Apparently after Rev. Shannon Collins made himself look foolish in public through my website, he felt the need to redeem himself. Collins did a two-hour interview with Robert Siscoe in an attempt to debunk sedevacantism. The interview was sent via a member of the Regina Pacis Community lead by Rev. John Rickert, FSSP of Lexington, Kentucky. Below is my open letter to the individual who regarded the interview as the definitive answer against the position of sedevacantism.
Dear _ _ _,
Thank you for providing this interview between Rev. Shannon Collins and Robert Siscoe. I listened to both talks all the way through, and I must tell you that this is one of the most dishonest talks I’ve ever heard on the subject. I’ll admit that it’s clever enough to fool the ignorant Catholic, but I’ll provide the proof why it’s contrary to the law and teachings of the Catholic Church according to the Catholic Church, and not the private judgment and interpretation of Shannon and Siscoe. I will also post this letter on my website for the world to see.
1: In Interview #1, Shannon and Siscoe quoted from Suarez and a French canonist on jurisdiction. Their conclusion was that if a heretical priest can provide valid sacraments (which is true), then such a person has jurisdiction in the Church.
What they fail to do is distinguish between different types of jurisdictions. If what they say is true then Eastern Orthodox Patriarch heretics/schismatics would maintain their offices within the Catholic Church. Of course, this is absurd. An example would be the Patriarch of Constantinople. His sacraments are valid, but does that mean that he is a member of the Catholic Church? Of course, not.
Priests remain priests forever regardless, but the office of the papacy is an entirely different type of office than that of the priesthood.
The two quoted theologians are entirely incorrect by simple logic.
But then again, Benedict XVI did call these heretical/schismatic Eastern Orthodox Patriarchs, “Pastors in the Church of Christ” because Benedict XVI doesn’t believe the Church of Christ IS the Catholic Church as he plainly admits. So Benedict XVI might agree with Shannon and Siscoe’s reasoning.
2: Canon law was severely misrepresented by Shannon and Siscoe. They brought up the issue of being suspect of heresy, but they failed to give the expert explanations of the following canons which debunk their conclusions.
Vatican approved Professor of Canon Law, Rev. P. Charles Augustine, O.S.B., D.D explained in Canon 2315 that there are three types of suspicion for heretics.
“Violent suspicion amounts to morally certain proof…and is to be considered as a positive proof and therefore rather falls under can. 2314.”
Canon 2314.1, ignored by Shannon and Siscoe, states that all heretics incur ipso facto excommunication.
Augustine explained can. 2314:
“2) The penalties here enunciated are twofold: censure and vindictive penalties; besides, a distinction is drawn, according to can. 2207, n. 1, by reason of dignity, between laymen and clerics.
a)The censure inflicted is excommunication incurred ipso facto, which per se requires not even a declaratory sentence… Note that the term moniti [warnings] (2314 §1, n. 2) does not refer to the incurring of the censure. Consequently, no canonical warning or admonition is required.” (A COMMENTARY ON THE NEW CODE OF CANON LAW, Volume VIII, Book V, Penal Code, Canon 2314, pp. 275-276; B. Herder Book Company, Imprimatur by John J. Glennon, Archbishop of Saint Louis, Friday, August 25, 1922)
The Assisi Events qualify much more than a merely suspicion of heresy. These events are so outrageous that even Rickert called them contrary to the First Commandment, yet Rickert never dealt with the implication of them. These Events, no doubt, fall under the rubric of “violent suspicion.”
Now look at this devastating teaching from another expert in Canon law which Shannon and Siscoe never mention.
Canon 2200.2, 1917 Code of Canon Law: “When an external violation of the law has been committed, malice is presumed in the external forum until the contrary is proven.”
“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… Excusing circumstances have to be proved in the external forum, and the burden of proof is on the person whose action has given rise to the imputation of heresy. In the absence of such proof, all such excuses are presumed not to exist.” (Rev. Eric F. Mackenzie, A.M., S.T.L., J.C.L., The Delict of Heresy, Washington, D.C.: The Catholic University of America, 1932, p. 35. (Cf. Canon 2200.2)
3: In both interviews, Shannon and Siscoe spend a great amount of time explaining why warnings are absolutely necessary to establish manifest heresy.
First, St. Robert Bellarmine never said a pope is to be warned! They quote the great saint and completely mangle his plain words: “A pope who is a manifest heretic automatically (per se) ceases to be pope and head of the Church, 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. All the early Fathers are unanimous in teaching that manifest heretics immediately lose all jurisdiction. St. Cyprian, in particular, laid great stress on this point.”
If it takes warnings and such, then it wouldn’t be automatic and immediate. Once a pope loses his office, of course, he will be judged and punished by the Church. It happens after he’s no longer a member of the Church!
Secondly, another Professor of Canon Law, R. P. Udalricus Beste, O.S.B., I.C.D., explains “Not a few canonists teach that, outside of death and abdication, the pontifical dignity can also be lost by falling into certain insanity, which is legally equivalent to death, as well as through manifest and notorious heresy. In the latter case, a pope would automatically fall from his power, and this indeed without the issuance of any sentence, for the first See [i.e., the See of Peter] is judged by no one.
“The reason is that, by falling into heresy, the pope ceases to be a member of the Church. He who is not a member of a society, obviously, cannot be its head. We can find no example of this in history.” (Introductio in Codicem. 3rd ed. Collegeville: St. John’s Abbey Press, 1946)
Warnings can only be given by superiors and it is up to their discrepancy to decide the fate of their inferiors. All the examples Shannon and Siscoe give from Daly, don’t apply to the papacy at all. They completely confuse the issue between the papacy and everyone else. Nearly an hour is wasted by Siscoe reading from Daly’s work only to misapply it to the subject of sedevacantism. Besides, Daly holds to the position of sedevacantism. Do Shannon and Siscoe really think Daly missed the point, which he spent several pages explaining? If they were going to use Daly’s work, why did they not use his explanation for sedevacantism and debunk that? Instead, they take Daly’s work out of context and used it as a pretext.
4: The approved apparition of Our Lady of Good Success –“Then the Church will go through a dark night for lack of a Prelate and Father to watch over it...”
According to the prophecy, this happens during the 20th century. What could this mean except that the Church will be without a pope? How many prelates and fathers watch over the whole Church? I only know one and he’s called the pope.
Besides, we know this regards the whole Church, because Our Lady is speaking about the collapse of the priesthood throughout the whole Church due to this lack of a prelate and father.
Shannon and Siscoe mention this quote but they don’t deal with it at all. They completely dismiss this particular prophecy altogether as meaning nothing. THIS IS DISHONEST! They even go so far as to say that Our Lady and Heaven are against sedevacantism right after Our Lady clearly teaches it! AMAZING!!!!
5: Shannon and Siscoe sort of reference the prophecy that Rome will lose the faith and drive away the pope, but they don’t tell you the whole thing. It reads, “Rome shall apostatize from the faith, drive away the Vicar of Christ and return to its ancient paganism. …Then the Church shall be scattered, driven into the wilderness, and shall be for a time, as it was in the beginning, invisible hidden in catacombs, in dens, in mountains, in lurking places; for a time it shall be swept, as it were from the face of the earth. Such is the universal testimony of the Fathers of the early Church.” (Cardinal Manning, 1861)
Sedevacantism holds that Rome did drive away the Vicar of Christ. It all depends on how you interpret it. Shannon and Siscoe want it to mean that the pope had to flee from Rome and hide somewhere, but that’s not what it says. It could mean that but it doesn’t have to. Our interpretation actually fits the whole thing just fine.
6: The subject of Pope Liberius’ fall from the pontificate was brought up but notice, they didn’t stay on that subject long, because it proves them wrong and us right! After all, Liberius never actually became a heretic, according to St. Robert Bellarmine. However, the saint said that the mere appearance of heresy was enough to reject one as the pope, and it was right to vote in another pope while a true pope lived. What happened to those warnings that were supposed to be given first to establish that Liberius was first a manifest heretic? Was St. Robert Bellarmine contradicting himself? Of course not, because Shannon and Siscoe lied about what St. Robert Bellarmine actually taught concerning the pope.
Warnings are not needed, because no one can warn a pope as if an inferior could do something about it. No one can declare or depose a true pope. That’s the teaching of the Church. The First Vatican Council taught that the pope has jurisdiction over the whole Church, not that the whole Church has jurisdiction over the pope.
Imagine saying, “Hey Pope (X), if you don’t…. we’ll declare and depose you, because we have power over you.” Besides, this is impractical. What if the pope is orthodox, and a council declares the pope a heretic, when in fact the council is heretical, but you the layman don’t know who’s right? Who do you follow? According to Shannon and Siscoe, you would follow the council, because they are implying that the other authorities of the Church have power over the pope. In other words, Shannon and Siscoe are contradicting the First Vatican Council. If the common opinion ever held that the Church can depose a true pope, then the First Vatican Council dispelled that notion for good.
7: Only 5 theologians ever taught that a pope can be a heretic. Shannon and Siscoe mentioned two of them. I know of 3 more. None of them are saints, all of them have been shown to be in serious error by either the popes, saints, or the Vatican approved experts! All 5 of these erroneous theologians actually argue that a pope need not be a Catholic, and Shannon and Siscoe act like that is the correct position despite the numerous teachings from the popes, saints, and doctors.
8: Shannon and Siscoe fail to mention Cum Ex Apostolatus by Pope Paul IV which absolutely destroys every part of their arguments! Pope Paul IV taught that even if a heretic is elected by all the cardinals and is followed in obedience by everyone in the Church, such a person is still not the pope! THAT IS THE DIVINE LAW! It can’t be superseded by anyone or anything.
9: Shannon and Siscoe quote St. Francis de Sales: “Now when he (the Pope) 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.” (The Catholic Controversy, Tan Books, pp. 305-306)
Shannon and Siscoe argue that St. Francis de Sales was teaching that the Church must deprive or declare the pope deprived before a pope loses his office. THIS IS EXACTLY THE SAME ARGUMENT MY BROTHER USED LAST YEAR. Below was one of my explanations to him.
“If the pope no longer has the dignity of pope and is no longer Catholic and is out of the Church, what is St. Francis de Sales saying the Church must deprive him from if his apostolic see has already been lost? WAS ST. FRANCIS DE SALES AN IDIOT? No, because the natural occurrence of events should follow. If a pope loses his office, the Church shouldn’t continue to recognize him as pope and allow him to occupy the Lateran. The Church should deprive him and declare him deprived, of course. That doesn’t mean that the antipope must continue as pope UNTIL the Church deprives him and declare him deprived.”
Shannon and Siscoe must think St. Francis de Sales was an idiot, too!
Throughout both interviews, ole Shannon snickers in the background because he thinks that he and Siscoe keep providing the answers against sedevacantism, only they make themselves look like buffoons in the process.
10: Shannon and Siscoe imply that the conciliar popes have not crossed any line of manifest heresy. Oh really?
Ratzinger rejects the Catholic Church’s teaching on inter-religious worship which has more historical and papal teachings than artificial contraception which has the same level of authority. THESE TWO ISSUES ARE ON THE EXACT SAME LEVEL OF MORAL TEACHINGS OF THE CHURCH! Would you follow Ratzinger if he believed artificial contraception was good and promoted it as good?
Ratzinger rejects the teaching of the Catholic Church that “The Church of Christ IS the Catholic Church” as taught by Pope Pius XII and the entire history of the Church. The word “subsists” automatically implies that it’s not the same. Again, Ratzinger says the “Church of Christ extends much further than the Catholic Church.” THIS IS AS MUCH A HERESY AS SAYING MARY WAS NOT IMMACULATELY CONCEIVED!
Ratzinger believes that it’s okay for women/girls to assist at the altar during mass. This has been condemned as intrinsically evil by Pope Gelasius, Innocent IV, and Benedict XV. It’s impossible for a true pope to believe as good the intrinsically evil practices of women serving at the altar, JUST AS it is impossible for a true pope to believe as good the intrinsically evil practice of homosexuality. Would you leave Rome if pope Ratzinger said homosexuality is okay? If so, then you must leave for saying it’s okay for women to serve at the altar.
I know how upsetting this is. I used to go to mass daily for over 15 years. I couldn’t eat or sleep properly for a week after I realized all this stuff!
Sincerely,
Steven
Dear Steven,
There are some distinctions you seem to be unaware of, which are absolutely essential when considering this question. An article (already complete) will be coming out soon (not sure where yet), which will clarify these points. I touched upon them in the talk, but may not have been clear enough. The article clarifies them all.
Regarding point 1: You are failing to make a crucial distinction, which is something almost all sedevacantists do. In fact, as I mention in the article, of all the Sedevacantists I have corresponded with, only John Lane and one other gentlemen were aware of this very important point. Your above comments indicate that you are not aware of this distinction, since if you were you would not have written what you did.
SPERAY REPLIES: In the past, I’ve dealt with each and every one of your points. You’ve sent over 35 comments and never once dealt with those specific areas I addressed in your talk with Shannon against sedevacantism. You even stated that you didn’t think JP2 or B16 were clearly heretics, however, when I gave you specific examples, you were silent. Then you had the nerve to do a talk/interview leaving out each and every point I laid out for you. I even answered the Darboy situation, yet you ignored what I said and continued on. Your talk was extremely dishonest!!!! As for your statement above…..I’m sorry, but you have failed in making the proper distinctions. I clarify why in point one. The office of the papacy and Holy Orders are two entirely different things. A priest remains a priest even if he becomes a public heretic, but not so with a pope who becomes a public heretic. I gave the example of the Eastern Orthodox. I covered this distinction 4 years ago in a book. As a matter of fact, St. Robert Bellarmine makes the distinction but you completely mangle his teaching. You say that it is only an opinion that a pope loses his office by manifest heresy, but I disagree. I hope you deal with Pope Pius XII, Mystici Corporis Christi (# 23), June 29, 1943: “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.” Do you disagree with this statement?/////
Your commentary on point #3 above is directly addressed and clarified in the article as well.
SPERAY REPLIES: If you’re going to argue that a pope must be warned, you’re wrong! You’re going to argue that Ratzinger doesn’t know what he’s doing? Besides, I’ve covered why he can’t be warned. Will deal with what I stated? I look forward to reading your article./////
I also address point #6 directly, and show that this does not demonstrate the sedevacantist position.
SPERAY REPLIES: Where were the warnings you said are needed for Liberius? There wasn’t any. Also, you misrepresent St. Bellarmine on the pope issue. Please address the quote he made about ipso facto and immediate in relation to your needed warnings. Have you read the commentaries on canon law concerning the pope on this issue? You disagree with them?/////
Once again, there is something you are not aware of, which is absolutely essential with respect to a pope who becomes a heretic.
SPERAY REPLIES: Are you going to argue that a pope can be a manifest heretic? The gates of Hell can actually be Head of the Catholic Church which are the Gates of the Church at the same time? Is that what you are going to argue???? Are you going to side with 5 theologians against all the saints and popes which have shown why their position is illogical and contrary to the teachings and law of the Church?/////
The situation with Pope Liberius being replaced by Felix II demonstrates this point, as does the case of Savonarola, who accused Pope Alexander VI of being an unbeliever who purchased the Papal See through simony (which is probably accurate).
SPERAY REPLIES: I believe Savonarola was correct. I don’t accept Alexander VI as a true pope. I wrote a book (Papal Anomalies and Their Implications) explaining why./////
Both of these instances demonstrate the point you are not aware of. AND THIS IS A CRUCIAL POINT. In fact, the quotation from St. Francis de Sales (point #9) actually confirms this point, but I don’t think you see it.
SPERAY REPLIES: I’m quite aware of the fact that you think the Church must declare or depose him to go into effect. Sorry, but this is silly. NO ONE CAN DECLARE OR DEPOSE A TRUE POPE!!!! THIS IS THE CRUCIAL POINT WHICH YOU ARE MISSING. Once a pope loses his office by manifest heresy, he no longer is the pope. He is then an antipope and the Church can declare and depose him. ARE YOU GOING TO ARGUE THAT THE CHURCH (which are who?) CAN DECLARE AND DEPOSE A TRUE POPE????/////
Now, I just re-read the argument that you made to your brother on this point (that you quoted above), and it confirms that you are clearly missing it. This is something you should be able to figure out on your own.
SPERAY REPLIES: You’re apparently missing St. Francis de Sales’ statement. If you’re going to argue that St. Francis is implying that the Church has power over a pope, then you’ve got major problems. As I’ve said, no one can declare or depose a true pope. St. Francis de Sales is teaching what all the saints taught on the subject. St. Antoninus, O.P. (1389-1459) “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.” (Summa Theologica) AND St. Alphonsus Liguori, C.S.S.R. (1696-1787) “If ever a pope, as a private person, should fall into heresy, he would at once fall from the pontificate. If, however, God were to permit a pope to become a notoriously and contumacious heretic, he would by such fact cease to be pope, and the apostolic chair would be vacant.” (Verita della Fede, Pt. III, Ch. VIII. 9-10) They are giving you the Divine Law which you apparently don’t believe as those 5 theologians you seem fond of using./////
If not, you’ll see it addressed in the article. In fact, although I don’t address it directly in the article, this point also pertains to Cum Ex Apostolatus officio. It is pretty obvious and I think you should be able to figure it out on your own. In fact, I think we address it in the talk, somewhere in the second part near the end.
I’ll send you a copy of the article after it is published.
Robert Siscoe
SPERAY REPLIES: It would seem that you are not reading my article very carefully or else you wouldn’t have made this statement. Lastly, while you’re arguing why Ratzinger is still pope, the entire religion of Rome has been altered. The sacraments especially have been condemned by pre-Vatican 2 theology. Vatican 2 is seriously flawed as you can read on my site about “subsists” and Muslims, and religious liberty. Shannon didn’t once even try to explain why I should accept his orders as valid in light of the teaching of the Church.
What do you say about this?
Auctorem Fidei, Pius VI:
47. Likewise, the proposition which teaches that it is necessary, according to the natural and divine laws, for either excommunication or for suspension, that a personal examination should precede, and that, therefore, sentences called “ipso facto” have no other force than that of a serious threat without any actual effect,—false, rash, pernicious, injurious to the power of the Church, erroneous.
Speray: “I even answered the Darboy situation, yet you ignored what I said and continued on…”
Reply: You gave “an” answer regarding the Darboy affair, but it was a wrong answer. Like most other Sedevacantists, you have extended Papal Infallibility WAY beyond its limits.
SPERAY: What are you talking about? You apparently don’t remember my answer.//////
Papal Infallibility is not a habitus that the pope is clothed with (like sanctifying grace, for example) that prevents him from erring.
SPERAY: Again, I never said or implied anything remotely of the kind. I actually said Pope Pius could have erred and I and even said that I don’t agree with how Pope Pius handled Darboy. So please get your facts straight!//////
It is a negative charism that is only engaged in certain circumstances – namely, when he is defining a point to be held by the universal Church. If you don’t agree with this, let me know and I’ll follow up with a long citation from a pre-Vatican II theological manual.
SPERAY: I WROTE TWO BOOKS EXPLAINING THIS VERY POINT! So you don’t need to explain the faith to me.//////
Speray: “The office of the papacy and Holy Orders are two entirely different things. A priest remains a priest even if he becomes a public heretic, but not so with a pope who becomes a public heretic. I gave the example of the Eastern Orthodox. I covered this distinction 4 years ago in a book. As a matter of fact, St. Robert Bellarmine makes the distinction but you completely mangle his teaching”.
I understand the difference between a Priest remaining a Priest and a public heretic and/or schismatic not possessing jurisdiction in the Church, but your still missing the point. The question is: What constitutes a public heretic? Was Darboy a public heretic? After all, he taught heresy in public, and even held to his heresy after being warned by the Pope himself. So, was Darboy a heretic? If so, did he lose his jurisdiction? If you say yes, you are in manifest disagreement with Pius IX and all the Priests at the time.
SPERAY: Since you borrowed the information from Daly, why have you not dealt with Daly’s explanation for sedevacantism and heresy? But to answer your questions, yes, Darboy was a public heretic. He denied the faith and rejected the pope’s condemnation. Was he a material heretic or formal heretic? That is the question. Rome gave him the benefit of the doubt, which a superior has the right to do with an inferior. I don’t agree with Rome’s leniency with him, just like I don’t agree with Rome’s leniency with Americas Catholic institutions after Pope St. Pius X died. I have that right as a Catholic to disagree with how they handled the situation. That being said, a pope doesn’t get the benefit of the doubt (I give you a theologian later), especially when the heresies are much more serious, numerous, and clear. Darboy was a mere bishop. He can’t lead the faithful astray especially while a pope is correcting him. He’s small potatoes. However, if Darboy was elected pope while holding to his heresies, we would be bound not to accept him as pope. I used to give the example of Fr. Richard McBrien who denies the existence of a fallen angel we call Satan. Would you accept him as pope if he were elected? In other words, can a pope reject the existence of the devil? PLEASE ANSWER THAT QUESTION. What if no one gives him any warnings? What if everyone but a few are in a agreement with him?///////
Speray: “You say that it is only an opinion that a pope loses his office by manifest heresy, but I disagree.”
Reply: Here’s two quotes for you:
Suarez: “[I]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”.
SPERAY: I heard you make these quotes in the interview. They are most certainly the opinions of ignorant Catholics, just like many Catholic who have held erroneous opinions all throughout history. Because Catholics have erroneous opinions doesn’t mean it falls under the doctrine of opinions for the Church. That opinion goes against logic and Divine Law. I could give you a couple of common opinions in history of Catholics that believe in all kinds of things, some going against the Divine law. If a pope can be a manifest heretic, then manifest heretics are members of the Church. Do you agree with that statement? Just an opinion?/////////
Sabastian Bach Smith: “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 ecumenical council or the College of Cardinals. The question is hypothetical rather than practical”. (Elements of Ecclesiastical law (1895).
Regarding the quote from mystici corporis Christi, I completely agree, but it refers to public sins, since “de internis ecclesia non judica”.
SPERAY: Sabastian Bach Smith is giving his two opinions. But notice that he didn’t say what you’re saying. As a sedevacantist I can agree with him since he didn’t say that the declaration makes it happen. That’s your assumption. But now please answer the questions, can a manifest formal heretic be a member of the Catholic Church at the same time? What is a manifest formal heretic?//////
Speray: Where were the warnings you said are needed for Liberius?
Reply: He didn’t need one. Once again, there are distinctions you are clearly not aware of. (I’ll explain below)
SPERAY: You think that if the authorities decide against him, no warnings are needed, but the problem is that no one can declare a true pope to be an antipope. ///////
Speray: “Also, you misrepresent St. Bellarmine on the pope issue. Please address the quote he made about ipso facto and immediate in relation to your needed warnings.”
What does St. Bellarmine say is required for a person to be considered a manifest heretic – or “manifestly obstinate” – when there has not been a declaration from the Church? If there is a declaration from the Church, this is “thing” is not necessary. But without a declaration, it is necessary. What is that “thing”?
SPERAY: You’re wanting me to say “warnings” but you’re missing St. Robert Bellarmine’s point here. The point he was making was not the warnings but in the automatic aspect of the situation. You don’t warn the pope as if you going to do something about it. Nobody has authority over the pope. BUT, SINCE YOU MUST HAVE YOUR WARNINGS, JP2 AND B16 HAVE BEEN TOLD THEY ARE WRONG (in manifest heresy, but JP2 and B16 already know this, so any warnings are not really necessary for them) MANY TIMES BY MANY BISHOPS AND PRIESTS. The rest of the bishops agree with JP2 and B16 so it does no good to wait on them. Therefore, your own argument is still used against you. HOWEVER, ARE YOU SAYING BENEDICT XVI NEEDS TO BE TOLD THAT HE’S GOING AGAINST THE FAITH BEFORE HE SHOULD BE CONSIDERED A MANIFEST HERETIC? HE’S JUST AN IDIOT?//////
SPERAY REPLIES: I’m quite aware of the fact that you think the Church must declare or depose him to go into effect. Sorry, but this is silly. NO ONE CAN DECLARE OR DEPOSE A TRUE POPE!!!! THIS IS THE CRUCIAL POINT WHICH YOU ARE MISSING.//////
Here’s one of the issues: A heretical pope either loses his office automatically, or else is deposable. Those are the two common opinions today.
SPERAY: TODAY? WHO ELSE SAYS SO? SO FAR YOU ARE ACTUALLY USING CAJETAN’S ARGUMENT, WHICH ST. BELLARMINE REFUTES.//////
However, as Sabastian Bach Smith points out above, this is only a hypothetical question. On the practical level, who determines that a Pope has become a public heretic?
SPERAY: ANY CATHOLIC CAN. ST. BELLARMINE STATED, “… for men are not bound, or able to read hearts; but when they see that someone is a heretic by his external works, they judge him to be a heretic pure and simple, and condemn him as a heretic.” You disagree with St. Robert Bellarmine.//////
After all, there are sedevacantists today who claim all the Popes since Leo XIII have been “public manifest heretics”. Do you agree with them?
SPERAY: No, I don’t agree with them. They are wrong and can be shown why. Who determines if an antipope is really the pope? After all, there a millions who say so, and you agree with them. I have no reason to believe Ratzinger is the pope. He doesn’t believe or practice the Catholic Faith.////////
Wouldn’t you have considered Darboy to be a public heretic if you lived at the time? Yet Pius IX left him in office. Would your personal opinion have usurped that of Pius IX?
SPERAY: If I were pope, I wouldn’t allow him to stay in office. As a matter of fact, if was living in that time, I may have written the pope and told him that I’m not going to recognize Darboy as a Catholic. What would have Pope Pius IX done about that? However, Darboy wasn’t claiming to be pope either.//////
The point is, neither you, nor I, nor those who think Leo XIII was the first antipope have the authority to make the call. That is the point you are missing.
SPERAY: IF LEO WAS A MANIFEST HERETIC LIKE RATZINGER, I WOULD BE BOUND TO MAKE THAT CALL. The point that you’re missing, is that Christ said beware of false teachers and prophets. You would tell Christ that you don’t have that authority. The point that you’re missing is that a pope can’t believe, teach, and promote the things that are now and have been coming out of Rome. While you’re not making the call about Ratzinger, you now have a new religion in place of Rome. If you think Ratzinger is Catholic, prove it to me by going to your nearest Mosque, go in, take off your shoes, fold your arms, and bow towards Mecca while praying with Muslims for me. Not a Catholic thing to do perhaps? Ratzinger has no problem with it. As a Catholic pope, he believes and promotes it as a good thing. Not a manifest heretic you say? He’s not going against any Laws, Divine or Church? Doubt that he may be a manifest heretic, perhaps? I’ll give you another quote to chew on. Rev. Francis X Doyle, S.J. explains: “The Church is a visible society with a visible Ruler. If there can be any doubt about who that visible Ruler is, he is not visible, and hence, where there is any doubt about whether a person has been legitimately elected Pope, that doubt must be removed before he can become the visible head of Christ’s Church. Blessed Bellarmine, S.J., says: ‘A doubtful Pope must be considered as not Pope’; and Suarez, S.J., says: ‘At the time of the Council of Constance there were three men claiming to be Pope…. Hence, it could have been that not one of them was the true Pope, and in that case, there was no Pope at all….” The Defense of the Catholic Church, 1927, Fr. Francis X. Doyle, S.J///////
That’s why Suarez said a declaration of men is required. By “declaration from men” he later explains that this would be the Bishops, not individual laymen with a website.
SPERAY: FUNNY HOW HE CONTRADICTS HIMSELF ON THIS POINT, SINCE HE ALSO STATED THAT WE CAN’T HAVE A DOUBTFUL POPE. ARE WE TO WAIT FOR A DECLARTION WHILE EVERYONE IS IN DOUBT? WHAT IF THE DECLARATION NEVER COMES? WHAT IF ALL THOSE BISHOPS BELIEVE IN THE SAME HERESIES? IT DOESN’T MATTER, SINCE WE HAVE MANY BISHOPS AND PRIESTS TO MAKE THAT DECLARATION THAT RATZINGER IS AN ANTIPOPE. ///////
The quote from St. Francis confirms both the hypothetical level and the practical level, when he says a heretical pope automatically loses his office, and then can be judged by the Church.
SPERAY: OFFICE IS LOST FIRST, WHICH MEANS THAT HE’S AN ANTIPOPE AT THAT POINT. THEN THE ANTIPOPE IS JUDGED.//////
It is the proper authorities who determine if he has lost his office due to heresy or not.
SPERAY: WRONG. IT IS AUTOMATIC. IF THE AUTHORITIES DON’T RECOGNIZE IT, BUT MANY OTHER CATHOLICS DO, THE RULE STILL APPLIES. AUTHORITIES DON’T MAKE THE AUTOMATION. IT HAPPENS BY THE POPE BY HIMSELF. ST. FRANCIS DE SALES CRUSHES YOUR POSITION.///////
That is why it requires a declaration from the Church, regardless of which of the two common opinions one holds.
SPERAY: WRONG AGAIN. THERE HAVE BEEN ANTIPOPES WHO REIGN FOR A LONG PERIOD BEFORE ANYTHING WAS DONE. YOU WOULD EXPECT US TO FOLLOW THE ANTIPOPE UNTIL SOMETHING IS DONE BY THE AUTHORITIES. YOUR ARGUMENT IS SERIOUSLY FLAWED!///////
You and I likely agree on whether or not the last few popes were heretics, but I realize I do not have the authority to make the call.
SPERAY: WHILE YOU DON’T THINK THAT YOU HAVE THAT AUTHORITY, AND WHO YOU THINK ARE AUTHORITIES AGREE WITH RATZINGER, THE FAITH IS BEING LOST EVERYWHERE! – I REALIZE THAT I HAVE MUCH MORE THAN JUST THAT AUTHORITY. I HAVE AN OBLIGATION BEFORE GOD!////////
According to St. Thomas, it is the sin of “judgment by usurpation’ for you or I to make the call that they lost their office.
SPERAY: PLEASE PROVIDE THE WHOLE CONTEXT OF ST. THOMAS BEFORE MAKING STATEMENTS LIKE THIS.////////
Again, I would point to the Darboy case. In a prior reply, you said you disagreed with Pius IX. But, since no one at the time disagreed with him, it means you would have disagreed with all the Priest and lay people who lived during that time, which doesn’t look too good.
SPERAY: IT DOESN’T LOOK TO GOOD FOR THEM.////////
But the point is, at the time of Darboy, it would not have been your call to make, any more than it is your call to make regarding these last several popes. Again, the quotes you produce are hypothetical; when it comes to the practical level, it requires a declaration from the proper authorities. Read the following again quote and notice what “both opinions agree” on.
Sabastian Bach Smith: “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 ecumenical council or the College of Cardinals. The question is hypothetical rather than practical”. (Elements of Ecclesiastical law (1895).
SPERAY: AGAIN, MY REPLY HOLDS TRUE WHILE YOURS FAILS.///////
Speray: Shannon didn’t once even try to explain why I should accept his orders as valid in light
Reply: Then I’ll reply for him. For the sacraments of baptism and the double consecration at Mass, the matter and form were given by our lord “in specie” (specifically). Regarding the other sacraments, the matter and form were only given “in genere” and it was left to the Church to determine them. Since the matter and form for these sacraments came from the authority of the Church (not Christ himself) the Church has the power to change them.
SPERAY: BUT NOT TO DO ANYTHING WHATSOEVER. THERE ARE LIMITS AND POPE LEO XIII LAID THEM OUT. THAT’S WHY SHANNON AND RICKERT WOULDN’T TOUCH THIS SUBJECT WITH A TEN FOOT POLE.//////
Regarding the matter of the sacraments of Orders, Pius XII said: “everybody knows that what the Church has once ordained she can change and abrogate.” This explains why the matter and form for certain sacraments (e.g Holy Orders and Confirmation) differs so much from Rite to Rite (unlike that of Baptism and the double consecration, which is almost identical in all Rites). The point is, th Church has the power to change the matter and form for the Sacrament of Holy Orders. Here’s a link that explains this: http://www.thecatholicfaith.blogspot.com/2012/03/order-of-melchisedech.html
SPERAY: Sorry, but you missed the point completely. Your answer is no answer at all. The form can’t be deficient AS IT IS WITH the Anglican’s according to Pope Leo XIII. Here’s a link that shows why
I inserted remarks in your reply, Robert S.
Robert Siscoe You said, “The point is, neither you, nor I, nor those who think Leo XIII was the first antipope have the authority to make the call. That is the point you are missing.” So if nobody has the authority to make a call of who is a pope and who isn’t, then what makes you think that you have the authority to tell anybody that people can or cannot judge whether somebody is pope? Your clearly not careful about what you say. You just want to believe John XXIII-Benedict XVI are popes no matter how apostate they are. You’re ridiculous and make me sick, just like every other person that thinks like you.
I would like to know why people who think like Robert hide out in an FSSP or some other indult parish – why not submerge yourself in the novus ordo church and all that it entails? If the pope is the pope, then he is the visible presence of Jesus Christ in the church, and no matter what he says or does should find immediate submission of your intellect and will, even if you happen to disagree.
If you can’t do that, you are only fooling yourself.
Steven, I’ll reply to your comments when I have some free time (probably tomorrow).
SPERAY REPLIES: I expect all my questions to be answered./////
Hey Martin, the reason I accept John XXIII through Benedict XVI as popes is because they were elected by the Cardinals during a papal conclave. Therefore, the presumption is that they are popes. Since they were elected by the conclave, you have no authority to declare them not to be popes.
SPERAY REPLIES: CUM EX APOSTOLATUS BY POPE PAUL IV: “…even the Roman Pontiff, prior to his promotion or his elevation as Cardinal or Roman Pontiff, has deviated from the Catholic Faith or fallen into some heresy: (i) the promotion or elevation, even if it shall have been uncontested and by the unanimous assent of all the Cardinals, shall be null, void and worthless.” I DON’T MAKE THE PRESUMPTION THAT RATZINGER’S ELECTION WAS VALID simply because he was elected by the cardinals. He notoriously rejected the historic Catholic Faith before his election. Since he was elected by the same cardinals that agree with his heresies, they have no authority to elect him anyway. We do have authority to recognize non-Catholics as non-Catholics and reject them when they pretend to be popes.//////
You can have a personal opinion as to their orthodoxy or lack thereof, but you have no authority to make a declaration that they have lost their office.
SPERAY REPLIES: You have the personal opinion, too and you have no authority to make a declaration that they have the office. Besides, they never had the office to begin with since they were never validly elected.////////
If you make such a declaration publicly, you will answer for it on judgment day.
SPERAY REPLIES: If you make a declaration publicly that a radical apostate like Ratzinger is the pope, you will answer for it on Judgment Day. You mock Christ, the Papacy, and the Catholic Faith!//////
If you suspend judgment and let the Church sort it out in the future, you will have nothing to answer for since you have no obligation to make such a declaration.
SPERAY REPLIES: So we’re supposed to wait for the Church to tell us in the future that an antipope is reigning now? That’s what you’re arguing.///////
But clearly, anger has clouded your judgment, and is preventing you from reasoning clearly.
SPERAY REPLIES: Clearly, fear of responsibility has clouded your judgment, and is preventing you from reasoning clearly.
That is an issue you have to deal with. I’m living through the same crisis in the Church as you are so my sympathy only goes so far.
SPERAY REPLIES: ROME HAS CAUSED A CRISIS IN THE CHURCH? HOW SPECIFICALLY????///////
According to moral theology, we are required to take the safest course.
SPERAY REPLIES: Agreed! But also the Church requires us to follow the faith and not be united to a false religion (even if it calls itself Catholic) that teaches, promotes, and practices heresy./////
Since you have no obligation, nor authority, to make such a call, the wise person would suspend judgment, and thereby take the safest course.
SPERAY REPLIES: That is where you are wrong! We have the obligation and the authority to call non-Catholics non-Catholics. A wise person would obey Christ and part company.////////
In fact, if you reject John XXIII, you thereby deny the infallibility of the Church, since the peaceful acceptance of a pope is one of the infallible marks of a true pope.
SPERAY REPLIES: The key point is “pope” not an antipope.//////
That is why John Lane accepts John XXIII. So, if you reject John XXIII you thereby reject an infallible sign that he was a true pope. You’ll answer for it on judgment day.
SPERAY REPLIES: So why do you disagree with John Lane for rejecting Paul VI, etc.???? BTW, when St. Vincent Ferrer rejected the Roman line, he was rejecting the infallible sign that the Roman line was true? ////////
LM, to answer you question: I avoid the Novus Ordo for the same reason those who were strong in the Faith during the Arian crisis avoided their local Church, as St. Basil says below:
Saint Basil: “Religious people keep silence, but every blaspheming tongue is let loose. Sacred things are profaned; those of the laity who are sound in the Faith avoid the places of worship as schools of impiety, and raise their hands in solitude, with groans and tears to the Lord in Heaven… To this they submit, because they will have no part of the wicked Arian leaven.”
Just as they avoided the local “schools of impiety”, because they would have “no part of the wicked Arian leaven”, so too for the same reason those who are strong in the Faith today avoid the corruption found in the Novus Ordo.
SPERAY REPLIES: Your quote of St. Basil could only apply if you meant that the novus ordo itself is corrupt, but this is impossible if the Catholic Church created it. Shannon Collins admits that there are problems with the sacraments, stating, “Granted the new Rite is greatly impoverished in all its Sacraments, it ultimately works…I can be morally certain about that.”
I replied with….Pope Pius VI, Auctorem Fidei, 78 (1794), and Pope Gregory XVI, Mirari Vos, 9 (1832) who stated: “Furthermore, the discipline sanctioned by the Church… must never be called crippled, or imperfect.” In Quo Graviora, 4-5 (1833), Pope Gregory reemphasized the same point. You (Shannon) have contradicted this teaching by implying that the sacraments are crippled but still work. Pope Pius XII, Mystici Corporis, 66 (1943): “Certainly the loving Mother is spotless in the Sacraments,…in her sacred laws imposed on all.” You (Shannon) most certainly don’t believe the sacraments are spotless! Shannon Collins never concedes, because if he does, the implication is that the new rites are failures proving sedevacantism true. So what does he do? Ignores it, of course. WHAT ABOUT YOU, ROBERT? Since you gave a quote from St. Basil (not sure how you’re applying it though since you don’t explain yourself very well) I’ll give you one from St. Vincent of Lerins (ca. 400-ca. 450) that applies to us Catholics holding to the sedevacantis position,”What then should a Catholic do if some part of the Church were to separate itself from communion with the universal Faith? What other choice can he make but to prefer to the gangrenous and corrupted member the whole of the body that is sound. And if some new contagion were to try to poison no longer a small part of the Church, but all of the Church at the same time, then he will take the greatest care to attach himself to antiquity which, obviously, can no longer be seduced by any lying novelty.” (Commonitorium) Robert, you would tell ole St. Vincent, “Sorry, but you don’t have the obligation or authority to do so, and the safest course is not to attach yourself to antiquity which would mean un-attaching the contagion and its Church victims.” THAT’S WHAT YOU’RE TELLING US!!!
Where does the Church say that a layman doesn’t have the authority to declare somebody a heretic/apostate? Didn’t the Church already say that these things are automatic and don’t need any declaration? Hello, is there anybody home? Hey Robert it’s your presumption that they are popes but yet you cannot prove it because it’s your mere personal opinion, so two can play that game. By the way, it doesn’t matter if they were elected by true cardinals. Cum Ex Apostolatus Officio is clear on this. It states, “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 tune in the foregoing situation, be considered even partially legitimate in any way . . .
— “Each and all of the words, as 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.”So the safest course for Robert, is to have to acknowledge non-catholics as Catholics even though you don’t have the authority to do so?
What part of this don’t you understand?
So you think its the safer course to acknowledge men claiming to be pope even though it’s presumed by the whole world? If I wasn’t from Kentucky and heard that the bluegrass of Kentucky was literally blue grass, would it be my duty to find out if it really was or would I just have to presume it’s blue? Presumption can be a serious sin against the Holy Ghost (an unpardonable sin) and this is what you Robert are committing in my opinion, although I don’t have the authority to say this.
Robert,
I am sorry. Your response is not what I asked you. The very man you believe is the visible presence of Jesus Christ among Catholics says and promotes the very “liturgy” you avoid lest you be contaminated. Don’t you see your own inconsistency? Not to mention the fact that you share church space with Catholics that have been thoroughly novus ordo-ized and merely have a preference for the old Mass. So, you haven’t avoided the modern-day “Arians” at all. And the very priests who offer the Mass have had to and do pay lip service to the “Arian Heresy”.
I am very open to being persuaded that the novus ordo church is still the Church, but I have yet to hear one convincing argument that is presented in a polite manner without resorting to snide remarks (like Fr. Collins’ remark about bishops being consecrated in the Holiday Inn Cathedral…or something like that).
Another thing, if you and Father Collins are so convinced that you can prove the sedevacantists wrong, why hang out here at an insignificant website (sorry Steven, I think you know the point I am trying to make)? Go public – create a blog or whatever. Why waste time here?
Also, why don’t you contact John Daly about the article he wrote and give him your thoughts directly.
One more thing.
Only God knows what each of us will have to answer for on Judgment Day. You do not.
Steven,
I wanted to let you know that I haven’t forgot about replying to you, but I have been buried under with work. I’ll reply in the next few days.
LM, three quick points:
1) I would be very happy to have a discussion with John Daly.
2) I’m not trying to persuade you of anything. I looked into the Sedevacantist position for myself, and found many holes in it. Before I looked into the subject closely, and after having only read some information from various websites, I actually wondered if the Sede’s were right. However, after studying their arguments it became very clear very quick that there were some very serious flaws in their reasoning due to a lack in making certain distinctions. The more I looked into their arguments, the more flawed they appeared.
SPERAY: YOU HAVE NOT SHOWN ONE FLAW IN OUR REASONING YET. YOUR ARGUMENTS ARE FLAWED.///////
What I noticed quickly is that by failing to make necessary distinctions, the Sede’s were using false reasoning to arrive at their conclusion. As evidence for this, I would would point to the fact that Steven disagrees with Pius IX, as well as the Bishop and priests of the time with respect to Archbishop Darboy.
SPERAY: YOU’RE MISSING THE POINT WITH DARBOY. HE’S A MERE BISHOP AND NOT ACTING AS POPE. THE CONSEQUENCES ARE FAR MORE GRAVE WITH THE PAPACY. If a mere bishop is actually outside of the Church by heresy, it doesn’t matter whether the Church recognizes him as outside or not. If the Church is wrong, and the mere bishop is actually outside of the Church, he can’t do any substantial damage if everyone thinks he’s in the Church. Not so with the papacy, as we’ve seen with the conciliar antipopes. Until you get this simple point, you’re lost.///////
Why such a variance between his conclusion and theirs? TIs it more likely that he is right and all those who lived during that day (when the faith was much stronger) were wrong? Not likely.
SPERAY: BUT IT DOESN’T MATTER AND THAT’S MY POINT!!!!!////////
I realize the Church is in a crisis, but I do not believe the Sedevacantist position is the correct answer… and it is certainly no solution.
SPERAY: SEDEVACANTISM SIMPLY MEANS THAT THE CHAIR IS VACANT. It’s the correct position. As for a solution, sedevacantism is not meant to be a solution. It’s not a problem either, but recognizing radical apostates as popes and following them is being part of the problem. YOU ARE PART OF THE CRISIS BECAUSE YOU REFUSE TO LIVE UP TO YOUR RESPONSIBILITY AS A CATHOLIC.//////
During a crisis such as we are enduring, it is very easy to fall into error in one direction or the other.
SPERAY: YOU’RE SIMPLY IN ERROR!/////
For that reason, it is much more prudent to arrive at our conclusions very slowly, and only after much study and much prayer.
SPERAY: HOW MUCH MORE STUDY AND PRAYER DO YOU NEED TO RECOGNIZE THE OBVIOUS?//////
As soon as a person makes a firm judgment, the will is, in a sense, locked in to that position. From that point on the person is biased in favor of their position, and it almost takes a “conversion” for them to change their mind. You are wise to say that you are open to being persuaded. That statement shows that your will is not firmly fixed in one direction.
SPERAY: WHAT ABOUT YOU? YOU’RE BIASED. ARE YOU OPEN TO BEING PERSUADED?///////
Stay that way for a while and consider both sides of the issue with an open mind.
SPERAY: BEEN THERE, DONE THAT. WE ARE WHERE WE’RE AT BECAUSE WE HAVE LOOKED AT ALL SIDES. WE’VE SEEN ALL YOUR ARGUMENT A DOZEN TIMES OVER. YOU’RE WRONG AND THAT’S WHY WE WON’T GO THERE.
One difficulty you will face is that, from what I have seen, there are not many good arguments against the Sede position. I’m not sure why that is, since I myself have found MANY holes in it.
SPERAY: YOU’VE NOT SHOWN ONE HOLE YET!!!!!!!!!///////
Maybe I will start a website as you recommended in order to point out some of these flaws.
3) I realize that each of us will have to answer for ourselves on judgment day.
SPERAY: ONE HOLE. GIVE ME ONE HOLE!!!!!!//////
I’ve been there and done that, Robert. I will stay in the chapel that I am at. It is as safe a port in the storm as any. The Conciliar Church has lost all credibility with me. There is something vitally wrong with it. If you want to continue spinning your wheels in the VII church, go right ahead.
I am no spring chicken, and may very well be old enough to be your mother.
I have arrived at the answer for myself through much prayer and many years (yes, many years) of study and looking at the crisis from each and every side – which is how I have arrived at my conclusions. You have assumed wrongly about me. I have considered all sides of this crisis already – considered them and lived them as well.
If I may offer some criticism – you make too many assumptions about people in your posts. You seem more anxious to teach rather than learn.
First point:
Speray (original): “You say that it is only an opinion that a pope loses his office by manifest heresy, but I disagree.”
Siscoe: I provided quotes to support my statement. Even John Lane concedes this points. This is what he wrote:
John Lane: “In addition to these arguments, there is the extrinsic authority of Cajetan, Suarez, John of St. Thomas, Bouix, and Journet. Each of these has publicly taught that if a pope were a heretic he would retain the papacy until and unless “deposed” by an extraordinary Council. And … Holy Church has never condemned it, so that it is not impossible that a good and holy Catholic accept it, if the reasons in its favour appeal to him.”
SPERAY: It’s only their erroneous opinions! YOU EVEN STATED BELOW, “A formal heretic in the external forum is not a member of the Church.” HOW CAN YOU BE THE HEAD MEMBER OF THE CHURCH IF YOU’RE NOT A MEMBER AT ALL???? I noticed that you didn’t answer many of my other questions. Please do so in your next reply.///////
Siscoe: Now, John Lane himself does not agree with that opinion (which he believes has been refuted), but nevertheless, he concedes that this is a valid opinion. Therefore, not only do you disagree with the citations I cited in my first post, but you also disagree with your fellow sedevacantist. When I quoted Sebastian Bach Smith teaching that there were two opinion on this point, this is what you wrote:
Speray’s earlier comment: “Sabastian Bach Smith is giving his [sic] two opinions. If I were the pope during his time, I would have corrected his terrible mistake, since it goes against the First Vatican Council. I would give him the benefit of the doubt, but he most certainly is implying a serious error.
Siscoe: Yet your fellow sedevacantist John Lane also concedes that this is a valid opinion. Is he is serious error as well? Why do you and he disagree on this point? Who is correct? How do you know?
SPERAY: YES, I DISAGREE! A pope must be a member of the Catholic Church and a heretic is not a member of the Catholic Church. Even the Catholic Encyclopedia states, “The pope himself, if notoriously guilty of heresy, would cease to be pope BECAUSE HE WOULD CEASE TO BE A MEMBER OF THE CHURCH.” HOW CAN YOU BE THE HEAD MEMBER IF YOU’RE NOT A MEMBER AT ALL???? PLEASE ANSWER THAT QUESTION???? They all are arguing that a pope doesn’t need to be a member of the Church and that a Catholic need not believe in the teachings of the Catholic Church. Is that your position, too? You are arguing in the affirmative, here, but elsewhere you are arguing in the negative. Which is it?////////
New Point:
Speray (original): “…to answer your questions, yes, Darboy was a public heretic. He denied the faith and rejected the pope’s condemnation”.
Siscoe: So Pope Pius IX remained in communion with a public heretic?
SPERAY: You left out the next sentence that I wrote explaining what I meant. That’s dishonest!///////
Doesn’t that make him a public heretic as well since he knowingly remained in communion with a public heretic?
SPERAY: GO BACK AND READ MY EXPLANATION. YOU TAKE THINGS OUT OF CONTEXT. HE DIDN’T NECESSARILY HOLD HIM AS A FORMAL HERETIC.///////
And furthermore, Pius IX not only had the authority to condemned Msgr. Darboy, he had the duty. It is the pope’s duty to defend the faith. Doesn’t this at least render Pius IX suspect of heresy?
SPERAY: NOT AT ALL. It could render him guilty of the sin of not doing what he ought to do as pope. Not saying he was a bad pope, but popes can be bad. You act as if a pope can’t sin in his duty. They can and have. You apparently don’t understand the difference between bad popes and heretical antipopes.////////
And according to you, a pope who is even suspect of heresy cannot be a true pope. Therefore, how can you possibly accept Pius IX as a pope and remain consistent?
SPERAY: Because Pope Pius didn’t fall in that category. HE DIDN’T EVEN COME CLOSE. You just don’t know how to use simple logic./////
New Point:
Speray (original): “In other words, can a pope reject the existence of the devil? PLEASE ANSWER THAT QUESTION. What if no one gives him any warnings? What if everyone but a few are in a agreement with him?”
Siscoe: Even if one holds to the opinion of Bellarmine (which I personally tend toward), who taught that a pope who becomes a public heretic automatically ceases to be pope, it still requires a declaration from the Church.
SPERAY: Where does the Church say so? Bellarmine didn’t say it or else it wouldn’t be automatic. The law doesn’t say it. Even the canonists since 1917 didn’t say it. As a matter of fact, they all say that it doesn’t require a declaration. GO BACK AND READ MY ORIGINAL ARTICLE BY THE LATE GREAT PROFESSOR OF CANON LAW, REV. CHARLES AUGUSTINE. But since you still need A DECLARATION for your own good, it has indeed happened….many times by many bishops and priests. Here’s a link to a video for the world to see by some Catholic priests and Bishop who did so. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H81i-BE2wvs&list=FLRH06j9we7F-zPyD8sLoVFQ&index=17&feature=plpp_video Why don’t you accept their word? Not enough bishops and priests for your liking? You’re still waiting for the declaration to come from the bishops that think the heresies promoted by Ratzinger are good? Who and how many do you need? Please answer the question!///////
So, in your example, I would hold that the heretical pope would remain in office until the Church declared him a heretic, at which time all of his official Acts would be rendered null and void – at least from the time he publicly taught heresy and showed himself to be pertinacious. That is my opinion and it is supported by the citations I have already given.
SPERAY: In other words, you don’t believe a pope needs to believe in the devil! All your citations imply that a pope need not be a Catholic. That’s your position!!!! You’re contradicting yourself, badly.//////
New Point:
Speray: (original) “…can a manifest formal heretic be a member of the Catholic Church at the same time? What is a manifest formal heretic?
Siscoe: A formal manifest heretic is a declared heretic.
SPERAY: NOT ACCORDING TO THE CATHOLIC CHURCH. You’re making the same argument as John Salza which I’ve already refuted using canon law as taught by Vatican approved canonists. You’ve even denied this in a past comment. Here’s what you wrote: “The following is from the 1917 code: “A Crime is public: (1) if it is already commonly known or the circumstances are such as to lead to the conclusion that it can and will easily become so; (2) Notorious by notoriety of law, AFTER A SENTENCE by a competent judge that renders the matter an abjudicated thing, or after a confession by the offender made in court in accord with Canon 1750; (3) Notorious by notoriety of fact, if it is publicly known and was committed under such circumstances THAT NO CLEVER EVASION IS POSSIBLE and no legal excuse could excuse [the act]” (End) Notice, in order for the person to be considered a notorious heretic, they would either need to be declared a heretic by the Church, OR ELSE THEIR HERESY MUST BE SO CLEAR THAT “NO CLEVER EVASION IS POSSIBLE”. Unfortunately, the words and actions of John Paul II and Ratzinger leave just enough ambiguity for their “fans” to excuse them. You and I might not agree with them or accept their “clever” excuses, but the fact that their words and actions allow for such excuses means they do not qualify as a notorious heretic, according to canon law.”SO ROBERT, YOU QUOTED THE LAW AND TOLD US WHAT IT MEANT. NOW YOU THINK JP2 AND RATZINGER CAN BE EXCUSED FOR AMBIGUITY or else they would not need to be declared a heretic and outside of the Church. THAT’S WHAT THE LAW MEANS ACCORDING TO YOUR OWN WORDS!!!! You say there are clever excuses. I’ve not seen an excuse at all, never mind a clever one. WHAT DO YOU NEED? HOW CAN THEM MORE CLEAR THAN WITH THE ASSISI EVENTS?//////
He can be declared in one of two ways: Either the Church declares him to be a heretic, or he declares himself to be a heretic by openly leaving the Church, or remaining manifestly obstinate after two warnings (which is what Bellarmine taught). A formal heretic in the external forum is not a member of the Church. So, for example, a Catholic who leaves the Church and becomes a Protestant minister is no longer a member of the Church and therefore cannot hold office in the Church.
SPERAY: That’s not what the law states and you even quoted it for us and gave us the definition which is contrary to what you’ve just written. However, I AWAIT THAT LAW OR OFFICIAL CHURCH TEACHING THAT SAYS WHAT YOU’RE SAYING. However, I’ll demonstrate one of the reasons why you’re wrong about future declarations here: My Popes X, Y, and Z Counter-Argument and Why We Must Use Private Judgment
New Point:
SPERAY (original): I’m quite aware of the fact that you think the Church must declare or depose him to go into effect. Sorry, but this is silly. NO ONE CAN DECLARE OR DEPOSE A TRUE POPE!!!! THIS IS THE CRUCIAL POINT WHICH YOU ARE MISSING.
Siscoe: There are two opinions. One holds that the pope heretic automatically loses his office. The Church would then declare him to have lost his office to make it “official”. The second opinion is that a pope who publicly defects from the faith can be judged by the Church and deposed. In either case, it requires that the pope fall into heresy first in order to be judged. So, a true pope who is not a heretic cannot be judged, but a true pope who falls into heresy can be judged.
SPERAY: A TRUE POPE WHO FALLS INTO HERESY IS NO LONGER A POPE AUTOMATICALLY!!!!! THEN AS AN ANTIPOPE, HE CAN BE JUDGED AND SENTENCED.
New Point:
Speray: “SPERAY: ANY CATHOLIC CAN [judge the pope who falls into heresy]. ST. BELLARMINE STATED, “… for men are not bound, or able to read hearts; but when they see that someone is a heretic by his external works, they judge him to be a heretic pure and simple, and condemn him as a heretic.” You disagree with St. Robert Bellarmine”.
Siscoe: Who was Bellarmine referring to? He was referring to the Priests of Rome who, at the time, had the authority to elect a pope. They were the proper authorities at the time.
SPERAY: WRONG. THAT’S WHAT YOU WANT HIM TO SAY. HE COULD HAVE EASILY JUST STATED IT THAT WAY, BUT DIDN’T.
New Point:
Siscoe (original comment): After all, there are sedevacantists today who claim all the Popes since Leo XIII have been “public manifest heretics”. Do you agree with them?
SPERAY’s reply: No, I don’t agree with them. They are wrong and can be shown why.
Siscoe: OK, here’s one of their arguments. Please refute it.
“Antipope Leo XIII, Arcanum #19, Feb 10, 1880: “…Marriage has God for its Author, and was from the very beginning a kind of foreshadowing of the Incarnation of His Son; and therefore there abides in it a something holy and religious; not extraneous, but innate; not derived from men, but implanted by nature. Innocent III, therefore, and Honorius III, our predecessors, affirmed not falsely nor rashly that a SACRAMENT of marriage existed ever amongst the faithful and unbelievers.”
Sacramental marriage among unbelievers? Among pagans and infidels? … Pope Eugene IV, Council of Florence, ex cathedra: “Holy Baptism holds the first place among all the sacraments, for it is the gate of the spiritual life; through it we become members of Christ and of the body of the Church.”
“BAPTISM is in the FIRST PLACE among the sacraments, therefore no sacrament comes or can come before it. Pagan marriages are contracts, indeed, but they cannot be sacramental until Baptism is first received. That is what the dogmas say.” (END)
Siscoe: How do you defend Leo XIII teaching that the SACRAMENT of marriage existed amongst unbelievers? Doesn’t this teaching make Pope Leo XIII a public heretic, since “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”. How would you answer your fellow sedevacantists on this point?
SPERAY: Elementary, my dear Watson. What Pope Leo stated is quite correct. Marriage is a sacrament for non-believers, but not in the strict sense of the word. The Catholic Encyclopedia alludes to it with, “That Christian marriage (i.e. marriage between baptized persons) is really a sacrament of the New Law in the strict sense of the word is for all Catholics an indubitable truth.” In fact, the Catholic Encyclopedia uses the phrase “strict sense of the word” several times when referring to the New Law. However, it also states, “It is equally certain that marriage between unbaptized persons is not a sacrament in the strict sense of the word.”WHICH IMPLIES THAT IT IS A SACRAMENT (JUST NOT IN THE STRICT SENSE OF THE WORD). Pope Leo was explaining what he meant anyway. Because marriage is indeed a sacrament (although not in the strict sense) for un-believers, those same un-believers can’t do what they want with it. It comes from God, not man. To denounce Pope Leo XIII as a heretic for this statement is silly. You’ll find on my website other misrepresentations given by these silly sedes with other popes, and I show them to be wrong about them too. By the way, a pope can make mistakes. John Paul II and Ratzinger have said many things that I would call “ooops” but wouldn’t charge them as heretics for their mistakes. However, JP2 and Ratzinger have left us with no doubt about where they are coming from. They are radical apostates. IT’S CLEAR! YOU SAY IT’S NOT CLEAR. I’m still waiting for you to answer my questions concerning them.//////
New Point:
Speray (original) Doubt that he may be a manifest heretic, perhaps? I’ll give you another quote to chew on. Rev. Francis X Doyle, S.J. explains: “The Church is a visible society with a visible Ruler. If there can be any doubt about who that visible Ruler is, he is not visible, and hence, where there is any doubt about whether a person has been legitimately elected Pope, that doubt must be removed before he can become the visible head of Christ’s Church. Blessed Bellarmine, S.J., says: ‘A doubtful Pope must be considered as not Pope’; and Suarez, S.J., says: ‘At the time of the Council of Constance there were three men claiming to be Pope…. Hence, it could have been that not one of them was the true Pope, and in that case, there was no Pope at all….” The Defense of the Catholic Church, 1927, Fr. Francis X. Doyle, S.J.
Siscoe (original)That’s why Suarez said a declaration of men is required. By “declaration from men” he later explains that this would be the Bishops, not individual laymen with a website.
SPERAY (original): FUNNY HOW HE CONTRADICTS HIMSELF ON THIS POINT, SINCE HE ALSO STATED THAT WE CAN’T HAVE A DOUBTFUL POPE. ARE WE TO WAIT FOR A DECLARATION WHILE EVERYONE IS IN DOUBT?
Siscoe: You are missing another distinctions, which is why you think Suarez is contradicting himself. He is not referring to a pope who is suspect of heresy, but to a pope whose election is suspect.
SPERAY: YOU DIDN’T ANSWER THE QUESTION.////
New Point:
Siscoe (original) Again, I would point to the Darboy case. In a prior reply, you said you disagreed with Pius IX. But, since no one at the time disagreed with him, it means you would have disagreed with all the Priest and lay people who lived during that time, which doesn’t look too good.
SPERAY (original): IT DOESN’T LOOK TO GOOD FOR THEM
Siscoe: So, your reasoning leads you to a conclusion that is the exact contrary of Pope Pius IX, all the bishops and priests at the time, and you think every one of them are wrong and you are right?
I’ll end with this question: What goeth before the fall?
SPERAY: ABSOLUTELY!!! I don’t agree at all at how they handled it, but are you sure that all the bishops and priests at that time agreed with POPE PIUS IX? HOWEVER, AS I’VE STATED BEFORE, YOU’RE MISSING THE POINT WITH DARBOY. HE’S A MERE BISHOP AND NOT ACTING AS POPE. THE CONSEQUENCES ARE FAR MORE GRAVE WITH THE PAPACY. If a mere bishop is actually outside of the Church by heresy, it doesn’t matter whether the Church recognizes him as outside or not. If the Church is wrong, and the mere bishop is actually outside of the Church, he can’t do any substantial damage if everyone thinks he’s in the Church. Not so with the papacy, as we’ve seen with the conciliar antipopes. Until you get this simple point, you’re lost. ARE YOU GOING TO CONCEDE THAT DARBOY DOESN’T HELP YOUR CASE OR CONTINUE TO USE IT ANYWAY?///////
I wish to reply to Mr. Siscoe and the long debate here, although this question may have been asked previously and I missed it.
So are you claiming that Pope Paul IV’s, Cum Ex Apostalatus Officio, is a mere opinion? So it’s a mere opinion — and a false one at that — that a pope who deviates from the faith loses his office automatically, without need of further declaration, as Cum Ex clearly explains?
By the way, I don’t see how this Magisterial document was superseded, at least, not this aspect of it which is the Divine Law, derived as it is from Scripture and reaffirmed by Pope Leo XIII in Satis Cognitum, I believe.
Thank you,
Luke
Steven,
I wanted to let you know that I read your comments. I have a lot more to say, not only about your recent comments, but about some points you made earlier that I did not address (including the new Rite of Ordination), but I am completely buried under with work. I’ll reply when I can, but I need to get caught up at work first. It’s probably going to be a while.
Luke, I also saw your question and will reply to you as well.
Pax
Robert,
You gave 9 points in your last comment. I answered them all. I also answered every question unlike you. I do have a full time job, too, and I have a wife with homeschooled children. I don’t want to spend all my time on the web answering and dealing with many questions and points up front, especially the ones that I’ve already dealt with.
You said that you’ve seen many holes in the sedevacantist position. GIVE ME ONE HOLE, the BIGGEST HOLE. So far, you’ve given me nothing but arguments filled with logical fallacies. We don’t need to go over points. Just give THE HOLE that you think buries us. THAT’S IT, NOTHING MORE.
Thank you.
Did you hear that Robert? Explain to sede Catholics the hole they’re in. One hole, and let see if they can reply to that one hole. Otherwise, you’re in the biggest hole. No more ring around the rosy comments. You still haven’t dealt with my comment above either. Never mind that, we just want to know the big hole or holes that you’re referring to.
I have been following all the correspondence on this site concerning the Novus Ordo and Traditional Church and the issue of sedevacantism.
Collins and Siscoe and others are of the Novus Ordo teaching and practice and have argued their points. All their arguments appear to be opinion, misinformation, talk-around chatter and evasive contradiction. They have neither answered point blank questions nor provided any article of church instruction or law to back their argument. The best I glean is nearly all their info is their personal take on the subject matters followed by the fact we sedes don’t understand such and such an article. Years ago I might have gone along with their side but having humbled myself and examined the entire situation and with much soul searching I have concluded that the new church is not the church I grew up in nor is it following the pre VatII religion.
The sede replies to their arguments have been numerous, exceptionally well documented and without injected opinion or personal feelings. Most replies have been repeated over and over through the course of this study. References have been provided as well as a plethora of church teachings on each matter by saints and saintly popes. It’s like they can’t get over such an apostasy happening in their times. It’s like they are playing dumb with no humility. It’s like arguing with a novus ordo lukewarm catholic who really only likes to hear themselves personify some religious zeal. The heck with reality. It’s like “what da hell”!! Why can’t they just simply tell us why they think we are not Traditional Catholic…no no no don’t tell us what you think…please !
Just give us fact why we are not Traditional Catholic or why the pre Vat II church is no good in today’s world. It keeps coming back to the pope issue thing. Sedes acknowledge the Chair of Peter as the seat of authority in the Church. He who validly sits in that chair would be the human authority of the church but that issue is not what determines what makes one a catholic. So factually explain with documentation why sedes are not catholic…outside the church…separatists or whatever you are trying to say or prove..
I know its hard to defend a bumbling modernist religion effort but keep trying.
I, too, found the conference quite dishonest, and almost risible at times.
The question boils down to this: It isn’t so much whether a man elected Pope is a heretic or not (although, in my opinion, a positive case certainly exists for each claimant since John XXIII), but whether the Church to which they’ve been elected head is the Catholic Church. This matters more than whether or not a claimant is manfest and pertinacious in his errors. Vatican II was a breach, an ape of the Church. The Church which greeted the 1958 election of John XXIII was quite different from that which greeted Paul VI in 1963, which was even more evident in the post-conciliar elections of 1978 and 2005. It is moot to hold a papal claimant to the teachings of a “church” (not THE Church) which is no longer Catholic. We are living through unprecedented times in the Church.
No sedevacantist takes such a position except with regret and reluctance. I found the allusions during the course of Fr. Collins’ and Mr. Siscoe’s conference to individual motives for sedevacantism to be quite offensive. I would rather think the throne empty and be thought a schismatic than to accept or give the impression that I accepted that the Catholic Church, the Spotless Handmaiden of Truth, could ever, for even one moment, teach error.
Robert Sisko says that a heretic is one who denies an article of faith, whereas St. Thomas Aquinas says “a heretic is one who devises or follows false or new opinions.” (Summa Theologica, Q.11, Of Heresy, Art.1). Pope Leo XIII said: “The practise of the Church has always been the same, as is shown by the unanimous teaching of the Fathers, who were wont to hold as outside Catholic communion, and alien to the Church, whoever would recede in the least degree from any point of doctrine proposed by her authoritative magisterium.” (Satis Cognitum, 30). Ecumenism was condemned by Pope Pius IX in Mortalium Animos, and Religious Liberty was condemned by Pope Pius IX in Quanta Cura, and by other popes, not to mention the New Mass which recedes by many degrees from Catholic theology, and the apostasy of the Vatican requiring Catholic nations to cease to be Catholic nations – apostasy also severs from the Church, as Pope Pius XII pointed out in Mystici Corporis. How much more manifest do these people need these VII heretics and apostates to be before they will call black black?
Thank God for people like Steven Speray. Although Lefebvrism has a large proportion of the truth (accept 95%?), it will one day be condemned as a heresy because it rejects the inerrancy of the See of Peter which is a doctrine of the Church. It rejects the infallibility of the Papacy in both extraordinary (canonizations) and ordinary magisterium (Vatican II, etc). It believes in a condemned proposition from the Syllabus of Errors #22.