hands of sinners, He exerted once more the majesty of His power, and when they came to take Him, He rose and said, “I am He,” [61] and “they went backward, and fell to the ground.” Having vindicated His divine majesty, He delivered Himself into the hands of sinners. So too, He said, when He stood before Pilate, “Thou shouldst not have any power against Me, unless it were given thee from above.” [62] It was the will of God; it was the concession of the Father that Pilate had power over His incarnate Son. Again, He said, “Thinkest thou that I cannot ask My Father, and He will give Me presently more than twelve legions of angels? how then shall the Scripture be fulfilled?” [63] In like manner with His Church. Until the hour is come when the barrier shall, by the Divine will, be taken out of the way, no one has power to lay a hand upon it. The gates of hell may war against it; they may strive and wrestle, as they struggle now, with the Vicar of our Lord; but no one has the power to move Him one step, until the hour shall come when the Son of God shall permit, for a time, the powers of evil to prevail. That He will permit it for a time stands in the book of prophecy. When the hindrance is taken away, the man of sin will be revealed; then will come the persecution of three years and a half, short, but terrible, during which the Church of God will return into its state of suffering, as in the beginning; and the imperishable Church of God, by its inextinguishable life derived from the pierced side of Jesus, which for three hundred years lived on through blood, will live on still through the fires of the times of Antichrist.
Manning, Archbishop Henry. The Present Crisis of the Holy See . Desert Will Flower iPress. Kindle Edition.
Erasmus and Newman did not possess the keys.
Also, if the concilliar popes can be "outside the Church" in the eyes of God while still in charge of Church Militant down below, that would be contrary to
"I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven; whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven."
No, it would not be contrary. See what I said above: the Church "bound" Satan to fulfill God's will to proclaim the Gospel to all nations during the Church Age of the Gospel's spread, and then He would permit him to be "loosed" by the Church being taken out of the way - the Church was given power by God to bind him, and, as the verse says, to loose him when the time came.
and
"He who hears you hears me."
They speak what God permits them to speak, and God directs salvation history through them and the authority He gave them; they only "loose" what He has "loosed" in "heaven" according to plan.
That would mean when we hear a heretics' official proclamations
that worshipping false gods is good
we are hearing the voice of Jesus.
Plus, that would mean God is binding in Heaven but nothing is happening down below.
That contradicts Jesus promise to St Peter and
makes Jesus a liar.
So if:
"these heretic hieararchs are not members of Christ and the Church per se or in the eyes of God, but they certainly rule in the Church Militant on earth, quoad nos."
Jesus is a liar
even if it keeps a warm body on the Chair.
So we have to deal with that reality.
How is Jesus a "liar" when He predicted this, and it happens according to Scripture: "That He will permit (i.e, Satan to invade the Temple and "prevail" for his hour) it for a time stands in the book of prophecy"(Cardinal Manning).
You say he lies if it turns out a way that doesn't make sense to you - but His ways are not our ways, and His thoughts not our thoughts. Isaiah 55:8-9.
I think the rest of this that follows has been addressed above . . .
The other possibilty is that a few Church members failed their duty with Erasmus and Newman
and the concilliar popes who are officially declaring
the worship of false gods (*see bottom of post for one example)
are not popes
so they do not rule the One True Church.
They are only rulers of a false church.
Jesus is not a liar.
The ENTIRE CHURCH has not apostatized.
The Four Marks of the One Holy Apostolic Church remain
just without pope.
Jesus never promised a pope would always be on the chair
so Jesus is not a liar.
He did promise the One True Church would always remain
so Jesus is not a liar.
To me that is the preferred explanation for the situation and the one that best conforms to reality
because
"The Pope is the Teacher and Shepherd of the whole Church, thus, the whole Church is so bound to hear and follow him that if he would err, the whole Church would err."
St. Robert Bellarmine, On the Roman Pontiff, Book IV, Chapter 3; Grant translation (https://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0692678751/interregnumnow-20), p. 160; underlining added
(*footnote)
False god worship binding on earth as in heaven?
Acta Apostolicae Sedis is the “only official publication of the Holy See … in which all official acts and laws in whatever form are promulgated” (p. 155).
Freedom is a right of every person: each individual enjoys the freedom of belief, thought, expression and action. The pluralism and the diversity of religions, color, sex, race and language are willed by God in His wisdom, through which He created human beings. This divine wisdom is the source from which the right to freedom of belief and the freedom to be different derives.
(Antipope Francis and Grand Imam Ahmad Al-Tayyib, “A Docuмent on Human Fraternity for World Peace and Living Together” (http://press.vatican.va/content/salastampa/it/bollettino/pubblico/2019/02/04/0097/00199.html#tradinglese), Vatican.va, Feb. 4, 2019; underlining added.)
https://novusordowatch.org/2022/02/human-fraternity-declaration-becomes-papal-act/
Miser,
My comments are in red of course.
You might find this thread interesting. In it, former member Struthio argues - I think quite strongly - that the Church's hierarchy would be indefectible until the hour when Satan is "loosed," until the "consummation of the age," what I have called the Church Age when the Gospel was preached by the Church throughout the world:
https://www.cathinfo.com/the-sacred-catholic-liturgy-chant-prayers/vatican-council-says-there-will-be-shepherds-'usque-ad-consummationem-saeculi'/
-
The sentence you are quoting is saying that every sin severs, but due to their nature none severs as does schism, heresy or apostacy. If he would have begun your sentence by saying: “For no other sin," then the implications you are trying to convey might have merit.
What? Pope Pius XII does NOT say that every sin severs one from the Church. Let's read again (bold mine):
"For not every sin, however grave it may be, is such as of its own nature to sever a man from the Body of the Church, as does schism or heresy or apostasy."
The above statement clearly states that the sins that sever from the Church of their own nature are schism, heresy, and apostasy. Other sins may sever one from the Church, but these do not sever of their own nature; rather, other sins sever when the Church applies a penalty (e.g., excommunication for procuring an abortion).
Paragraph 22 of Mystici Corporis give some context (bold mine):
"Actually only those are to be included as members of the Church who have been baptized and profess the true faith, and who have not been so unfortunate as to separate themselves from the unity of the Body, or been excluded by legitimate authority for grave faults committed."
Here Pope Pius XII makes a distinction between sins that cause one to separate himself (e.g., heresy) vs. sins that cause one to be excluded by the Church (e.g., abortion).
Van Noort agrees with my interpretation:
"Public heretics (and a fortiori, apostates) are not members of the Church. They are not members because they separate themselves from the unity of Catholic faith and from the external profession of the faith. Obviously, therefore, they lack one of the three factors-baptism, profession of the same faith, union with the hierarchy-pointed out by Pius XII as requisite for membership in the Church (see above, p. 238). The same pontiff has explicitly pointed out that, unlike other sins, heresy, schism, and apostasy, automatically sever a man from the Church. ‘For not every sin, however grave and enormous it be, is such as to sever a man automatically from the Body of the Church, as does schism or heresy or apostasy‘.”
(Dogmatic Theology, Volume II, Christ’s Church, 153)
-
Not just pertinacity. There has to be contumacy. Pertinacity is what makes heresy a sin. It's what cuts a person off from the internal union with the Church. Contumacy is what cuts a person off from the external union with the Church, and being cut off from external union is how the person loses their office.
The public sin of manifest formal heresy per se cuts internal and external union with the Church. Pertinacity is what makes the sin of heresy "formal".
-
Some argue that one only becomes a manifest heretic if one either formally / officially leaves the Church or else gets declared a manifest heretic by the Church. That's the S&S line. Is Joe Biden a Catholic? Nancy Peℓσѕι? ... even though the two of them still claim to be "Catholic". If declarations are key, as S&S claim, then those two are Catholic, but Traditional Catholics are not Catholic. That's the absurdity to which the S&S legalistic view of being Catholic has led.
Salza and Siscoe have blinded so many to the true doctrine that the public sin of manifest formal heresy per se separates one from the Church. The 1917 and 1983 Codes of Canon Law formulate this true doctrine into law, and still many remain blinded.
-
Are you certain that Fr Kramer is infallible on this and that this is the certain teaching of the Magisterium?
After all, it was not just Billuart's opinion, but the common opinion of his time, which was more than 100 years after St Robert:
BILLUART (+1757):
"The more common opinion holds that Christ, by a particular providence, for the common good and the tranquility of the Church, continues to give jurisdiction to an even manifestly heretical pontiff until such time as he should be declared a manifest heretic by the Church" - De Fide, Diss V, A III No 3 Obj 2
Are we not just dealing with opinions of theologians?
This is the problem with the SV movement in general, taking what is opinion, what is not certain, and dogmatising it.
"Billuart’s argues that since heretics retain jurisdiction 'for the benefit and tranquility of the faithful' therefore similarly, 'Christ, by a special dispensation, for the common good and tranquility of the Church, will continue to give jurisdiction even to a manifestly heretical pope, until he has been declared a manifest heretic by the Church.' Bellarmine’s words crush Billuart’s thesis: 'I say this avails to nothing. For those Fathers, when they say that heretics lose jurisdiction, do not allege any human laws which maybe did not exist then on this matter; rather, they argued from the nature of heresy.' Hence, there can be no exception by way of a 'special dispensation' from a loss of jurisdiction that results from the very nature of heresy. Heretics do not retain their jurisdiction: Jurisdiction is supplied to latæ sententiæ excommunicated heretics who not only lose all habitual jurisdiction, by their excommunication, but lose it ex natura hæresis. Billuart correctly notes that 'The pope… does not have his jurisdiction from the Church, but from Christ', but the pope would cease to be a member of the Church and lose all jurisdiction from Christ if he fell into manifest heresy; and since the pope cannot incur excommunication for so long as he remains pope, he could not receive supplied jurisdiction from such legislation as Ad evitanda scandala unless he were to fall from the Pontificate by tacit renunciation of office. Only then would he become minor quolibet catholico and accordingly incur excommunication latæ sententiæ, and straightaway receive supplied jurisdiction until his loss of office could be enforced by a declaratory sentence – but he would already have ceased to be pope."
Kramer, Paul. To deceive the elect: The catholic doctrine on the question of a heretical Pope . Kindle Edition.
-
In his book Contra Cekadam, Fr. Chazal notes what he refers to as the traditional Dominican distinction between "per se" and "quoad nos," and says "[t]hings that have happened before God may not have yet happened before men" (page 93).
A heretical pope both "per se," ipso facto, falls out of the Church and ceases to be pope, and yet at the same time, "quoad nos" and in the external realm, in the body, remains in the seat until removed. This should be obvious. A pope who has fallen "per se" or ipso facto from the Church, and hence from the headship of the Church, remains where he is unless either he voluntarily leaves or someone declares him to have left and removes him. This is just what happens among men, "quoad nos."
"Sed contra — The fundamental logical inconsistency in this passage (of John of St. Thomas regarding the judgment of the Church being required) consists in the assertion that one who is manifestly a heretic and therefore separated from the Church quoad se, and accordingly judged so by private judgment, would, still be a member of the Church and the head because he remains to be so quoad nos, and therefore would still actually be a member of the Church and its head. John of St. Thomas’ distinction quoad se/ quoad nos is not a Thomistic distinction, and is a distinction only in the subjective order, and not in the order of being, and is therefore founded on a fallacy which fails to distinguish between what exists in the order of being, and is therefore prior and better known per se, as opposed to what is better known quoad nos. Hence, if the defection into heresy is manifest, or is at least visible and recognizable as such, then it is evident and by nature better known per se that he is separated from the Church, and consequently the heretic’s separation from the Church is true pe se, because it is true in the order of being, even if it is not always immediately or manifestly evident quoad nos. If the heretic’s separation is actually known by us, he is separated quoad nos, and since it is known as an evident fact, it is known to exist per se because, 'that which is non-existent cannot be known. One who is publicly seen to visibly separate himself from the Church by an act of manifest heresy, is publicly seen by that act to sever directly and per se the external bond which united him to the body as a member, and therefore he ceases to be a member simpliciter, i.e. without qualification, and therefore it cannot be said that the separation exists only in a qualified manner, i.e. quoad se, but not quoad nos, as if the separation is merely spiritual in the manner of an internal separation. Thus, it truly can be said of him, 'of himself (quoad se) he separates from the Church', by an actual visible severing of the external bond of union which effects a true and real ontological separation and exclusion from membership in the Church. It therefore does not follow, and is contradictory to say that the said separation which the heretic has accomplished of himself, being visibly a true and unqualified act of separation from external union and membership, is subject to the qualifying condition that the actual separation does not really take place unless, 'it be declared by the Church; even though of himself he separates from the Church,' for the reason that 'in respect to us (quoad nos) the separation is not understood to have taken place without this declaration.' John of St. Thomas’ error on this point is rooted in his failure to take into account the ambiguity of the terms upon which is based the 'distinction between truths prior to us and truths without qualification prior, which terms properly distinguish between the nature of what exists per se and is better known and prior without qualification, and what is known quoad nos. What is true per se is 'prior and better known in the order of being' and therefore 'without qualification prior' — whereas what is true quoad nos is qualified as 'what is prior and better known to man'. What John of St. Thomas says is only known quoad se, is actually known per se, and is per se prior and better known in the order of being. First of all, if the act of separation which has taken place is true in the order of being, then it is true per se. For that separation per se to be true in the order of being, it must be a visible act which directly and per se severs the external bond of union, and consequently it is necessarily a separation that is knowable quoad nos, even if it is not actually known to all. If the manifest act which necessarily causes separation from the Church is immediately seen and known, then it is known as evidently true to us (quoad nos), and therefore judged by us to have really taken place in the order of being, because the premises of that judgment, being primary and therefore basic truths, are manifestly true. A separation that exists per se is therefore known to exist quoad nos if the act causing that separation from the Church is immediately seen by us as evidently true, and accordingly forms the basis of our judgment. Then accordingly, from the immediately evident premises of our judgment, the separation is judged to be evidently true, being seen to be true in its evident principles. If the premises are immediately known (such as the cause of separation which is the act of heresy), and certain (such as the definition of what specifies the act as heretical), then they are certainly true, and consequently the judgment affirming that the heretic has separated himself from the Church necessarily follows as a conclusion from those premises, and is therefore known to be necessarily and certainly true in the order of being, because, 'that which is non-existent cannot be known'. The reason why this is true is that, 'Nothing is intelligible according to that it is in potency, but according to that it is in act, as is said in IX Metaph. Whence, since the possible intellect is in potency only in relation to intelligible being, it cannot be understood unless through its form which becomes by act'. Nothing is simply nothing at all, so there is nothing in the non-existent that can be known. Whatever is known, is known insofar as it is, and it is in virtue of its being in act through its form, and therefore exists in some manner, and is something, some being that can be known: apprehension is being, the notion of which is included in whatsoever one apprehends.' Therefore, a separation whose existence per se is necessarily contingent on an act that is visible and knowable as a true and certain external fact, is by that very contingency necessarily also a separation quoad nos, but if due to weakness of mind, some of us have not yet arrived at the truth of the heretic’s separation, then, for them only, it is not yet known quoad nos as a fact, since for them that knowledge is posterior and less known quoad nos than the fact which is prior and better known in the order of being per se. Yet since the one, who according to John of St. Thomas, is separated from the Church of himself, i.e. 'quoad se' but not quoad nos, is evidently separated per se from the Church in the order of being, then even if due to weakness of mind some of us do not subjectively grasp the evident truth of the reality of this separation in the order of being in the apprehension of our intellect and judge accordingly, the manifest heretic, nevertheless, being visibly separated per se from the body of the Church in the order of being, is separated from membership in the Church independently of whether or not some of us, or even most of us, actually arrive at knowledge of that truth which is per se plain as the light of day: 'For as the eyes of bats are to the blaze of day, so is the reason in our soul to the things which are by nature most evident of all. Hence, Bellarmine says, “Often it happens, or certainly it can happen, that manifest heretics will simulate themselves as Catholics, likewise Jєωs, Turks, Pagans mix in with the faithful, and nevertheless they will not be of the Church”. Accordingly, one who in the order of being is not a true pope per se, is likewise not a pope in the order of being quoad nos, but will only appear to be pope to the weak-minded or the wilfully blind, but will not be pope because he is not of the Church."
Kramer, Paul. On the true and the false pope: The case against Bergoglio (pp. 169-173). Gondolin Press. Kindle Edition.
-
"Sed contra — The fundamental logical inconsistency in this passage (of John of St. Thomas regarding the judgment of the Church being required) consists in the assertion that one who is manifestly a heretic and therefore separated from the Church quoad se, and accordingly judged so by private judgment, would, still be a member of the Church and the head because he remains to be so quoad nos, and therefore would still actually be a member of the Church and its head. John of St. Thomas’ distinction quoad se/ quoad nos is not a Thomistic distinction.....
Kramer, Paul. On the true and the false pope: The case against Bergoglio (pp. 169-173). Gondolin Press. Kindle Edition.
"The proposition which logically involves the contradiction that something can be true in the order of being quoad se, but at the same time not be true in the order of being, because it is not true quoad nos, belongs properly to John of St. Thomas alone, and is not founded on any principle or distinction stated anywhere in the works of St. Thomas. St. Thomas follows Aristotle’s doctrine exactly on knowledge that is prior and better known as elaborated in the Posterior Analytics, which, like all the works of Aristotle and every other book he ever read, he knew entirely by memory."
Kramer, Paul. On the true and the false pope: The case against Bergoglio (p. 677). Gondolin Press. Kindle Edition.
-
It seems to me that Fr. Chazal has relied much on the work of Salza and Siscoe rather than reading the original sources. Fr. Paul Kramer, on the other hand, went to the original sources in his refutation of the many claims made by Salza and Siscoe.
My advice: stop reading Salza and Siscoe. Keep in mind that these two men claim that the SSPX is in schism. This alone should make you weary of them.
http://www.trueorfalsepope.com/p/sspx-page.html (http://www.trueorfalsepope.com/p/sspx-page.html)
-
It seems to me that Fr. Chazal has relied much on the work of Salza and Siscoe rather than reading the original sources. Fr. Paul Kramer, on the other hand, went to the original sources in his refutation of the many claims made by Salza and Siscoe.
My advice: stop reading Salza and Siscoe. Keep in mind that these two men claim that the SSPX is in schism. This alone should make you weary of them.
http://www.trueorfalsepope.com/p/sspx-page.html (http://www.trueorfalsepope.com/p/sspx-page.html)
What evidence, other than circuмstantial, do you have that Fr. Chazal relies on the work of Salza and Sisco? I have never seen any evidence that he has referred to them at all. Have you?
-
What? Pope Pius XII does NOT say that every sin severs one from the Church. Let's read again (bold mine):
"For not every sin, however grave it may be, is such as of its own nature to sever a man from the Body of the Church, as does schism or heresy or apostasy."
The above statement clearly states that the sins that sever from the Church of their own nature are schism, heresy, and apostasy. Other sins may sever one from the Church, but these do not sever of their own nature; rather, other sins sever when the Church applies a penalty (e.g., excommunication for procuring an abortion).
No, it clearly states that not every sin severs as do the sins of heresy etc,. For whatever reason you are missing this distinction. And you are entirely ignoring the sentence immediately following the one you quote:
"Men may lose charity and divine grace through sin, thus becoming incapable of supernatural merit, and yet not be deprived of all life if they hold fast to faith and Christian hope, and if, illumined from above, they are spurred on by the interior promptings of the Holy Spirit to salutary fear and are moved to prayer and penance for their sins."
He is telling you right here what happens to men when they sin (lose charity and grace) and also the remedy (prayer and penance) - for whatever reason you are blinding yourself here.
Excommunication is primarily medicinal in nature (St. Thomas Aquinas) and does not even mean expulsion from the Church. It means that he who receives this censure is not only in the state of mortal sin, but also that he is not permitted to take part in the communal life of the Church, i.e. cannot receive communion, or sing in the choir, play the organ, be an usher and so on.
One who is not a Catholic cannot receive the Sacraments. The excommunicated Catholic can receive the Sacrament of Penance, whereby the censure can be removed, and the sin be forgiven. In the confessional, the priest first removes the censure, then forgives the sin.
Paragraph 22 of Mystici Corporis give some context (bold mine):
"Actually only those are to be included as members of the Church who have been baptized and profess the true faith, and who have not been so unfortunate as to separate themselves from the unity of the Body, or been excluded by legitimate authority for grave faults committed."
Here Pope Pius XII makes a distinction between sins that cause one to separate himself (e.g., heresy) vs. sins that cause one to be excluded by the Church (e.g., abortion).
A Catholic who has received the censure of excommunication for murdering her own child through abortion is forbidden not only to receive Holy Communion, but she may not act as a godmother for a Baptism, nor a sponsor for Confirmation, nor sing in the choir, nor play the organ, etc. But the Church urges her to get to confession, which is something she does not do for non-members.
Van Noort agrees with my interpretation:
"Public heretics (and a fortiori, apostates) are not members of the Church. They are not members because they separate themselves from the unity of Catholic faith and from the external profession of the faith. Obviously, therefore, they lack one of the three factors-baptism, profession of the same faith, union with the hierarchy-pointed out by Pius XII as requisite for membership in the Church (see above, p. 238). The same pontiff has explicitly pointed out that, unlike other sins, heresy, schism, and apostasy, automatically sever a man from the Church. ‘For not every sin, however grave and enormous it be, is such as to sever a man automatically from the Body of the Church, as does schism or heresy or apostasy‘.”
(Dogmatic Theology, Volume II, Christ’s Church, 153)
Please note Catholic Knight that Van Noort also teaches you're not a member of the Church:
"Public schismatics are not members of the Church. They are not members because by their own action they sever themselves from the unity of Catholic communion....by such a rebellion that he would really in practice refuse to recognize the pope as the head of the Catholic Church." (Dogmatic Theology, Volume II, Christ’s Church, 243)
According to him, you need to change your screen name, add "Non-" as the prefix.
Van Noort is another one of the well respected theologians of the last century who explains all sorts of things under the pretext or in the name of a more profound understanding that should not and do not need explaining. INSTEAD, what he should explain is how a Catholic who has fallen into the mortal sin of heresy and wishes to repent, can (and is urged by the Church) to walk into the confessional, confess his sins, and receive absolution if he is not a member.
-
My advice: stop reading Salza and Siscoe. Keep in mind that these two men claim that the SSPX is in schism. This alone should make you weary of them.
Indeed, I don't understand why Sean Johnson keeps citing those two when they hold all non-Motu Traditional Catholics, including the Resistance to be schismatic non-Catholics. One should think that there's something wrong with their logic and reasoning. It's not that they're right in condemning SVs but wrong in condemning R&R, but one must ask why they're wrong ... since they use the same set of principles and the same logic in condemning both those groups. But some want to have their cake and eat it too.
-
What? Pope Pius XII does NOT say that every sin severs one from the Church. Let's read again (bold mine):
I wouldn't waste too much time arguing with Stubborn. He's promoted his backwards / inverted reading of Pius XII for a long time now, and we've tried to correct this. But to no avail ... as he couldn't have picked a more suitable username for this forum.
-
I wouldn't waste too much time arguing with Stubborn. He's promoted his backwards / inverted reading of Pius XII for a long time now, and we've tried to correct this. But to no avail ... as he couldn't have picked a more suitable username for this forum.
Van Noort is another one of the well respected theologians of the last century who explains all sorts of things under the pretext or in the name of a more profound understanding that should not and do not need explaining. INSTEAD, what he should explain is how a Catholic who has fallen into the mortal sin of heresy and wishes to repent, can (and is urged by the Church) to walk into the confessional, confess his sins, and receive absolution if he is not a member.
-
"Sed contra — The fundamental logical inconsistency in this passage (of John of St. Thomas regarding the judgment of the Church being required) consists in the assertion that one who is manifestly a heretic and therefore separated from the Church quoad se, and accordingly judged so by private judgment, would, still be a member of the Church and the head because he remains to be so quoad nos, and therefore would still actually be a member of the Church and its head. John of St. Thomas’ distinction quoad se/ quoad nos is not a Thomistic distinction, and is a distinction only in the subjective order, and not in the order of being, and is therefore founded on a fallacy which fails to distinguish between what exists in the order of being, and is therefore prior and better known per se, as opposed to what is better known quoad nos. Hence, if the defection into heresy is manifest, or is at least visible and recognizable as such, then it is evident and by nature better known per se that he is separated from the Church, and consequently the heretic’s separation from the Church is true pe se, because it is true in the order of being, even if it is not always immediately or manifestly evident quoad nos. If the heretic’s separation is actually known by us, he is separated quoad nos, and since it is known as an evident fact, it is known to exist per se because, 'that which is non-existent cannot be known. One who is publicly seen to visibly separate himself from the Church by an act of manifest heresy, is publicly seen by that act to sever directly and per se the external bond which united him to the body as a member, and therefore he ceases to be a member simpliciter, i.e. without qualification, and therefore it cannot be said that the separation exists only in a qualified manner, i.e. quoad se, but not quoad nos, as if the separation is merely spiritual in the manner of an internal separation. Thus, it truly can be said of him, 'of himself (quoad se) he separates from the Church', by an actual visible severing of the external bond of union which effects a true and real ontological separation and exclusion from membership in the Church. It therefore does not follow, and is contradictory to say that the said separation which the heretic has accomplished of himself, being visibly a true and unqualified act of separation from external union and membership, is subject to the qualifying condition that the actual separation does not really take place unless, 'it be declared by the Church; even though of himself he separates from the Church,' for the reason that 'in respect to us (quoad nos) the separation is not understood to have taken place without this declaration.' John of St. Thomas’ error on this point is rooted in his failure to take into account the ambiguity of the terms upon which is based the 'distinction between truths prior to us and truths without qualification prior, which terms properly distinguish between the nature of what exists per se and is better known and prior without qualification, and what is known quoad nos. What is true per se is 'prior and better known in the order of being' and therefore 'without qualification prior' — whereas what is true quoad nos is qualified as 'what is prior and better known to man'. What John of St. Thomas says is only known quoad se, is actually known per se, and is per se prior and better known in the order of being. First of all, if the act of separation which has taken place is true in the order of being, then it is true per se. For that separation per se to be true in the order of being, it must be a visible act which directly and per se severs the external bond of union, and consequently it is necessarily a separation that is knowable quoad nos, even if it is not actually known to all. If the manifest act which necessarily causes separation from the Church is immediately seen and known, then it is known as evidently true to us (quoad nos), and therefore judged by us to have really taken place in the order of being, because the premises of that judgment, being primary and therefore basic truths, are manifestly true. A separation that exists per se is therefore known to exist quoad nos if the act causing that separation from the Church is immediately seen by us as evidently true, and accordingly forms the basis of our judgment. Then accordingly, from the immediately evident premises of our judgment, the separation is judged to be evidently true, being seen to be true in its evident principles. If the premises are immediately known (such as the cause of separation which is the act of heresy), and certain (such as the definition of what specifies the act as heretical), then they are certainly true, and consequently the judgment affirming that the heretic has separated himself from the Church necessarily follows as a conclusion from those premises, and is therefore known to be necessarily and certainly true in the order of being, because, 'that which is non-existent cannot be known'. The reason why this is true is that, 'Nothing is intelligible according to that it is in potency, but according to that it is in act, as is said in IX Metaph. Whence, since the possible intellect is in potency only in relation to intelligible being, it cannot be understood unless through its form which becomes by act'. Nothing is simply nothing at all, so there is nothing in the non-existent that can be known. Whatever is known, is known insofar as it is, and it is in virtue of its being in act through its form, and therefore exists in some manner, and is something, some being that can be known: apprehension is being, the notion of which is included in whatsoever one apprehends.' Therefore, a separation whose existence per se is necessarily contingent on an act that is visible and knowable as a true and certain external fact, is by that very contingency necessarily also a separation quoad nos, but if due to weakness of mind, some of us have not yet arrived at the truth of the heretic’s separation, then, for them only, it is not yet known quoad nos as a fact, since for them that knowledge is posterior and less known quoad nos than the fact which is prior and better known in the order of being per se. Yet since the one, who according to John of St. Thomas, is separated from the Church of himself, i.e. 'quoad se' but not quoad nos, is evidently separated per se from the Church in the order of being, then even if due to weakness of mind some of us do not subjectively grasp the evident truth of the reality of this separation in the order of being in the apprehension of our intellect and judge accordingly, the manifest heretic, nevertheless, being visibly separated per se from the body of the Church in the order of being, is separated from membership in the Church independently of whether or not some of us, or even most of us, actually arrive at knowledge of that truth which is per se plain as the light of day: 'For as the eyes of bats are to the blaze of day, so is the reason in our soul to the things which are by nature most evident of all. Hence, Bellarmine says, “Often it happens, or certainly it can happen, that manifest heretics will simulate themselves as Catholics, likewise Jєωs, Turks, Pagans mix in with the faithful, and nevertheless they will not be of the Church”. Accordingly, one who in the order of being is not a true pope per se, is likewise not a pope in the order of being quoad nos, but will only appear to be pope to the weak-minded or the wilfully blind, but will not be pope because he is not of the Church."
Kramer, Paul. On the true and the false pope: The case against Bergoglio (pp. 169-173). Gondolin Press. Kindle Edition.
Catholic Knight,
Frankly, these discussions enter into the absurd, or the empty vacuum of academic discussion.
Let us assume Francis is the heretic he appears to be in the external forum. Of course, a heretic is not a member of Christ, and therefore, not a member of Christ's Church. We agree. Isn't it so nice and wonderful that he is "not pope" of the Catholic Church? Yah, let's have a beer.
But there he sits, in the see of Peter, on the papal throne (if there is such still), conducting liturgical worship in St. Peter's, making cardinals and bishops, disposing of Church property, limiting, or attempting to further limit, the Latin Mass in Catholic Churches, etc., changing the catechism, setting up synods, etc.
As I said in a prior post, or as was clearly implied, the Sedes throw the indefectibility of the Church out the window with the R & R whom they excoriate. The indefectibility of the Church is tied to the organ of the eccelsia docens, it's "visible, governing" body, meaning the pope and bishops united with him in a unified teaching and spread of Christ's gospel. It's simply no good to say, "the Church doesn't preach heresy," and therefore the Conciliar Church and it's hierarchy are not the Church; the pope and the bishops in union with him are as integral to the indefectibility of the Church as the Church not teaching heresy. If the pope and the bishops of the "Conciliar" Church - there is no other "Catholic" pope or "Catholic" bishops in the dioceses of the Catholic Church claiming title in the juridical, corporate structure - are lost, so is the indefectibility of the Church, which no longer serves its purpose if the Magisterium of the Catholic Church no longer exists in an ecclesia docens proclaiming the gospel to the world.
If the teaching, or the teaching body, goes heretical, indefectibility is gone under the definition of the pre-V2 manuals the Sedes hold to.
So Francis is not pope, but smugly sits there and holds himself out as such, with the approbation of the world, the submission of all the bishops (who are non-bishops) in all the Catholic sees in the world, and the vast, vast majority of the ecclesia discens (who are non-Catholics) follow him and submit to his teaching authority. Under such a scenario, the "Church" might not have a heretic pope or heretical bishops and laity, and the "Church" may not be preaching heresy, but the "Church" has also thereby lost its indefectibility.
Let me put this simply: Francis the non-pope (and all the heretic bishops with him) will have to be removed before the Catholic Church can once again have a true pope and a true hierarchy. That will require action, perhaps some faithful shepherds declaring him to be such and then a physical removal if necessary if he refuses to leave, but some action quoad nos, or rather by the nos.
Fr. Kramer's argument that Francis is "non-pope" changes nothing until something happens to remove him quoad nos. He will continue to "rule" and govern the Church whether he is, in the eyes of God, in it or out of it theoretically and spiritually, and all the theological tomes cited and academic arguments in the world won't change that inexorable fact.
-
Indeed, I don't understand why Sean Johnson keeps citing those two when they hold all non-Motu Traditional Catholics, including the Resistance to be schismatic non-Catholics. One should think that there's something wrong with their logic and reasoning. It's not that they're right in condemning SVs but wrong in condemning R&R, but one must ask why they're wrong ... since they use the same set of principles and the same logic in condemning both those groups. But some want to have their cake and eat it too.
It doesn't follow, Ladislaus.
In the seminary you learned from Tertullian, Origen, Madirain...
Their work should be judged on its merits. They have done some great work in my opinion. So sad the turn they have taken.
God preserve us from a similar fate!
-
(https://www.cathinfo.com/pm/?sa=send;u=7919)
(https://www.cathinfo.com/Themes/DeepBlue/images/useroff.gif) (https://www.cathinfo.com/pm/?sa=send;u=7919) PaxVobis (https://www.cathinfo.com/profile/PaxVobis/)
- Newbie
- (https://www.cathinfo.com/Themes/DeepBlue/images/star.gif)
- Posts: 10
- Reputation: +10/-0
- (https://www.cathinfo.com/Themes/default/images/up.gif) (https://www.cathinfo.com/sspx-resistance-news/miles-christi-volume-24-discussion-fr-chazal's-newsletter/390/?action=modifykarma;sa=applaud;uid=7919;m=869184;dc6f655=537af042c83b2596df4f64ae91c74627) (https://www.cathinfo.com/Themes/default/images/down.gif) (https://www.cathinfo.com/sspx-resistance-news/miles-christi-volume-24-discussion-fr-chazal's-newsletter/390/?action=modifykarma;sa=smite;uid=7919;m=869184;dc6f655=537af042c83b2596df4f64ae91c74627)
- Gender: (https://www.cathinfo.com/Themes/DeepBlue/images/Male.gif)
- (https://www.cathinfo.com/Themes/DeepBlue/images/icons/profile_sm.gif) (https://www.cathinfo.com/profile/PaxVobis/)
- (https://www.cathinfo.com/Themes/DeepBlue/images/im_off.gif) (https://www.cathinfo.com/pm/?sa=send;u=7919)
Hello all,
Just want to point out that the above user is not me who posted on this thread. It's a variation of my username but not me.
I've not been on here since last Fall when Matthew's server rebooted and I lost my password, so I took a break.
Also, I don't agree with this user's views. That's why I'm pointing out the name confusion.
-
We knew he wasn't you - no worries Pax - - and welcome back!
-
What evidence, other than circuмstantial, do you have that Fr. Chazal relies on the work of Salza and Sisco? I have never seen any evidence that he has referred to them at all. Have you?
Because:
1. Fr. Paul Kramer states as much in his book.
"Unfortunately, since Fr. Chazal is refuting a sedevacantist in his work, he relies too heavily on the thoroughly dishonest scholarship of Salza & Siscoe in their fraudulent diatribe against Sedevacantism, True or False Pope?"
Kramer, Paul. To deceive the elect: The catholic doctrine on the question of a heretical Pope . Kindle Edition.
2. As per Fr. Kramer, the distinction of "per se" and "quad nos." is not an attributable to St. Thomas Aquinas. Both Salza and Siscoe and Fr. Chazal make the claim that it is a traditional Dominican distinction because John of St .Thomas makes that distinction. This gave me the impression that Fr. Chazal was using the work of Salza and Siscoe.
-
No, it clearly states that not every sin severs as do the sins of heresy etc,.
Are you confused by my assertion? My assertion is that Pope Pius XII teaches that heresy is one of those sins that per se severs a man from the Church. I do not say that every sin severs per se a man from the Church.
Here is another theologian that agrees with me:
"In the encyclical (i.e., Mystici Corporis), the Holy Father speaks of schism, heresy, and apostasy, as sins which, of their very nature, separate a man from the Body of the Church. He thereby follows the traditional procedure adopted by St. Robert himself in his De ecclesia militante."
(Monsignor Joseph Fenton, The Status of St. Robert Bellarmine's Teaching about the Membership of Occult Heretics in the Catholic Church, The American Ecclesiastical Review, March 1950, p. 219)
-
It doesn't follow, Ladislaus.
In the seminary you learned from Tertullian, Origen, Madirain...
Their work should be judged on its merits. They have done some great work in my opinion. So sad the turn they have taken.
God preserve us from a similar fate!
Salza and Siscore have not done great work. What they have done is confuse the minds of Traditional Catholics. It is, rather, Fr. Paul Kramer that has done great work, and has shown the multiple errors of Salza and Siscoe.
-
Salza and Siscore have not done great work. What they have done is confuse the minds of Traditional Catholics. It is, rather, Fr. Paul Kramer that has done great work, and has shown the multiple errors of Salza and Siscoe.
Get a taste from here of the poor scholarship of Salza and Siscoe:
https://stevensperay.wordpress.com/2016/01/23/st-robert-bellarmine-and-john-of-st-thomas-versus-john-salza-and-robert-siscoe/ (https://stevensperay.wordpress.com/2016/01/23/st-robert-bellarmine-and-john-of-st-thomas-versus-john-salza-and-robert-siscoe/)
-
Because:
1. Fr. Paul Kramer states as much in his book.
"Unfortunately, since Fr. Chazal is refuting a sedevacantist in his work, he relies too heavily on the thoroughly dishonest scholarship of Salza & Siscoe in their fraudulent diatribe against Sedevacantism, True or False Pope?"
Kramer, Paul. To deceive the elect: The catholic doctrine on the question of a heretical Pope . Kindle Edition.
2. As per Fr. Kramer, the distinction of "per se" and "quad nos." is not an attributable to St. Thomas Aquinas. Both Salza and Siscoe and Fr. Chazal make the claim that it is a traditional Dominican distinction because John of St .Thomas makes that distinction. This gave me the impression that Fr. Chazal was using the work of Salza and Siscoe.
What source does Fr. Kramer use to justify his insistence that Fr. Chazal atributes the distinction of "per se" and "quad nos" to St. Thomas Aquinas? My copy of "Contra Cekada" does not mention this at all when referring to "per se" and "quad nos." No mention at all in the book of John of St. Thomas attributing it to St. Thomas Aquinas.
-
What source does Fr. Kramer use to justify his insistence that Fr. Chazal atributes the distinction of "per se" and "quad nos" to St. Thomas Aquinas? My copy of "Contra Cekada" does not mention this at all when referring to "per se" and "quad nos." No mention at all in the book of John of St. Thomas attributing it to St. Thomas Aquinas.
I don't know what source Fr. Kramer uses. Perhaps he had communications directly with Fr. Chazal. However, knowing Fr. Kramer, he is careful of what he publicly states.
In Post No. 387 of this thread, DecemRationis wrote the following:
"In his book Contra Cekadam, Fr. Chazal notes what he refers to as the traditional Dominican distinction between "per se" and "quoad nos," and says "[t]hings that have happened before God may not have yet happened before men" (page 93)."
-
I don't know what source Fr. Kramer uses. Perhaps he had communications directly with Fr. Chazal. However, knowing Fr. Kramer, he is careful of what he publicly states.
In Post No. 387 of this thread, DecemRationis wrote the following:
"In his book Contra Cekadam, Fr. Chazal notes what he refers to as the traditional Dominican distinction between "per se" and "quoad nos," and says "[t]hings that have happened before God may not have yet happened before men" (page 93)."
Here are the paragraphs in question in Fr. Chazal's 'Contra Cekadam', pages 93, 94:
"Mgr. Gerard des Laurier should have adhered to the theological distinction held by his Dominican predecessors; PER SE/QUOAD NOS. Things that have happened before God may not have yet happened before men, while something happens immediately when a Pope proffers a heresy. Should phenomenon happen per se, suapte natura, ex natura, ipso facto, by itself, from the very fact, yet we remain human, social beings, carrying on in a visible society endowed with a public life and a juridical bond. That is the way we are: social beings.
Quoad Nos
"We stand against the opposite notion which is anarchy, and anarchy breeding; an almost protestant high opinionatedness. We are Catholic, not Protestants, especially because when a difference emerges amongst us, we wait patiently and charitably, until it can be resolved by an instrument established by Our Lord to prevent the fragmentation of the Church. Luther was surprised, disappointed, that after having thrown the Pope out, many popes immediately proliferated: a similar chaos reigns over the sede movement as a whole. Who can make the extensive list of sects sedevacantism has bred since the days of Fr. Saenz? (At least the sedeplenists are divided only in three: the Ecclesia Dei, the neo-SSPX, and the Resistance). Without denying that our present Popes are insane, why not wait patiently for the juridical order of the Church? Why not accept that the situation is not in our hands, begging God to return the public life of the Church to the normalcy it enjoyed for so many centuries?"
-
Here are the paragraphs in question in Fr. Chazal's 'Contra Cekadam', pages 93, 94:
"Mgr. Gerard des Laurier should have adhered to the theological distinction held by his Dominican predecessors; PER SE/QUOAD NOS. Things that have happened before God may not have yet happened before men, while something happens immediately when a Pope proffers a heresy. Should phenomenon happen per se, suapte natura, ex natura, ipso facto, by itself, from the very fact, yet we remain human, social beings, carrying on in a visible society endowed with a public life and a juridical bond. That is the way we are: social beings.
Quoad Nos
"We stand against the opposite notion which is anarchy, and anarchy breeding; an almost protestant high opinionatedness. We are Catholic, not Protestants, especially because when a difference emerges amongst us, we wait patiently and charitably, until it can be resolved by an instrument established by Our Lord to prevent the fragmentation of the Church. Luther was surprised, disappointed, that after having thrown the Pope out, many popes immediately proliferated: a similar chaos reigns over the sede movement as a whole. Who can make the extensive list of sects sedevacantism has bred since the days of Fr. Saenz? (At least the sedeplenists are divided only in three: the Ecclesia Dei, the neo-SSPX, and the Resistance). Without denying that our present Popes are insane, why not wait patiently for the juridical order of the Church? Why not accept that the situation is not in our hands, begging God to return the public life of the Church to the normalcy it enjoyed for so many centuries?"
Thanks for the quotations. Perhaps you are correct that Fr. Chazal did not rely on the poor scholarship of Salza and Siscoe. I don't know why Fr. Kramer wrote what he did and from where DecemRationis got what he quoted.
-
Are you confused by my assertion? My assertion is that Pope Pius XII teaches that heresy is one of those sins that per se severs a man from the Church. I do not say that every sin severs per se a man from the Church.
I know that you "do not say that every sin severs per se a man from the Church." I am the one who is saying that, I am saying it because first, it is true and second, that is what PPXII is saying when that sentence is read in context. I am saying that sentence takes on a whole new meaning when it is taken out of context, which is what you are doing, which means you are giving new meaning to the teaching of PPXII.
Look, everyone, myself included, can look at what the CPs' (Conciliar Popes) have said and done and based on that evidence, say "they're not even Catholic." To be absolutely accurate, what we should say is "what the CPs' have said and done is not Catholic." This we know is truth and we can say, are permitted to say, and should not even keep quiet about.
Sedes quote theologians and misquote popes to support the idea of sedeism, well, I am quoting one of many theologians that teaches that sedes are schismatic and are therefore not members of the Church....
"Public schismatics are not members of the Church. They are not members because by their own action they sever themselves from the unity of Catholic communion....by such a rebellion that he would really in practice refuse to recognize the pope as the head of the Catholic Church." (Dogmatic Theology, Volume II, Christ’s Church, 243)
What you should do, is take time to find out and explain how a Catholic who has fallen into the mortal sin of heresy and wishes to repent, can (and is urged by the Church) to walk into the confessional, confess his sins, and receive absolution if he is not a member.
-
I know that you "do not say that every sin severs per se a man from the Church." I am the one who is saying that, I am saying it because first, it is true and second, that is what PPXII is saying when that sentence is read in context. I am saying that sentence takes on a whole new meaning when it is taken out of context, which is what you are doing, which means you are giving new meaning to the teaching of PPXII.
See, it's been a week since I last checked this thread, and you are STILL repeating this nonsense, which you've been repeating for years and which you'll be repeating years from now.
There's nothing "out of context," and the meaning of Pius XII is obvious. Hersy / Schism sever from membership in the Church; other types of sins do not. It couldn't be more obvious, and every Catholic theologian understood it precisely that way. It's not even debated, but you keep wasting everyon'es time with this nonsense. Most R&R argue about what TYPE of heresy sever from the Church, i.e. whether it has to be heresy that's been declared and officially judged heresy by the Church.
-
Since this was recently cited, I'd like to take a second to address this assertion from Father Chazal:
We stand against the opposite notion which is anarchy, and anarchy breeding; an almost protestant high opinionatedness. We are Catholic, not Protestants, especially because when a difference emerges amongst us, we wait patiently and charitably, until it can be resolved by an instrument established by Our Lord to prevent the fragmentation of the Church. Luther was surprised, disappointed, that after having thrown the Pope out, many popes immediately proliferated: a similar chaos reigns over the sede movement as a whole. Who can make the extensive list of sects sedevacantism has bred since the days of Fr. Saenz?
This fragmentation he speaks of is only resolved by the "instrument establish by Our Lord to prevent [it]" when all agree to submit to the authoritative judgments of said instrument. So there's no fragmentation among R&R? We had the Resistance split off from neo-SSPX, and then Pfeifer & Hewko split off from the rest of the Resistance, and then Hewko split off from Pfeiffer, and who knows what half the others are doing? Even if they're not at odds on some things, they're all doing their own thing without any kind of cetralized unifying authority. As Bishop Williamson has admitted, it was only the personality and the figure of Archbishop Lefebvre (and not this "instrument", aka the V2 papal claimants) that have glued a large portion of the Traditional movement together (the SSPX). What unity there did exist among Trads was on account of +Lefebvre and his society. PERHAPS +Williamson could have achieved a similar effect with the Resistance, but he opted not to do so, precisely because he realized that it would be an artificial unity distinct from the true unity achieved by a Vicar of Christ to whom all agree to SUBMIT when he steps in to resolve "fragmentation". Payin the lip service of, "Yep, he's the pope." does nothing to create "unity" except at a most superficial level, an agreemnt about "Yep, he's the pope."
Very recently, I asked Resistance types why they refuse to get on board with Father Chazal's theological position on the crisis ... because many of them reject Father Chazal's sede-impoundist position.
-
See, it's been a week since I last checked this thread, and you are STILL repeating this nonsense, which you've been repeating for years and which you'll be repeating years from now.
There's nothing "out of context," and the meaning of Pius XII is obvious. Hersy / Schism sever from membership in the Church; other types of sins do not. It couldn't be more obvious, and every Catholic theologian understood it precisely that way. It's not even debated, but you keep wasting everyon'es time with this nonsense. Most R&R argue about what TYPE of heresy sever from the Church, i.e. whether it has to be heresy that's been declared and officially judged heresy by the Church.
Well I checked the thread daily and the sedes are STILL repeating the same old nonsense which they've been repeating forever and there's no sign of that slowing down.
What you should do, is take time to find out and explain how a Catholic who has fallen into the mortal sin of heresy and wishes to repent, can (and is urged by the Church) to walk into the confessional, confess his sins, and receive absolution if he is not a member.
Until you make that attempt, you are just as guilty as the other sedes of giving new meaning to PPXII's teaching - and as the resident professor, you know it.
-
Well I checked the thread daily and the sedes are STILL repeating the same old nonsense which they've been repeating forever and there's no sign of that slowing down.
What you should do, is take time to find out and explain how a Catholic who has fallen into the mortal sin of heresy and wishes to repent, can (and is urged by the Church) to walk into the confessional, confess his sins, and receive absolution if he is not a member.
Until you make that attempt, you are just as guilty as the other sedes of giving new meaning to PPXII's teaching - and as the resident professor, you know it.
Stubborn,
I love your "stuff" and how you challenge the "hitters;" you have a nasty curveball. :laugh1:
I'd also love to hear an answer to that question too; it's a good one. Maybe there is a response but I haven't read it here. Anyway, I think your point reflects the point I've been trying to make on the heretic pope threads.
The heretic Catholic has lost the bond with Christ that only comes with possession of the Catholic faith, and in that sense he has "ipso facto" fallen out of the Church, which is the body of Christ, and is no longer a member. Yet he retains some sort of judicial or legal status in that he can walk into a confessional and simply repent, utilizing the sacraments only available to members of the Church.
The heretic pope likewise has lost the faith and lacks the spiritual bond with Christ, but retains a judicial and legal status. Indeed, the heretic Francis still sits there making cardinals, bishops, changing disciplines, the catechism - all despite his spiritually having "ipso facto" fallen from union with Christ and being, in the eyes of God, an outcast unless and until he repents. He (Francis) may be "out," but he still needs to be kicked out (judically and legally). The judicial and legal status is still there, unfortunately. If you say his judicial and legal actions are void - per the cuм Ex of Paul IV - that also awaits a judicial or legal determination in any event. So Francis keeps taking the actions of a pope, despite being a nonpope to the Sedes. And they get bent out of shape when I call the elected one confirmed by all the cardinals and accepted by all the bishops in all the Catholic dioceses of the world "pope." Yet even St. Robert Bellarmine called the heretic in the seat who could be judged and punished by the Church a "pope," simply acknowledging the position held and the seat sat in by the heretic.
Anyway, in that sense, yes, in the sense that he can repent and be restored by the sacrament of penance, a heretic is just like any other sinner. But I have a question for you, since not all sins sever like heresy or schism (Mystici Corporis). How then are they different? Anyone in sin, any mortal sin, has lost the bond with Christ (the spiritual bond) as a result of losing his justification. Are you saying there is no difference with the sin of heresy or schism? I think Pius XII is clearly saying there is. So what's the difference?
DR
-
Stubborn,
I love your "stuff" and how you challenge the "hitters;" you have a nasty curveball. :laugh1:
I'd also love to hear an answer to that question too; it's a good one. Maybe there is a response but I haven't read it here. Anyway, I think your point reflects the point I've been trying to make on the heretic pope threads.
The heretic Catholic has lost the bond with Christ that only comes with possession of the Catholic faith, and in that sense he has "ipso facto" fallen out of the Church, which is the body of Christ, and is no longer a member. Yet he retains some sort of judicial or legal status in that he can walk into a confessional and simply repent, utilizing the sacraments only available to members of the Church.
There was a response a very long time ago - all I remember is that it amounted to the pope having to broadcast the Abjuration of Heresy to the world before anything else, only then could he go to confession and retake the Chair or become the pope....which fwiw, the same Apostolic Constitution sedes use as their anthem, Pope Paul IV's cuм ex, altogether forbids and condemns that idea, he in fact explicitly decrees that anyone who has ever deviated from the faith can never hold any office. It's the inescapable conundrum doing it's job.
All that I am getting at is that you can replace the word "heretic" with every other sin (see below) and your words above, and the teaching of Pope Pius XII, will still be true.
The adulterous Catholic...
The apostate Catholic...
The schismatic Catholic
The liar Catholic...
The "had abortions" Catholic...
The bank robber Catholic... and so on.
That's all I'm getting at.
-
We knew he wasn't you - no worries Pax - - and welcome back!
Ditto to this!
-
But I have a question for you, since not all sins sever like heresy or schism (Mystici Corporis). How then are they different? Anyone in sin, any mortal sin, has lost the bond with Christ (the spiritual bond) as a result of losing his justification. Are you saying there is no difference with the sin of heresy or schism? I think Pius XII is clearly saying there is. So what's the difference?
Hey DR. If I understand your question correctly, the difference is that with apostasy, heresy and schism it is the nature of the sin that leads to exclusion from the Church, whereas with some other grave sins it is the disciplinary action of the Church authority excommunicating.
Canon George Smith explains in The Teaching of the Catholic Church, p707:
Nevertheless, the melancholy possibility must be envisaged of those who may have "cut themselves off from the structure of the Body by their own unhappy act or been severed therefrom, for very grave crimes, by the legitimate authority." (Quoting MCC)
In other words, the Church, as being a perfectly constituted society, has the right for grave reasons of excluding from membership. She may pass sentence of, or lay down conditions which involve, excommunication. This carries with it the deprivation of rights and privileges enjoyed by those in communion with the faithful. But such a juridical penalty does not wholly nullify membership of the Church, still less does it necessarily imply the final condemnation before God of the excommunicated person.
Certain sins - viz., apostasy, heresy and schism - of their nature cut off the guilty from the living Body of Christ. Apostasy is a form of spiritual ѕυιcιdє, being the complete and voluntary abandonment of the Christian faith which one once professed. Heresy, objectively considered, is a doctrinal proposition which contradicts an article of faith; from the subjective point of view it may be defined as an error concerning the Catholic faith, freely and obstinately persisted in by a professing Christian... It can hardly be denied that those who take up any of these propositions - most evidently is this the case with the deliberate apostate - sever themselves by their own act from membership of the Church.
"It can hardly be denied" - of course, it is obvious. This is not a new teaching of Mystici Corporis, as you and I both know, DR. It is just restating common Catholic sense. It was equally obvious to Cajetan, Bellarmine, Suarez, Billuart, Garrigou-Lagrange... This contributes nothing to the theological debate as to how a heretic Pope is deposed, nor how he loses jurisdiction. It is sheer nonsense to maintain that MCC in any way addresses, let alone resolves, this age-old theological controversy.
-
Hey DR. If I understand your question correctly, the difference is that with apostasy, heresy and schism it is the nature of the sin that leads to exclusion from the Church, whereas with some other grave sins it is the disciplinary action of the Church authority excommunicating.
Canon George Smith explains in The Teaching of the Catholic Church, p707:
"It can hardly be denied" - of course, it is obvious. This is not a new teaching of Mystici Corporis, as you and I both know, DR. It is just restating common Catholic sense. It was equally obvious to Cajetan, Bellarmine, Suarez, Billuart, Garrigou-Lagrange... This contributes nothing to the theological debate as to how a heretic Pope is deposed, nor how he loses jurisdiction. It is sheer nonsense to maintain that MCC in any way addresses, let alone resolves, this age-old theological controversy.
PV,
The question was posed to Stubborn in the sense, "how do you explain the difference in light of your position?"
Thanks,
DR
-
This contributes nothing to the theological debate as to how a heretic Pope is deposed, nor how he loses jurisdiction. It is sheer nonsense to maintain that MCC in any way addresses, let alone resolves, this age-old theological controversy.
If it were possible for a pope to become a heretic, he would depose himself by his own act of public manifest formal heresy. Both Codes of Canon Law recognize this and therefore state that the loss of office would occur automatically. With the loss of office, his ordinary jurisdiction is gone too. Any declaration by the Church would simply be a recognition of the fact of public manifest formal heresy. That fact can be observed by the simple layman prior to the Church's judgment.
-
“In the encyclical (i.e., Mystici Corporis), the Holy Father speaks of schism, heresy, and apostasy, as sins which, of their very nature, separate a man from the Body of the Church. He thereby follows the traditional procedure adopted by St. Robert himself in his De ecclesia militante.”
(Monsignor Joseph Fenton, The Status of St. Robert Bellarmine's Teaching about the Membership of Occult Heretics in the Catholic Church, The American Ecclesiastical Review, March 1950, p. 219)
-
If it were possible for a pope to become a heretic, he would depose himself by his own act of public manifest formal heresy. Both Codes of Canon Law recognize this and therefore state that the loss of office would occur automatically. With the loss of office, his ordinary jurisdiction is gone too. Any declaration by the Church would simply be a recognition of the fact of public manifest formal heresy. That fact can be observed by the simple layman prior to the Church's judgment.
Hey Catholic Knight, welcome back! Just when we thought this thread was dead!
Okay, do you want to go through it all over again in a logical fashion? At the risk of having daggers thrust at us by everyone else on the forum?
I'm game if you are :)
Please do the following:
1. pick your Canon Law and substantiate your claim that it states a pope deposes himself by an act of public manifest formal heresy.
2. define what he would have to do or say for his heresy to be a)public, b)manifest and c)formal.
3. give one example for this Pope.
If you choose to just let the matter die instead, I will understand, and I think probably everyone on the forum will have a much happier Lent (including us)!
-
“In the encyclical (i.e., Mystici Corporis), the Holy Father speaks of schism, heresy, and apostasy, as sins which, of their very nature, separate a man from the Body of the Church. He thereby follows the traditional procedure adopted by St. Robert himself in his De ecclesia militante.”
(Monsignor Joseph Fenton, The Status of St. Robert Bellarmine's Teaching about the Membership of Occult Heretics in the Catholic Church, The American Ecclesiastical Review, March 1950, p. 219)
What 'traditional procedure' adopted by St Robert Bellarmine is this referring to?
-
Hey Catholic Knight, welcome back! Just when we thought this thread was dead!
Okay, do you want to go through it all over again in a logical fashion? At the risk of having daggers thrust at us by everyone else on the forum?
I'm game if you are :)
Please do the following:
1. pick your Canon Law and substantiate your claim that it states a pope deposes himself by an act of public manifest formal heresy.
2. define what he would have to do or say for his heresy to be a)public, b)manifest and c)formal.
3. give one example for this Pope.
If you choose to just let the matter die instead, I will understand, and I think probably everyone on the forum will have a much happier Lent (including us)!
We need to start with this. Do you affirm or deny the following proposition:
The public sin of manifest formal heresy per se separates the heretic from the Church.
-
The public sin of manifest formal heresy per se separates the heretic from the Church.
This is not directed to Catholic Knight specifically, but to everyone on this thread...
In all my years on this site, i've never seen an actual, concrete definition of what "manifest" or "formal" heresy is. And i've never seen St Bellarmine's definitions used, when debating his actual quotes. These 2 terms are NOT the same. These terms are from canon law, which have unique legal definitions. And over the centuries, some terms are used differently, depending on the time period (i.e. St Bellarmine's days of 1600s vs St Alphonsus in the late 1700s.)
The point is, no one can read a quote from St Bellarmine (or canon law) and just privately interpret what "manifest heresy" means. It does not mean what you find in the dictionary - i.e. readily understood, obvious or apparent. You have to go look up the definition AS ST ROBERT DEFINED IT, or AS CANON LAW DEFINED IT. Because it's a legal term, with a certain, unique legal definition, based on the time period (since canon law has been revised many times) or based on the saint/theologian's personal use.
So as people continue to debate how to apply St Bellarmine's opinions on the pope, or canon law's excommunication rules, you are wasting SO MUCH time (and solving nothing) by using your private-interpretation of these words.
Also, Fr Hesse, who was an actual canon lawyer, has given his opinion on all these matters. The 'pope heresy' question is not as clear-cut as you think. The pope is above canon law, which means all those arguments about 'ipso facto' are meaningless. What's left is the OPINION of St Bellarmine and historical papal docuмents which kindof apply but not exactly. So what we're left with is a bunch of gray area.
If the answer were clear, then St Bellarmine (and all the super educated theologians of his day) would've agreed. If the answer were clear, then Trads of our day wouldn't still be arguing about this 70+ years after the start of the biggest crisis in Church history.
If you want to continue debating, I suggest you start fresh by researching/using the proper defintions by each quote/source you want to use to support your view.
-
Also, Fr Hesse, who was an actual canon lawyer, has given his opinion on all these matters. The 'pope heresy' question is not as clear-cut as you think. The pope is above canon law, which means all those arguments about 'ipso facto' are meaningless. What's left is the OPINION of St Bellarmine and historical papal docuмents which kindof apply but not exactly. So what we're left with is a bunch of gray area.
Actually, Fr. Hesse says the pope is *not* above canon law, that if the pope wants to do something contrary to canon law he must first go in and change the law...
"The Pope, just like any other human being, is bound to the Ten Commandments. The Pope is bound to the Canon Law that he published and signed. If there’s something in the Canon Law that he published and he doesn’t like it, then he has to change Canon Law as far as possible. But he cannot say, “Yes, well, sure, I signed the Canon Law of 1983, but I’m the Pope and I don’t have to follow it.” Wrong, wrong, wrong. The Pope has to follow the Ten commandments, the will of Christ, the Tradition of the Church and his own Canon Law." - Obedience and the Pope, (https://www.facebook.com/132130293609359/photos/obedience-and-the-popefr-gregory-hesseextract-provided-by-the-recusant-fyi-john-/1195914680564243/) (https://www.facebook.com/132130293609359/photos/obedience-and-the-popefr-gregory-hesseextract-provided-by-the-recusant-fyi-john-/1195914680564243/)
Fr. Gregory Hesse (https://www.facebook.com/132130293609359/photos/obedience-and-the-popefr-gregory-hesseextract-provided-by-the-recusant-fyi-john-/1195914680564243/)
-
Actually, Fr. Hesse says the pope is *not* above canon law, that if the pope wants to do something contrary to canon law he must first go in and change the law...
Yes and no. If you're talking about canon law rules to govern/run the church, you are correct. Because canon law is human law, which can change and be changed. It is human rules to govern the human side of the Church.
If you're talking about using canon law to judge the pope and remove him from office (and that's what i'm talking about) then it doesn't work, because of the famous adage: "The first see is judged by no one." And that's the issue and why St Bellarmine and all the other theologians debated and debated and debated.
-
Yes and no. If you're talking about canon law rules to govern/run the church, you are correct. Because canon law is human law, which can change and be changed. It is human rules to govern the human side of the Church.
If you're talking about using canon law to judge the pope and remove him from office (and that's what i'm talking about) then it doesn't work, because of the famous adage: "The first see is judged by no one." And that's the issue and why St Bellarmine and all the other theologians debated and debated and debated.
I agree, the sedes however do not agree that the first see is being judged at all because the pope is a heretic, as such he is not the first see, therefore the sedes believe that they are strictly obligated to judge him as not being the first see at all. Why they feel they are strictly obligated to make this judgement actually the only mystery.
-
“Mortal sin, as such, does not break the tie which binds a man as a constituent member to the visible Body which is Christ’s. Only such a sin as public heresy, schism, or apostacy does that, and then only because such a sin breaks the tie of visible unity with the Body.”
(Fr. Joseph Bluett, S.J., “Mystical Body of Christ” and “Catholic Church” Exactly Coextensive, The Ecclesiastical Review, October 1940, pp. 324-325)
-
“Bellarmine is clear and explicit on this general point: that the separation from the body of the Church, as well as loss of office and all jurisdiction, are accomplished by the very act of heresy, ex natura hæresis, and not by the judgment of the Church, or as a penalty for an ecclesiastical delict. This sententia is de fide regarding firstly the separation from the Church, in virtue of 1) the unanimity of the Fathers, 2) the teaching of the universal magisterium set forth in the Roman Catechism, and, 3) the teaching of Pius XII in Mystici Corporis; and secondly, it is de fide regarding the loss of office and jurisdiction, because of 1) the unanimity of the Fathers on this point which Bellarmine amply demonstrates in his refutation of Opinion No. 4, and 2) the canonical doctrine of the Church proposed by the papal ordinary magisterium in Canon 188. 4°; which, therefore, qualifies it as a doctrine pertaining to the universal and ordinary magisterium. Thus, it is not a mere question of law, but of definitive magisterial doctrine that heretics and schismatics are separated from the Church by their own actions suapte natura, apart from any ecclesiastical law or judgment; and that the consequent loss of office and jurisdiction is not the result of any penal sanction or any judgment pronounced by the Church, but is the direct effect of the act of defection from the Church, sine alia vi externa; which therefore, not by any human law, takes place ex natura hæresis or ex natura schismatis.”
Kramer, Paul. To deceive the elect: The catholic doctrine on the question of a heretical Pope . Kindle Edition.
-
“Bellarmine is clear and explicit on this general point: that the separation from the body of the Church, as well as loss of office and all jurisdiction, are accomplished by the very act of heresy, ex natura hæresis, and not by the judgment of the Church, or as a penalty for an ecclesiastical delict. This sententia is de fide regarding firstly the separation from the Church, in virtue of 1) the unanimity of the Fathers, 2) the teaching of the universal magisterium set forth in the Roman Catechism, and, 3) the teaching of Pius XII in Mystici Corporis; and secondly, it is de fide regarding the loss of office and jurisdiction, because of 1) the unanimity of the Fathers on this point which Bellarmine amply demonstrates in his refutation of Opinion No. 4, and 2) the canonical doctrine of the Church proposed by the papal ordinary magisterium in Canon 188. 4°; which, therefore, qualifies it as a doctrine pertaining to the universal and ordinary magisterium. Thus, it is not a mere question of law, but of definitive magisterial doctrine that heretics and schismatics are separated from the Church by their own actions suapte natura, apart from any ecclesiastical law or judgment; and that the consequent loss of office and jurisdiction is not the result of any penal sanction or any judgment pronounced by the Church, but is the direct effect of the act of defection from the Church, sine alia vi externa; which therefore, not by any human law, takes place ex natura hæresis or ex natura schismatis.”
Kramer, Paul. To deceive the elect: The catholic doctrine on the question of a heretical Pope . Kindle Edition.
"Definitive magisterial doctrine". Poor Father Kramer. Why then did the Church tolerate so many 'heretics' among her distinguished theologians for so many centuries after Bellarmine?
-
"Definitive magisterial doctrine". Poor Father Kramer. Why then did the Church tolerate so many 'heretics' among her distinguished theologians for so many centuries after Bellarmine?
Didn't Fr. Chazal associate with Fr. Kramer for some time? Have they separated because of Fr. Kramer's Bennyvacantism?
-
Didn't Fr. Chazal associate with Fr. Kramer for some time? Have they separated because of Fr. Kramer's Bennyvacantism?
Yes, sadly, he did. I'm fairly sure he was staying at Fr Chazal's Philippines seminary at one stage. Perhaps that was part of Father Chazal's motivation to write Contra Cekadam. Apparently Fr Kramer had a very large BV following in Ireland. I wonder what they all believe now...
-
"Definitive magisterial doctrine". Poor Father Kramer. Why then did the Church tolerate so many 'heretics' among her distinguished theologians for so many centuries after Bellarmine?
Not sure if Father Kramer is anti-Feeneyite, but if he were to sound off in that regard it would be nice to note this to him at such a time.
-
"Definitive magisterial doctrine". Poor Father Kramer. Why then did the Church tolerate so many 'heretics' among her distinguished theologians for so many centuries after Bellarmine?
Yes. It is definitive magisterial doctrine. It seems that you have not been paying attention to what has been placed in front of you.
-
Not sure if Father Kramer is anti-Feeneyite, but if he were to sound off in that regard it would be nice to note this to him at such a time.
Fr. Kramer opposes Feeneyism.
-
Yes. It is definitive magisterial doctrine. It seems that you have not been paying attention to what has been placed in front of you.
God bless you, CK, we read things differently.
-
God bless you, CK, we read things differently.
Yes. I read it right and you read it wrong.
-
Yes. I read it right and you read it wrong.
Lord, that I may see!
My God, make us to be of one mind in the truth and of one heart in charity (St Pius X) - Raccolta, Ind 300d
-
Lord, that I may see!
My God, make us to be of one mind in the truth and of one heart in charity (St Pius X) - Raccolta, Ind 300d
With all due respect, Fr. Paul Kramer has exhaustively written in his two volumes to demonstrate that it is definitive magisterial doctrine that the pubic sin of manifest formal heresy separates the heretic from the Church, and consequently any cleric holding office automatically loses that office and the jurisdiction that comes with it. On my part, I have given you many quotations from his works and also the quote from Pope Pius XII and the theologians that reiterated his teaching that heresy by its nature separates one from the Church. Yet you still question whether it is definitive magisterial teaching as if Fr. Kramer just pulled what he wrote out of thin air. My suggestion to you is to read his works and then rebut if you don't agree.
-
With all due respect, Fr. Paul Kramer has exhaustively written in his two volumes to demonstrate that it is definitive magisterial doctrine that the pubic sin of manifest formal heresy separates the heretic from the Church, and consequently any cleric holding office automatically loses that office and the jurisdiction that comes with it. On my part, I have given you many quotations from his works and also the quote from Pope Pius XII and the theologians that reiterated his teaching that heresy by its nature separates one from the Church. Yet you still question whether it is definitive magisterial teaching as if Fr. Kramer just pulled what he wrote out of thin air. My suggestion to you is to read his works and then rebut if you don't agree.
Fr. Kramer would do better to explain to those who've fallen into his same error, how a Catholic who has fallen into the mortal sin of heresy and wishes to repent, can (and is urged by the Church) to walk into the confessional, confess his sins, and receive absolution if he is not a member.
-
Fr. Kramer would do better to explain to those who've fallen into his same error, how a Catholic who has fallen into the mortal sin of heresy and wishes to repent, can (and is urged by the Church) to walk into the confessional, confess his sins, and receive absolution if he is not a member.
One who was baptized in the Catholic Church and then separates himself from the Catholic Church by the public sin of manifest formal heresy can return to her through confession and receive absolution.
-
One who was baptized in the Catholic Church and then separates himself from the Catholic Church by the public sin of manifest formal heresy can return to her through confession and receive absolution.
Is one who is baptized but who separates himself from the Catholic Church by heresy still considered Catholic, in your view? If not, then what would he be called, if not Catholic?
-
One who was baptized in the Catholic Church and then separates himself from the Catholic Church by the public sin of manifest formal heresy can return to her through confession and receive absolution.
Which is to say, exactly the same as any other Catholic who separates himself from the Catholic Church by sinning.
-
Is one who is baptized but who separates himself from the Catholic Church by heresy still considered Catholic, in your view? If not, then what would he be called, if not Catholic?
He would be called a non-Catholic.
-
He would be called a non-Catholic.
How is it that a non-Catholic can receive the sacrament of penance? Is there a specific church teaching which addresses this? And no, I'm not talking about Fr. Kramer's writings.
-
Fr. Kramer would do better to explain to those who've fallen into his same error, how a Catholic who has fallen into the mortal sin of heresy and wishes to repent, can (and is urged by the Church) to walk into the confessional, confess his sins, and receive absolution if he is not a member.
Great point Stubborn. What your comment reveals is that there is a difference between someone who has been baptized in the Church, or received into the Church after baptism, and a person that has never been a Catholic. If a person that has been received into the Church falls into heresy, all he has to do is confess it to be reconciled with the Church. The only exception is one who was declared a heretic by the Church. In that case, he would also need to have the declaration lifted.
As long as the Catholic remains in external union with the Church, he remains a true member of the Church (one opinion), or at least a member in appearance only (second opinion). Those who hold the second opinion (e.g., Suarez, Cajetan, Franzeline, John of St. Thomas) admit that being a member in appearance only suffices to hold office in the Church and to retain jurisdiction. The point being, all admit that if a cleric falls into the sin of formal heresy and loses the faith, they will retain their office and jurisdiction as long as they remain externally united to the Church.
-
How is it that a non-Catholic can receive the sacrament of penance? Is there a specific church teaching which addresses this? And no, I'm not talking about Fr. Kramer's writings.
In Treatise 3, Book 2, Chapter 2, Article 3 (Reasons that Separate a Baptized Person from the Body of the Church), Thesis 26, Salaverri states the following in Sacrae Theologiae Summa:
"A heretic, apostate and schismatic by the fact itself; and a person excommunicated by legitimate authority are separated from the body of the Church."
In Paragraph 1052 under Thesis 26, he states the following in regards to the opinion of theologians:
"That formal and manifest heretics are not members of the body of the Church can well be said to be the unanimous opinion among Catholics."
In Paragraph 1056 under Thesis and titled "Doctrine of the Church", he states the following:
"Part 1 is implicitly defined by the Council of Florence in the Decree for the Jacobites: D 1351. But concerning heretics and apostates we deduce our doctrine also from the formula of faith of the 'Clemens Trinitas,' from canon 23 of Lateran Council II, and from the Bull of Pius IX 'Ineffabilis Deus': D 74, 718, 2804."
Part 1 is in reference to the first part of Thesis 26, which is "a heretic, apostate, and schismatic by the fact itself" (are separated from the Body of the Church).
If one is separated from the Body of the Church, then he is a non-Catholic. How a non-Catholic who was formerly Catholic receives the Sacrament of Penance is that he renounces his heresy in the Sacrament of Penance and follows the direction of the priest.
-
In Treatise 3, Book 2, Chapter 2, Article 3 (Reasons that Separate a Baptized Person from the Body of the Church), Thesis 26, Salaverri states the following in Sacrae Theologiae Summa:
"A heretic, apostate and schismatic by the fact itself; and a person excommunicated by legitimate authority are separated from the body of the Church."
In Paragraph 1052 under Thesis 26, he states the following in regards to the opinion of theologians:
"That formal and manifest heretics are not members of the body of the Church can well be said to be the unanimous opinion among Catholics."
In Paragraph 1056 under Thesis and titled "Doctrine of the Church", he states the following:
"Part 1 is implicitly defined by the Council of Florence in the Decree for the Jacobites: D 1351. But concerning heretics and apostates we deduce our doctrine also from the formula of faith of the 'Clemens Trinitas,' from canon 23 of Lateran Council II, and from the Bull of Pius IX 'Ineffabilis Deus': D 74, 718, 2804."
Part 1 is in reference to the first part of Thesis 26, which is "a heretic, apostate, and schismatic by the fact itself" (are separated from the Body of the Church).
If one is separated from the Body of the Church, then he is a non-Catholic. How a non-Catholic who was formerly Catholic receives the Sacrament of Penance is that he renounces his heresy in the Sacrament of Penance and follows the direction of the priest.
What is described above appears to apply only to those who are formally accused and found guilty of heresy, schism, apostacy. And this does not apply to the problem at hand....where a Pope supposedly loses his office ipso facto, and there is no formal censure.
You are the one who believes, do you not, that a Pope guilty of heresy loses his office automatically, with no notice or censure needed?
-
If one is separated from the Body of the Church, then he is a non-Catholic.
Those who remain in external union with the Church are not separated from the Body of the Church. Alnd all of the recent popes have remained in external union with the Church.
-
If one is separated from the Body of the Church, then he is a non-Catholic. How a non-Catholic who was formerly Catholic receives the Sacrament of Penance is that he renounces his heresy in the Sacrament of Penance and follows the direction of the priest.
Sorry, but this fails miserably since the Church does not permit non-Catholics to even enter the confessional.
(https://www.cathinfo.com/sspx-resistance-news/miles-christi-volume-24-discussion-fr-chazal's-newsletter/msg868085/?topicseen#msg868085)
Back to reply #231 (https://www.cathinfo.com/sspx-resistance-news/miles-christi-volume-24-discussion-fr-chazal's-newsletter/msg868085/?topicseen#msg868085)...
One who is not a Catholic cannot receive the Sacraments. The excommunicated Catholic can receive the Sacrament of Penance, whereby the censure can be removed, and the sin be forgiven. The Church first removes the censure, then forgives the sin...
May our Lord Jesus Christ absolve you: and I, by His authority, absolve you from every bond of excommunication,
(suspension), and interdict, in so far as I am able and you are needful. Next, I absolve you from your sins, in the Name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost. Amen.
(The word suspensionis {suspension} is used only for clerics. A cleric may be suspended without being excommunicated; but, should he incur excommunication, he is suspended also.)..."
-
Great point Stubborn. What your comment reveals is that there is a difference between someone who has been baptized in the Church, or received into the Church after baptism, and a person that has never been a Catholic. If a person that has been received into the Church falls into heresy, all he has to do is confess it to be reconciled with the Church. The only exception is one who was declared a heretic by the Church. In that case, he would also need to have the declaration lifted.
As long as the Catholic remains in external union with the Church, he remains a true member of the Church (one opinion), or at least a member in appearance only (second opinion). Those who hold the second opinion (e.g., Suarez, Cajetan, Franzeline, John of St. Thomas) admit that being a member in appearance only suffices to hold office in the Church and to retain jurisdiction. The point being, all admit that if a cleric falls into the sin of formal heresy and loses the faith, they will retain their office and jurisdiction as long as they remain externally united to the Church.
Well, this is the dilemma.
The sedes, for obvious reasons, must incorporate "all heretics are non-members" into their doctrine. Yet despite the fact that we often see language in encyclicals etc. which suggests this, there is the above truth which, as such, cannot be denied. Only Catholics, members of the Church can receive the sacrament of penance. Period.
It is because this cannot be denied that like you, I opine the language we read in encyclicals etc. must pertain only to those who have never been Catholic, and also to those formally declared to be a heretic and excommunicated - but even among them there is the exception provided where the danger of death is imminent.
One thing that is certain, is the idea of the Church kicking out a sinner, any sinner, is altogether contrary to the Church's mission and purpose. St. Thomas says the primary purpose of excommunication is medicinal, whereas the sedes' idea of excommunication is primarily punishment.
-
"Blind obedience is not Catholic; nobody is exempt from responsibility for having obeyed man rather than God if he accepts orders from a higher authority, even a Pope, when these are contrary to the Will of God as it is known from certainty from Tradition. It is true that one cannot envisage such an eventuality when papal infallibility is engaged; but this happens only in a limited number of cases. It is an error to think that every word uttered by a Pope is infallible."
This would also apply to those who ignore infallible definitions such as the ones from Pope Eugene IV at Florence and Pope Siricius which deny any notion of BoD and BoB.
-
The difference is huge:
Sedes reject the authority of the Roman Pontifff in principle.
Resistance (old SSPX) accept it in principle.
You’ve got to be joking.
Which group is constantly providing teachings of the Magisterium in defense of the rights of the Roman Pontiff over the universal Church to teach, rule and sanctify the faithful?
almost never R&R.
-
Yikes, this "obey God rather than man" stuff is scary non-Catholic thinking. When a Pope teaching, he's acting as Christ's Vicar. This is not about Jorge spewing nonsense on his pope-plane or in an interview with Scalfari, but about the man you claim to be the Vicar of Christ teaching with the authority of St. Peter, which is the authority of Christ.
So, is this an absolute statement? Old Catholics decided they were obeying God rather than man in rejecting papal infallibility as contrary to Tradition. Were they obeying God rather than man also? If so, how can you find fault with them? On what basis?
Let those who claim this maxim applies to Papal authority explain why the Old Catholics were wrong. This should be interesting.