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?

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.

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."

 

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.

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.

 

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.

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[/font], p. 160; underlining added[/size]




(*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”, Vatican.va, Feb. 4, 2019; underlining added.)

https://novusordowatch.org/2022/02/human-fraternity-declaration-becomes-papal-act/