Vacancy Sense – II


A heretic Pope is still the Church’s head,
Although, as personal member, he is dead.

Concerning the deposition of a heretical Pope, the Traditional Dominicans of Avrillé in France have done us a great favour by publishing not only the classic considerations of John of St Thomas (cf. EC 405), but also those of other outstanding theologians. In brief, the best minds of the Church teach that a simple and popular argument today, namely that a heretical Pope cannot be a member of the Church and therefore all the less its head, is a little too simple. In brief, there is more to the Pope than just the individual Catholic who by falling into heresy loses the faith and with it his membership of the Church. For the Church, the Pope is much more than just an individual Catholic.

For clarity, let us present these theologians’ arguments in the form of question and answer:—

First of all, is it possible for a Pope to fall into heresy?

If he engages all four conditions of his Extraordinary Magisterium, he cannot teach heresy, but that he can personally fall into heresy is the more probable opinion at least of older theologians.

Then if he does fall into heresy, does that not make him cease to be a member of the Church?

As an individual Catholic person, yes, but as Pope, not necessarily, because the Pope is much more than just an individual Catholic. As Augustine said, the priest is Catholic for himself, but he is priest for others. The Pope is Pope for the entire Church.

But supposing that the great majority of Catholics can see that he is a heretic, because it is obvious. Would not his heresy in that case make it impossible for him to be Pope any longer?

No, because even if his heresy were obvious, still many Catholics might deny it, for instance out of “piety” towards the Pope, and therefore to prevent confusion from arising throughout the Church, an official declaration of the Pope’s heresy would be necessary to bind Catholics to stay united. Such a declaration would have to come from a Church Council, assembled for that purpose.

But if the heresy were public and obvious, surely that would be enough to depose him?

No, because firstly every heretic must be officially warned before being deposed, in case he would retract his heresy. And secondly, in Church or State every high official is serving the common good, and for the common good he must stay in office until he is officially deposed. So just as a bishop stays in office until he is deposed by the Pope, so the Pope stays in office until the official declaration of his heresy by a Church Council enables Christ to depose him (cf. EC 405).

But if a heretic is not a member of the Church, how can he be its head, the most important member?

Because his personal membership is a different thing from his official headship. By his personal membership he receives sanctification from the Church. By his offici al headship he gives official government to the Church. So by falling into heresy, he ceases to be a living member of the Church, that is true, but he does not thereby cease being able, even as a dead member, to govern the Church. His membership of the Church by faith and charity is incompatible with heresy, but his governing of the Church by his official jurisdiction, not requiring faith or charity, is compatible with heresy.

But by his heresy a former Pope has thrown away his Papacy!

Personally and in private that is true, but that is not true officially and in public until a Church Council has made not only public but also official his heresy. Until then the Pope must be treated as Pope, because for the Church’s tranquillity and common good, Christ maintains his jurisdiction.

Kyrie eleison.

Bp. Williamson said:

Then if he does fall into heresy, does that not make him cease to be a member of the Church?

As an individual Catholic person, yes, but as Pope, not necessarily, because the Pope is much more than just an individual Catholic.

In other words, he's saying, along with Cajetan, that a public non-Catholic can be pope, i.e. that heretics can hold jurisdiction in the Church. This error is the very basis of that theory.

Bp. Williamson said:

...an official declaration of the Pope’s heresy would be necessary to bind Catholics to stay united. Such a declaration would have to come from a Church Council, assembled for that purpose.

Everyone agrees with this part, the problem is the error that a council could judge a valid pope (another error of the otherwise great Cajetan). The council's declaration would merely make what is true (that he is no longer pope because of his heresy) manifest to all, it could not depose a valid pope because that would make the council superior to the pope. Therefore, he would have to have lost the pontificate even before the declaration, which necessarily means that he lost it upon professing public heresy.

Bp. Williamson said:

But if the heresy were public and obvious, surely that would be enough to depose him?

No, because firstly every heretic must be officially warned before being deposed...

This is another error closely related to the one above. No bishop, no cardinal, and no institution can "officially warn" a pope (which is the act of a superior). The First See is judged by no one.

Bp. Williamson said:

So just as a bishop stays in office until he is deposed by the Pope, so the Pope stays in office until the official declaration of his heresy by a Church Council enables Christ to depose him.

A bishop who is a public heretic immediately loses all jurisdiction, per Canon 188/4, even before the Pope declares that fact (Nestorius being a prime example). As for the part I underlined and emphasized in bold, I think we could call it a freudian slip because ultimately, if we the take the two aforementioned errors out of the equation, this whole position could be caricatured as saying to God: "No, you can't depose him yet, we don't care if he's not a Catholic, we still haven't done the proper paperwork... OK, now we've finished our business, you can depose him now."

Bp. Williamson said:

But if a heretic is not a member of the Church, how can he be its head, the most important member?

... His membership of the Church by faith and charity is incompatible with heresy, but his governing of the Church by his official jurisdiction, not requiring faith or charity, is compatible with heresy.

Here again we see that the foundation for the whole theory is the error that public heretics can hold jurisdiction in the Church. The Bishop even admits that a pope who became a public heretic would no longer be a member of the Church. How can someone who is not even a member be the head?

Bp. Williamson said:

But by his heresy a former Pope has thrown away his Papacy!

Personally and in private that is true, but that is not true officially and in public until a Church Council has made not only public but also official his heresy. Until then the Pope must be treated as Pope, because for the Church’s tranquillity and common good, Christ maintains his jurisdiction.

If the heresy is public, so is the effect of the heresy.
To claim that for the common good Christ would maintain the jurisdiction of a public heretic, a non-member, is to gratuitously assume what is in no way proven, and in fact goes against the very Divine Law Christ has set - that public heretics cannot receive jurisdiction in the Church.

I am very pleased with the actions of +Williamson as of late.  I think that consecrating Fr. Faure was a fantastic decision.  And, promoting and siding with the dominicans of avrille is a very good.  I agree with them concerning the v2 papal depositions.  

The Bishop has chosen a certain group of theologians to support his contentions in answering the sedevacantists.

Now they had actually done the same thing long ago, but if one just takes an objective look at both positions, as stated, one is struck by the fact that the sedevacantist theological offering, is clearly more logical and coherent, even if imperfect or incomplete.

The Bishop, I would think, has to modify or nuance his position, because a non-Catholic heretic, who has lost the Catholic faith, and yet remains as pope to rule and govern the Church seems to border on nonsense.

Such a one as this, in that position, could do nothing but harm the souls of the faithful and endanger their Faith and eternal end leaving this stated position in opposition to the Church's mission and highest supreme law, the Salvation of God's elect.

j.paul - a non catholic governing the church spells disaster for fiftiesists.  But, +Williamson is not a fiftiesist, and neither am I.  The v2 popes will change the church.

Which church are you referring to?  The official bastard church?  Or the Catholic Church?  Because obviously they are completely different.

« On the other hand, we have never wished to belong to this system which calls itself the Conciliar Church, and defines itself with the Novus Ordo Missæ, an ecuмenism which leads to indifferentism and the laicization of all society. Yes, we have no part, nullam partem habemus, with the pantheon of the religions of Assisi; our own excommunication by a decree of Your Eminence or of another Roman Congregation would only be the irrefutable proof of this. We ask for nothing better than to be declared out of communion with this adulterous spirit which has been blowing in the Church for the last 25 years; we ask for nothing better than to be declared outside of this impious communion of the ungodly. We believe in the One God, Our Lord Jesus Christ, with the Father and the Holy Ghost, and we will always remain faithful to His unique Spouse, the One Holy Catholic Apostolic and Roman Church.»

So, may god's will be done.  I can recall +Kelly from a WCB episode stating that he believes the church is going to return to apostolic times.  I agree with him.  However, it may take a while, which is another disaster for a sedevacantist.

What is another disaster for a sedevacantist?

Adolphus,

Which church are you referring to?  The official bastard church?  Or the Catholic Church?  Because obviously they are completely different.

Ah, but they are not different for the R&Rist. They are one and the same, as proposed in the parables of the Church of the half rotten fruit....... :scratchchin:

The catholic church is not just a physical institution.  It is spiritual as well.  

And, God prunes his branches, so that they may bring forth more fruit.  This crisis is a pruning(some find it more painful than others), and it changes our understanding of the papacy(which in turn affects everything else).  

Quote from: Wessex

The bishop will wait in vain for a Council to revoke a half-century of fundamental change and, conveniently, he knows he will not be around to test his tortuous theories. The only hope is for such a Council to be invoked away from wayward Rome by a convocation of sufficient size.l  

But here we are dealing with more than mortal popes, sacred or not. We are dealing with a new ideology that now occupies Rome which in practical terms has cleverly effected something of a seamless continuity with the old order. No wonder most former Catholics were easily duped into thinking they were still inside the Church. The bishop needs to go that extra mile but it seems he is too old to change.    

"Too old to change" is just funny when it describes Bishop Williamson. He has, as Father MacDonald says, "closed his mind on something solid", and won't change because he is in all liklihood correct, and it is the most logical sounding argument I have heard anyone come up with yet.

You sound like you are not very familiar with Catholic Prophecy and also with His Excellency. That half-century of change you refer to, will be thrown out along with the Vatican II council. You insult Our Lady if you think she cannot accomplish that and much more after the triumph of Her Immaculate Heart. Or are you one of those who make the ludicrous claim we have already lived through that?   :geezer:

And do you think something is ludicrous just because you say so.  Try to prove it...