In Robert Siscoe’s latest article in Catholic Family News against Rev. Anthony Cekada and sedevacantism, Siscoe argues that a manifest heretic can only be considered a manifest heretic after two warnings. Therefore, a pope would need two warnings to be considered a manifest heretic. Siscoe cites St. Robert Bellarmine’s De Roman Pontifice to demonstrate his point:
“The fourth opinion is that of Cajetan, for whom (de auctor. papae et con., cap. 20 et 21) the manifestly heretical Pope is not ‘ipso facto’ deposed, but can and must be deposed by the Church. To my judgment, this opinion cannot be defended. For, in the first place, it is proven with arguments from authority and from reason that the manifest heretic is ‘ipso facto’ deposed. The argument from authority is based on St. Paul (Titus, c. 3), who orders that the heretic be avoided after two warnings, that is, after showing himself to be manifestly obstinate – which means before any excommunication or judicial sentence. And this is what St. Jerome writes, adding that the other sinners are excluded from the Church by sentence of excommunication, but the heretics exile themselves and separate themselves by their own act from the body of Christ.”
There are two major flaws to Siscoe’s argument.
First, Bellarmine did not teach or imply that two warnings are needed before being considered a manifest heretic.
The issue is not about what makes a person a heretic, but rather what happens to a heretic. Siscoe confuses the two issues.
Look closely at the quote. Even though St. Paul is giving a general principle to show how to identify that a person is being obstinate and thus a heretic, Bellarmine is clearly using St. Paul to show the consequence of being an obstinate manifest (public) heretic, which is automatic excommunication. Bellarmine is not trying to argue what is necessary to show that a person is obstinate against the Faith. There’s no reason to conclude such a notion unless you’re bent on some argument, any argument, against sedevacantism.
The law of the Church states that two warnings are not necessary to demonstrate that one is a manifest heretic. Siscoe cites John of St. Thomas who misunderstood the clear and unambiguous meaning of Bellarmine and concludes that two warnings are not only necessary, but is Divine law.
St. Paul himself didn’t write or imply that two warnings are necessary, but only gives a general rule which the authority of the Church has officially deemed not to apply to clerics.
Rev. Charles 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)
If John of St. Thomas is right, then the gates of hell have prevailed against the Catholic Church for promulgating a law that violates the Divine law.
Second problem to Siscoe’s argument is that there is no Church protocol to how a pope is warned, censored, etc. as other members of the Church. The reason for this is due to the fact that Church protocol requires that only a superior can warn, censure, etc., and the pope has no superiors. There are specific laws that deal with the issues. If a pope must be warned, etc. before anything can be done about him then there must be some law, some Church protocol to deal with it. But alas, there is none! Therefore, it can’t be carried out! It’s that simple.
In conclusion,
1. St. Bellarmine didn’t teach that two warnings are necessary to prove that a manifest heretic is a manifest heretic.
2. St. Paul doesn’t teach that two warnings are necessary.
3. The official Church law teaches that two warnings are not necessary to be excommunicated due to heresy.
4. There is no law, protocol, etc. for any authority or all the authorities together to warn the pope for formal heresy.
5. Robert Siscoe’s argument in Catholic Family News is false and is a misrepresentation of St. Robert Bellarmine, the law, and the Catholic Faith.
IMO- Robert Siscoe’s interpretation to me is illogical.Very happy to see Mr. Steven Speray using common sense and logic in presenting our True Faith as it should be.No ambiguity. Bravo for Mr. Speray and his setting the record straight.Wonder what Mr. Siscoe;s excuses will be for the public disgrace of marrying those living in SIN last Sunday?by none other than Francis. Perhaps a lesson on the Ten Commandment’s or does Mr Siscoe believe it’s Ten Suggestion’s? Regards, Mr. Joe Mecca
Well done we must fight till we cannot fight no longer the sad thing is it is no issue the church speaks on this in many areas which God himself put there to make it simple
Sent from my iPad
>
‘Siscoe argues that a manifest heretic can only be considered a manifest heretic after two warnings. Therefore, a pope would need two warnings to be considered a manifest heretic.’
I wish I could rob a bank twice and get 2 warnings before being considered a criminal.
It would be very lucrative for me.
Go get em’ Steven…these Novus Ordinarians have no commom sense.
Read Siscoe again. He didn’t say, “a manifest heretic can only be considered a manifest heretic after two warnings.” He said, “Obviously, if a Pope publicly defected from the Faith by leaving the Church, or by publicly admitting that he rejects a defined dogma, this, in and of itself, would suffice to demonstrate pertinacity in the external forum.” Then he goes on to explain the accurate interpretation of Bellarmine.
Steven Speray Replies: My dear little brother finally comments on my blog. I’m glad you did because it will give me another opportunity to demonstrate why Sisoce is terribly wrong. Now, Siscoe most certainly says that two warnings are necessary to show that one is a manifest heretic as you Scott will demonstrate next. If it takes proven pertinacity to make one a manifest heretic, and two warnings are needed to prove pertinacity, then it would necessarily take two warnings to make one a manifest heretic.
Here’s what Sisco said below, and he was entirely right.
Steven Speray Replies: He was entirely wrong as I will show you next. Pay close attention to detail.
“Another important point that needs clarification is what St. Bellarmine meant by the term “manifest heretic”. When he said “a pope who is a manifest heretic automatically ceases to be pope”, he was not referring merely to a Pope that has made materially heretical statements, or to a Pope who has given reason to believe he has lost the faith; manifest heresy requires something more: since heresy, properly so-called, requires pertinacity in the will (not simply an error in the intellect), in order for a person who has made materially heretical statements to be considered formally heretical in the external forum, pertinacity in the will would also have to be manifest.
Steven Speray Replies: Notice that Siscoe is saying that a manifest heretic is one who is pertinacious, which means obstinate. I already made this point clear in my article. However, pertinacity is presumed by law with clerics. I made this point clear with Rev. Augustine’s commentary. Also: Canon 2200.2, 1917 Code of Canon Law: “When an external violation of the law has been committed, malice is presumedin 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.” (Eric F. Mackenzie, A.M., S.T.L., J.C.L. Rev., The Delict of Heresy, Washington, D.C.: The Catholic Univ. of America, 1932, p. 35. (Cf. Canon 2200.2)
Obviously, if a Pope publicly defected from the Faith by leaving the Church, or by publicly admitting that he rejects a defined dogma, this, in and of itself, would suffice to demonstrate pertinacity in the external forum. But without such an open admission of guilt, there would have to be another way to demonstrate that he was manifestly obstinate in his position. The other way, according to St. Bellarmine, is for the Pope to remain obstinate after two warnings.
Steven Speray Replies: THIS IS A TOTAL LIE! St. Bellarmine said no such thing. Here’s what St. Bellarmine states THAT PROVES that he never meant that two warnings are necessary to prove obstinacy: “For although Liberius was not a heretic, nevertheless he was considered one, on account of the peace he made with the Arians, and by that presumption the pontificate could rightly [merito] be taken from him: 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 [simpliciter], and condemn him as a heretic.”
Also, other experts confirm that two warnings aren’t necessary to prove pertinacity. For one of many examples: F.X. Wernz, P. Vidal (1943 A.D.): “Through notorious and openly revealed heresy, the Roman Pontiff, should he fall into heresy, by that very fact is deemed to be deprived of the power of jurisdiction even before any declaratory judgment of the Church…”(Ius Canonicum. Rome: Gregorian 1943. 2:453)
then would pertinacity be sufficiently demonstrated to render the Pope a manifest heretic. St. Bellarmine bases this on [mistakenly said “in”] the authority of St. Paul.
Steven Speray Replies: I already PROVE that this is false in my original article.
“[I]n the first place” wrote Bellarmine, “it is proven with arguments from authority and from reason that the manifest heretic is ‘ipso facto’ deposed. The argument from authority is based on Saint Paul, who orders that the heretic be avoided after two warnings, that is, after showing himself to be manifestly obstinate – which means before any excommunication or judicial sentence (…) Therefore… the Pope who is manifestly a heretic ceases by himself to be Pope and head, in the same way as he ceases to be a Christian and a member of the body of the Church; and for this reason he can be judged and punished by the Church.” (6)
As we can see, according to Bellarmine a manifest heretic is one who remains obstinate “after two warnings”.
Steven Speray Replies: There’s no question that if one is warned twice he’s a manifest heretic. However, Bellarmine didn’t imply that two warning were necessary to prove a manifest heretic, and that is the point and problem with Siscoe’s argumentation.
Such manifest obstinancy reveals pertinacity in the will, which is necessary for a materially heretical statement to qualify as formal heresy in the external forum.
Steven Speray Replies: IT IS NOT NECESSARY AS THE LAW PLAINLY STATES. Bellarmine never suggested it was necessary either!
By remaining obstinate after a solemn and public warning, the Pope would, in a sense, pass judgment upon himself,
Steven Speray Replies: The pope would pass judgment upon himself before in solemn and public warnings.
thereby showing himself to be a heretic properly so-called.
Steven Speray Replies: He would be a properly so-called heretic when he publicly rejects dogmas and divine laws of the Church. It is by that fact alone according to the expert canonists.
It is for this reason, according to Bellarmine, that the Pope – “who judges all and is judged by no one” – can himself be judged and punished by the Church.
Steven Speray Replies: Not for this reason, but after he loses his office, then he is judged and punished by the Church.
“The opinion of St. Bellarmine (which maintains that a heretical Pope automatically loses his office) does not preclude a judgment of guilt by the Church. It only maintains that the judgment does not cause the heretical Pope to lose his office, but rather confirms that he is guilty of heresy, and as such has lost his office.”
…”By remaining obstinate after two public warnings, issued by the proper authorities, the Pope would, as Fr. Ballerini said, pronounce sentence “upon himself”, thereby “making it clear that by his own will he had turned away and separated himself from the body of the Church” and, in a certain way, “abdicated the Pontificate”.
Steven Speray Replies: As I explained in the article, only superiors give warnings etc. and the pope has no superiors. Therefore, there are no such thing as proper authorities to issue two warnings to the pope. IT’S SIMPLY A LUDICROUS ARGUMENT TO ARGUE THAT A POPE NEEDS TWO WARNINGS TO PROVE HIS OBSTINACY, especially in light of the fact that for 50 plus years the conciliar popes have repeatedly over and over again rejected articles of the Catholic Faith and Natural and Divine laws. If they aren’t heretics, then there is no such thing as a heretic.
Conclusion:
“Those who adhere to the Sedevacantist position based on the opinion of the Saints and Doctors of the Church, who held that a manifestly heretical Pope automatically loses his office, have mistakenly concluded that their private judgment on the matter suffices in place of a formal judgment by the Church;
Steven Speray Replies: Robert Siscoe has mistakenly concluded by his private judgement on the matter. NO JUDGMENT IS NEEDED BY THE CHURCH ON A HERETICAL POPE. Siscoe already admitted this point and now changes his position.
and that, based on their private judgment, they are permitted to declare openly that a man elected by the College of Cardinals as Pope is not a true Pope (8);
Steven Speray Replies: Wrong! This is a misrepresentation of sedevacantism and Siscoe knows it. Catholics are obliged to reject as pope, men who for 50 years reject dogmas and divine laws. It’s that simple.
and furthermore, that they are then permitted to attempt to persuade others to accept their private judgment as a public fact.
Steven Speray Replies: And yet, Robert Siscoe is allowed to persuade others to accept his private judgement as a public fact which goes against the official law of the Church. HMMMMMMM
(9) Based on this false premise, Sedevacantists apologists have spilled much ink over the years trying to explain to individual Catholics in the pew how they can detect heresy in the Pope, so that they too will personally conclude that the Pope is a “manifest heretic” and publicly adopt the Sedevacantist position.
Steven Speray Replies: Even Robert Siscoe believes the conciliar popes are terrible heretics. But his entire false premise is that a pope can be a heretic leading a billion strong away from the faith for 50 plus year until his given two warnings by the very men that believe in the very same heresies. Robert Siscoe has locked himself in the apostasy and can’t get out because of his false understanding of the law.
What they have failed to understand is that the judgment of heresy is not left to individual Catholics in the pew, but to the Church, which is why John of St. Thomas said: “be he [the Pope] ever so manifestly heretical according to private judgment, he remains as far as we are concerned a member of the Church and consequently its head. Judgment is required by the Church. It is only then that he ceases to be Pope as far as we are concerned.”
Steven Speray Replies: Wrong again. John of St. Thomas is arguing that a man who rejects dogmas and divine laws of the Church openly and then leads billions of people away from the Church can be the pope. Every post Vatican I canonist reject John of St. Thomas.
Lastly, censures were the only item mentioned above, yet Siscoe shows Fr. Augustine’s explanation that the loss of office isn’t from the censure, but the vindictive penalty, which is probably why it was ignored above.
Steven Speray Replies: Wrong. Fr. Augustine was telling you that excommunication comes from heresy without the need of warnings. You don’t know what a censure is. And yet St. Robert Bellarmine taught that loss of office comes from being a heretic which is contrary to what you just stated. Bellamine:“Finally, the Holy Fathers teach unanimously not only that heretics are outside of the Church, but also that they are “ipso facto” deprived of all ecclesiastical jurisdiction and dignity.” NO WARNINGS THERE EITHER!
Being that Siscoe knows more on this subject than most people, it is no surprise he is target #1 to people like Peter Diamond, who spent an extensive amount of time attempting to refute him. Yet when one reads Diamond, he’ll find gaps in what he said. In my opinion, and in reality, Siscoe makes more sense than anyone on this topic. In the end, only a Council can fix this situation, and that can only happen with a visible Church capable of doing something about it. And only a visible church capable of doing something about it can be considered the true Church. That aint going to happen outside the true Church. What does that tell us?
Steven Speray Replies: I’m not outside of the one visible true Church, but you do attend a church that’s outside of the true Church because the true Church can’t have councils teaching heresy. The mere fact that you have altar girls proves that you’re not part of the true Church. But let’s get to the nitty gritty…Where’s that law or protocol Scott that says so? You’re living in a dream world. It ain’t going to happen in your church either. What does that tell us? I’ve demonstrated that Siscoe is incorrect about St. Bellarmine and the law. Also, Siscoe ignores St. Robert Bellarmine when he states: Now, a Pope who remains Pope cannot be avoided, for how could we be required to avoid our own head? How can we separate ourselves from a member united to us? Siscoe avoids what he calls popes by rejecting Vatican 2, the new mass, the new sacraments, etc. Is he united to his popes? Are you Scott united to your popes in the official laws, decrees, and documents that reject the dogmas and divine laws of the Catholic Faith? Or do you avoid your pope that St. Robert Bellarmine said you can’t do? Your older and wiser brother, Steven.
Scott Speray