The single most important argument for the current position of sedevacantism is not what’s required for a pope to lose his office, because sedevacantists don’t argue that a pope has lost his office. The primary issue involves whether a pope can be head of a false religion.
To distinguish itself apart from all false churches, the Catholic Church teaches that it can be identified by four marks: One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic.
If the church under Francis I and the Second Vatican Council (Vatican 2) lack any one of the four marks, then it necessarily follows that Francis I and his church are counterfeit.
First Mark “One”
The Roman Catechism explains the first mark as unity:
“The faith which all are bound to believe and to profess is one.”
That faith which all are bound to believe and to profess consists in the written word of God and in tradition, and those which are proposed by the Church, either in a solemn pronouncement or in her ordinary and universal teaching power, to be believed as divinely revealed, all the judgments and decrees of the Apostolic See, and all points of doctrine proposed by the Church’s authoritative magisterium. [1]
Pope Pius XI declared in Mortalium Animos #10: “For since the mystical body of Christ, in the same manner as His physical body, is one, compacted and fitly joined together, it were foolish and out of place to say that the mystical body is made up of members which are disunited and scattered abroad: whosoever therefore is not united with the body is no member of it, neither is he in communion with Christ its head.”
To the contrary, The Catechism of the Catholic Church promulgated by John Paul II echoes Vatican 2 on the mystery of the Church:
This is the one Church of Christ which in the Creed is professed as one, holy, catholic and apostolic, (12*) which our Saviour, after His Resurrection, commissioned Peter to shepherd, (74) and him and the other apostles to extend and direct with authority, (75) which He erected for all ages as “the pillar and mainstay of the truth”. (76) This Church constituted and organized in the world as a society, subsists in the Catholic Church, which is governed by the successor of Peter and by the Bishops in communion with him, (13*) although many elements of sanctification and of truth are found outside of its visible structure. These elements, as gifts belonging to the Church of Christ, are forces impelling toward catholic unity. (LG ch 1)
If the one Church, constituted and organized in the world as a society, subsists in (subsistit in) the Catholic Church, then the one Church must necessarily be more than the Catholic Church. [2]
However, Pope Pius XII repeatedly taught that “the Mystical Body of Christ and the Roman Catholic Church are one and the same thing.” (Mystici Corporis Christi, 1943, Humani Generis, #27, 1950.)
Vatican 2’s explanation is in line with the Protestant understanding of the profession of the Creed insofar as its teaching consists of a visibly divided Church unified in spirit only. It denies the mark of oneness as taught by the Roman Catechism and the popes and councils before the 1960’s.
Second Mark: “Holy”
The Roman Catechism explains the second mark:
“The Church is called holy because she is consecrated and dedicated to God; for so other things when set apart and dedicated to the worship of God were wont to be called holy, even though they were material. Examples of this in the Old Law were vessels, vestments and altars.”
A prime principle in being dedicated to God is seen in the First Commandment. Thou shalt not have strange gods before me. Thou shalt not make to thyself a graven thing, nor the likeness of anything that is in heaven above, or in the earth beneath, nor of those things that are in the waters under the earth. Thou shalt not adore them, nor serve them. (Ex. 20:3)
The conciliar popes, John Paul II and Benedict XVI, instituted and praised as good three Assisi Events where strange gods were worshiped before God. The rejection of the First Commandment is institutionalized by the church of Vatican 2.
Woe to you that call evil good, and good evil: that put darkness for light, and light for darkness: that put bitter for sweet, and sweet for bitter. (Isaias 5:20)
The Roman Catechism continues:
“The Church is also to be called holy because she is united to her holy Head, as His body; that is, to Christ the Lord,’ the fountain of all holiness, from whom flow the graces of the Holy Spirit and the riches of the divine bounty.”
St. Paul teaches in Galatians, “But though we, or an Angel from heaven, preach a gospel to you besides that which we have preached to you, let him be anathema. As we said before, so I say now again: If any one preach to you a gospel, besides that which you have received, let him be anathema.”
Therefore, anyone who brings another gospel is cut off from Christ, thus, is not holy!
Vatican 2 and the conciliar popes officially teach another gospel on the nature of the Church, and encourage prayer with non-Catholics, which has been solemnly condemned as contrary to the Divine law from Holy Scripture to Pope Pius XII. [3]
Therefore, the church of Vatican 2 lacks the mark of holiness.
Third Mark: “Catholic”
The Roman Catechism:
“She is also called universal, because all who desire eternal salvation must cling to and embrace her, like those who entered the ark to escape perishing in the flood. This (note of catholicity), therefore, is to be taught as a most reliable criterion, by which to distinguish the true from a false Church.”
Pope Eugene IV, Council of Florence, Cantate Domino: “The Holy Roman Church firmly believes, professes and preaches that all those who are outside the Catholic Church, not only pagans but also Jews or heretics and schismatics, cannot share in eternal life and will go into the everlasting fire which was prepared for the devil and his angels, unless they are joined to the Church before the end of their lives.”
Pope Leo XIII, Satis Cognitum # 9: “The practice 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…But he who dissents even in one point from divinely revealed truth absolutely rejects all faith, since he thereby refuses to honor God as the supreme truth and the formal motive of faith… The Church alone offers to the human race that religion – that state of absolute perfection – which He wished, as it were, to be incorporated in it. And it alone supplies those means of salvation which accord with the ordinary counsels of Providence.”
To the contrary, The Catechism of the Catholic Church of John Paul II states:
“In her subsists the fullness of Christ’s body united with its head; this implies that she receives from him ‘the fullness of the means of salvation.’”
The catechism makes special reference to UR3 of Vatican 2 supporting the above statement:
“It follows that these separated churches and communities as such, though we believe them to be deficient in some respects, have by no means been deprived of significance and importance in the mystery of salvation. For the Spirit of Christ has not refrained from using them as means of salvation whose efficacy comes from that fullness of grace and truth which has been entrusted to the Catholic Church.”
Of course, the Vatican 2 religion advocates that clinging and embracing its religion is best because it has the fullness of means, but it doesn’t teach that its membership is a necessary precept because non-Catholic churches have a means to salvation, just not the fullness thereof.
Therefore, the church of Vatican 2 lacks the mark of catholicity.
Fourth Mark: “Apostolic”
It’s been demonstrated that the Vatican 2 church is not one, holy, or catholic, and it most certainly is not apostolic. It’s a sect founded in the 1960’s claiming to be Catholic, which necessarily means the church and its pope are counterfeit.
The Roman Catechism:
“The true Church is also to be recognised from her origin, which can be traced back under the law of grace to the Apostles; for her doctrine is the truth not recently given, nor now first heard of, but delivered of old by the Apostles, and disseminated throughout the entire world. Hence no one can doubt that the impious opinions which heresy invents, opposed as they are to the doctrines taught by the Church from the days of the Apostles to the present time, are very different from the faith of the true Church.
That all, therefore, might know which was the Catholic Church, the Fathers, guided by the Spirit of God, added to the Creed the word Apostolic. For the Holy Ghost, who presides over the Church, governs her by no other ministers than those of Apostolic succession. This Spirit, first imparted to the Apostles, has by the infinite goodness of God always continued in the Church. And just as this one Church cannot err in faith or morals, since it is guided by the Holy Ghost; so, on the contrary, all other societies arrogating to themselves the name of church, must necessarily, because guided by the spirit of the devil, be sunk in the most pernicious errors, both doctrinal and moral.”
The church of Vatican 2 has erred in both faith and morals. Therefore, it can’t be the one true Church founded by Christ and guided by the Holy Ghost.
The church of Vatican 2 is guided by the spirit of the devil. Therefore, it must be sunk in its most pernicious doctrine and moral errors along with its head.
A true pope can’t be head of a false religion.
The church of Vatican 2 is a false religion.
The Vatican 2 popes are not true popes.
[1] The First Vatican Council (Vatican 1) stated:
[The object of faith]. Further, by divine and Catholic faith, all those things must be believed which are contained in the written word of God and in tradition, and those which are proposed by the Church, either in a solemn pronouncement or in her ordinary and universal teaching power, to be believed as divinely revealed. (Dogmatic Constitution concerning the Catholic Faith, Ch. 3, FIRST VATICAN COUNCIL, Pope Pius IX) (Denz. 1792)
Pope Pius IX stated: “And, we cannot pass over in silence the boldness of those who “not enduring sound doctrine” [II Tim. 4:3], contend that “without sin and with no loss of Catholic profession, one can withhold assent and obedience to those judgments and decrees of the Apostolic See, whose object is declared to relate to the general good of the Church and its right and discipline, provided it does not touch dogmas of faith or morals.” There is no one who does not see and understand clearly and openly how opposed this is to the Catholic dogma of the plenary power divinely bestowed on the Roman Pontiff by Christ the Lord Himself of feeding, ruling, and governing the universal Church.” (Pope Pius IX Quanta Cura Dec 8, 1864)
“You will firmly abide by the true decision of the Holy Roman Church and to this Holy See, which does not permit errors.” (Lateran Council V, Bull ‘Cum postquam’ by Pope Leo X)
Pope Leo XIII, Satis Cognitum (# 9), June 29, 1896: “The practice 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.”
[2] In an interview with the German newspaper, Frankfurter Allgemeine, Ratzinger, aka Benedict XVI, stated: “When the Council Fathers replace the word ‘is,’ used by Pius XII, with the word ‘subsistit,’ they did so for a very precise reason. The concept expressed by ‘is’ (to be) is far broader than that expressed by ‘to subsist.’ ‘To subsist’ is a very precise way of being, that is, to be as a subject, which exists in itself. Thus the Council Fathers meant to say: the being of the Church as such extends much further than the Roman Catholic Church, but within the latter it acquires, in an incomparable way, the character of a true and proper subject.”
Vatican 2 theologians confirm this meaning taught by Ratzinger.
Avery Cardinal Dulles, a member of the International Theological Commission: “The Church of Christ is not exclusively identical to the Roman Catholic Church. It does indeed subsist in Roman Catholicism but it is also present in varying modes and degrees in other Christian communities.” (Toward the Church of the Third Millennium: Verso la Chiesa del Terzo Millennio, Brescia: Queriniana, 1979)
Fr. Edward Schillebeeckx, one of the main drafters of Vatican II documents, stated: “It is difficult to say that the Catholic Church is still one, Catholic, apostolic, when one says that the others (other Christian communities) are equally one, Catholic and apostolic, albeit to a lesser degree. —- at Vatican Council II, the Roman Catholic Church officially abandoned its monopoly over the Christian religion.”
On May 25, 1995, John Paul II, in Ut Unum Sint, n. 59, approved the Balamand declaration.
1993 Balamand Statement:
On each side it is recognized that what Christ has entrusted to his Church – profession of apostolic faith, participation in the same sacraments, above all the one priesthood celebrating the one sacrifice of Christ, the apostolic succession of bishops – cannot be considered the exclusive property of one of our Churches.
Comment: Apostolic faith consists on recognizing the authority of Rome as Head of the Church. Only the Catholic Church professes the apostolic faith. Yet the document denies this truth.
14. It is in this perspective that the Catholic Churches and the Orthodox Churches recognize each other as Sister Churches, responsible together for maintaining the Church of God in fidelity to the divine purpose, most especially in what concerns unity.
In a Jan. 22, 2013 L’Osservatore Romano article titled: The divisions among Christians disfigure the face of the Church, it was written that Benedict XVI said, “One of the gravest sins ‘that disfigure the Church’s face’ is the sin ‘against her visible unity’, and, in particular, ‘the historical divisions which separated Christians and which have not yet been surmounted’”.
The two references of the “Church’s face” and “Against her visible unity” is a point blank denial of the dogma that the visible Church is one in faith.
[3] Vatican 2: UNITATIS REDINTEGRATIO – Decree on Ecumenism
CHAPTER II – THE PRACTICE OF ECUMENISM
8. This change of heart and holiness of life, along with public and private prayer for the unity of Christians, should be regarded as the soul of the whole ecumenical movement, and merits the name, “spiritual ecumenism.”….
In certain special circumstances, such as the prescribed prayers “for unity,” and during ecumenical gatherings, it is allowable, indeed desirable that Catholics should join in prayer with their separated brethren. Such prayers in common are certainly an effective means of obtaining the grace of unity, and they are a true expression of the ties which still bind Catholics to their separated brethren. “For where two or three are gathered together in my name, there am I in the midst of them”.
Speray's Catholicism in a Nutshell 
Good article well needed to remind those knockleheads who believe these men are popes
Sent from my iPad
>
A blessed Christmas to all of you, regardless of our differences.
God Bless all.
Pete
Steve, if the Church that purports to be the Catholic Church does not possess the marks, where is the visible Church that does possess them? Note that the true Church is both formally and materially visible, and it is indefectible. Where is that Church?
SPERAY REPLIES: Robert, since I’ve demonstrated that your church doesn’t possess a single mark, we know that it’s not it. The Catholic Church is the Church that has the four marks. It’s one in faith, not divided as your religion and popes teach formally. It’s holy, not unholy as your Vat2 religion formally promulgates by law and decree. It’s Catholic and Apostolic, not as your Vat2 religion which was created by Freemasons in the 1960’s. Where is the Catholic Church? It’s where it always has been, it remains with the Faithful Catholics who don’t pick and choose what parts of the Faith they will believe and follow. We have bishops and priests, too. We are just as visible as ever and can be seen and entered into. It’s right in front of you with all four marks.
I should ask you the same question, where’s the true Church?
Steve,
I can demonstrate that the Church that everyone except the sedevacantists considers the Catholic Church has not lost a single mark.
SPERAY REPLIES: Your church is not even Catholic, Robert. It even rejects the indefectibility of the Church.
It is currently undergoing a Passion similar to that of Christ, which has caused many to lose their Faith in the Church (just as the Apostles lost their Faith in Christ during His Passion), but it has not lost a single mark.
SPERAY REPLIES: There’s your problem. The Church will never lose any marks, but you have accepted the counterfeit church as the true Church. I agree that the Church is going through the Passion, but you are not part of it. In fact, you reject the marks as well. You are like one of the false witnesses brought forth to testify against Christ at His trial.
But if you say the Church everyone but sedevacantists recognize as the Catholic Church is not, in fact, the Catholic Church, you need to point to the Church that possesses the marks, since it is de fide that the true Church is indefectible and that it will always possess the four marks.
SPERAY REPLIES: I actually attend Holy Mass of the Catholic Church. So pointing to it is not a problem. You actually defend the counterfeit church and its satanic pope as your pope. So I don’t care what you think you can do. We know better and have proved you wrong on every single point you’ve made thus far.
This is an important point as it demonstrate that sedevacantism is not only a schism (in the true sense of the word), but it is also a heretical sect, since it denies the indefectibility of the visible Church. This becomes clear when one looks closely at what is meant by the attribute of indefectibility.
SPERAY REPLIES: WRONG! You obviously don’t know what indefectibility means. Your church is a NEW church with new heretical laws which are impossible for the true Church. Ott explains indefectibility nicely and he explains how modernists reject it. Oh, did you know that your church is modernist? It is the synthesis of all heresies.
Do you believe the sedevacantist sect possesses the four marks? If so, explain how.
SPERAY REPLIES: Sedevacantism is a position, not a sect. Not all sedes are Catholic, but you have lumped them all together. We are the Catholic Church, and the four marks are explained nicely by our religion. Your religion is not Catholic at all!!!!! Yet, you will claim that it is. You even deny the first mark of oneness of your own religion. You don’t even believe as your popes on dogmas and divine laws of the Church. Your religion is divided in faith externally. It is formally and materially heretical, which is obvious to those that have the true Faith.
Lastly, you didn’t answer my question (as usual). Where’s the true Church? Are you going to point to the Church you admit has laws and Vat2 teachings that are heretical? Where you have admitted is mostly masonic? Where you admit has a pope who is heretical? Where you attend the SSPX mass that your own pope rejects as schismatic?
You’re like the Feeneyites who are bent on rejecting BOD/BOB. It’s a sickness of pride where you can’t admit the obvious truth.
It’s beyond me how you think the first mark exists in your own church where you don’t even agree with and believe your pope, the formal teachings of Vatican 2, the 1983 Code of law, and the new mass with altar girls, all of which are part of your church!!!!!/strong>
Steve,
If, as you say, the sedevacantists “are the Catholic Church,” where is the mark of apostolicity in government found in sedevacantism? It doesn’t exist.
SPERAY REPLIES: Apostolicity is three-fold. Our origin is from Christ whose doctrines and laws are sound. Since we have apostolic succession of bishops with priests, we automatically have a hierarchy (at least materially). Do you know what a hierarchy is? You don’t even have apostolic succession anymore. Your priests and bishops are invalid. You don’t have apostolicity in faith! Your origin is the 1960’s by Freemasons. Your church rejects the Catholic Faith on the nature of the Church, communicatio in sacris, etc. and it has laws and disciplines that have been condemned as evil. YOU EVEN REJECT THE CATHOLIC FAITH DEFINED AT VATICAN I. YOU OPENINGLY DEFEND A SUPERMODERNIST DEVIL AS YOUR POPE!!!!!YOU OPENLY UNITE YOURSELF TO MODERNISTS IN PRAYER AND WORSHIP AND CLAIM ITS ALL PART OF THE ONE CHURCH. The fact that you make the false accusation that the Catholic Church, which I belong is not apostolic, but your counterfeit religion is apostolic, is totally absurd.
None of the sed bishops have jurisdiction, which means sedevacantism lacks that mark of apostolicity.
SPERAY REPLIES: WRONG! None of your bishops have jurisdiction as we’ve shown you over and over. Your bishops have abandoned the Catholic faith for the counterfeit religion.
The only Church that even claims to have bishops who received their jurisdiction from a Pope is the Church that everyone but the sedevacantist sects recognize as the Catholic Church. If that Church doesn’t have it, it doesn’t exit.
SPERAY REPLIES: You don’t understand the nature of the Church, which is why you make such remarks. Your church doesn’t even claim the Catholic religion as the only church of the Church of Christ.
You’ll be able to read my long answer to how the Church has retained the marks in spite of the Passion it is enduring in a few months.
SPERAY REPLIES: And you’ll read our short and easy answer why you’re wrong as always. I’m willing to bet right now that you’ll have the same tired arguments that I’ve already debunked. You’ll have the same lies about Bellarmine, the laws, etc. Worse case scenario, if we are wrong, you aren’t right by default.
For now, the burden of proof is on you to show how your religion (sedevacantism) possesses the four marks, without having a legitimate hierarchy. If you can’t show it, you need to concede that your religion is simply a nothing more than a non-Catholic sect.
SPERAY REPLIES: My Church is one in faith, which yours is not. My Church is holy as all of our doctrines, laws, and disciplines are holy. Yours have evil laws and practices as I’ve demonstrated a dozen times. If fact, you have already denied the Catholic religion in your articles on laws and disciplines. If you had paid closer attention to my article, which you obviously didn’t and won’t do, you’d see how my Church is also Catholic and Apostolic, and how yours is not. You’ll have to give a long convoluted answer how your religion has the marks which it obviously doesn’t have. My article already PROVES it. Your entire 700 plus page book will be nothing but a book of lies. You sound like Peter Dimond who claims to have the answer against BOD/BOB. I have proved my Church has the 4 marks.
SPERAY REPLIES: Apostolicity is three-fold. Our origin is from Christ whose doctrines and laws are sound. Since we have apostolic succession of bishops with priests, we automatically have a hierarchy (at least materially).
Reply: The various sedevacantist sect(s) originated in the 1970’s (and later); and material apostolic succession is not enough. Even the Orthodox have that. If you can’t show sedevacantist bishops with ordinary jurisdiction received from a pope, you need to admit that your sect lacks that mark.
SPERAY REPLY: Really? Where do you get your info? I personally know sede’s from the 1960’s, and know of one who existed in 1958 after Roncalli’s election. As for ordinary jurisdiction for bishops and priests, if I lived in another time and another place where I was unaware exactly where some priest or bishop lived doesn’t mean that I would have to prove that one exist in this or that place. I know one exists somewhere because of Christ’s promise. Therefore, the burden of proof is not on me to tell you where they are but for you to prove that none exist.
However, I’m not necessarily conceding that there must necessarily exist at least one bishop with ordinary jurisdiction, in order for the Church to continue to exist without essential defect. Do you have an authority that says such a thing???? I have found 3 authorities that deny the assertion.
We may have a mystery, but you have a contradiction.
I do have two possible explanations that explain the dilemma, but I’ll wait until your book is published to tell what it is. I’m still working on my book that gives the two possible answers.
Btw, what about your heretical bishops?
Your sect also lack the mark of holiness, since it publicly teaches heresies about the nature and visibility of the Church;
SPERAY REPLY: That’s funny. Your counterfeit sect teaches heresies about the nature of the Church but your sect is holy. What a hypocrite you are!
it lack unity, since the various sedevacantist sects are completely divided one from another (often accusing each other of being heretics);
SPERAY REPLY: I’ve already answered this one. Not all sedes are Catholic so your argument is moot. Yet, your sect is divided in faith with the SSPX rejecting Vat2 and the new mass, not following the ordinaries, and others advocating homosexual marriage, artificial contraception, to religious liberty, etc. Yet, you are unified? Again, you’re a hypocrite!
it lacks the mark of catholicity, since it does not possess “moral catholicity” which the Church will always possess.
SPERAY REPLY: You don’t know what you’re talking about!
But instead of arguing that the Catholic Church does not possess the marks, simply demonstrate that your sect does possess them, by, firstly, pointing to a sedevacantist bishop with ordinary jurisdiction. If you don’t have one (and you don’t) your sect lacks that mark. It is that simple. And if the Catholic Church doesn’t have it (and it does), it doesn’t exist anywhere.
SPERAY REPLY: It does exist, but your sect is not it.
Regarding the new rite of episcopal consecration and priestly ordination, they are entirely valid. In fact, a strong case could be made that the new form for episcopal consecration more clearly signifies the sacramental effect than does the old form.
SPERAY REPLY: We’ll see after your book comes out. However, even if your sect didn’t change anything (which I honestly wished it didn’t change Holy Orders), can you point to a bishop in your sect that believes and publicly professes the Catholic faith whole and inviolate, or do you make the same claim that one must exist somewhere but you don’t know where exactly?
Steve, how would you define the notion of the visible Church?
Robert, Robert, Robert. When will you ever learn? You expect me to answer all your questions, but you refuse to answer mine. I’ll tell you this much, I don’t define the notion of the visible Church the way you do. You define it as a self-crucifying church that has some truth and some error like every other religion in the world. You define it as a church filled with visibly heretical councils, catechisms, laws, practices, and popes.
Just answer this one question and I won’t ask any others: How to you define the visible Church? It is not a hard question.
Speray replies: What do the popes say?
Why doesn’t Mr.Siscoe answer ONE QUESTION? I too wish the novus ordo hadn’t changed holy orders.
Speray replies: Siscoe has teamed up with John Salza to publish a huge book against sedevacantism. You won’t find them answering any questions in that book truthfully either. If you read Siscoe’s articles and comments, you’ll see that he’s been wrong about everything. He misrepresents Bellarmine, the law, etc. Siscoe will do whatever it takes. Right now he’s fishing for more info so that he can distort it for his book. He and Salza’s book will have precisely the same lies that we’ve exposed over and over. Its useless trying to talk with them. I’m keeping in mind Matt. 7:6.
Steve,
I have answered all of your questions in the past, but you’ve shown that you’re incapable of understanding the answer. That’s why I have bothered to re-answer your questions here. But if there is one specific question you have, I will be happy to answer it if you will give me your definition of the visible Church. But if I answer your question you will have to agree to allow my reply to remain in whole, without interjecting comments throughout the reply.
Speray replies: I answered your question but you’re incapable of understanding the answer. I’m not going to play your little games. Go away! I will not post anymore of your comments.
Robert,
Steve answered your question by asking you the question What do the Popes say. From your past answers you say individual lay people cannot “judge” the pope but that it takes the “Church” to do so and that he needs to be warned etc. etc.
I think you don’t care what the popes said before Vatican II because Jorge Bergoglio is your visible pope and all that stuff from the past must not (according to you) apply for today.
Let me ask you a couple questions Robert. Why won’t you be obedient to Francis I whom you think is pope? Do you recogonize John Paul II as a saint in heaven? If John Paul II is a saint than that means the Koran that he kissed, the zoroastrian stole he wore, the bindi he received on his forehead by a hindu etc. should be venerated by all Catholics as second class relics. Do you deny this?
I don’t understand why people are afraid of the word sedevacante. It just means the chair of St. Peter is vacant. Did not the Catholic Church say through Pope Paul IV in the 1500’s that if the Roman Pontiff fell into heresy that it would be automatic and he would no longer be the pope losing everything including jurisdiction, office, power, title etc.
Dominic,
Starting with your last point, no Paul IV did not say a pope who fell into heresy would automatically cease to be pope. What he said is that a pope who deviated from the faith could be contradicted (there’s the answer to why I don’t follow the erroneous teachings of Pope Francis). What you are thinking of is that Paul IV said the election of a pope who fell into heresy PRIOR to being elected would null and void; but, as a close examination of the Cum Ex Apostolatus shows (and common sense confirms), the judgment of whether he fell into heresy prior to the election would be made by the Church, not individual Catholics in the street. Once the judgment was made, the penalty would be retroactive (that is, the election would be rendered null), but not without the judgment being rendered. This would all take place in an orderly fashion by the Church authorities, not by the private judgment of Catholics in the street.
SPERAY REPLIES: No, you’re wrong again Siscoe. You don’t know what you’re talking about. I’ve posted Cum ex and it’s plain to all what it means.
You ask why people are afraid of sedevacantism. I’m certainly not afraid of it.
SPERAY REPLIES: YES, you’re afraid of it. You didn’t answer Dominics questions either. When I tell how the new mass is impossible, you say it wasn’t officially promulgated. When I explain how altar girls go against Trent’s canon, you say Trent’s canon wasn’t speaking about the novus ordo mass therefore it doesn’t apply. When I tell you that Bellarmine said Liberius lost his office because as Bellarmines teaches, Liberius appeared to be a heretic, you say that was an exception, and then you write in article that it was sede impedita which is not what Bellarmine teaches. You’re so afraid of sedevacantism, that you make up the silliest arguments and lie about the facts to keep from having to go there. We all see it, but you don’t.
The problem I have with Sedevacantism is that it is an utterly erroneous and untenable position. It is full of erroneous and/or unproven premises leading to false conclusions. I admit that it looks as if could be possible on the surface (I myself wondered at one point, and was completely open to the possibility), but as soon as you begin to dig into it (as I did), it falls apart entirely. In fact, the more Sedevacantist materials I read, the more I conclude that they are more ignorant than Novus Ordo Catholics. Steve’s website, for example, is full or errors and heresies. I have tried to show Steve his errors, but he is utterly unable to see them.
SPERAY REPLIES: You’ve not shown one single error much less full of errors and heresies. I have demonstrated over and over again how you lie about everyone and everything such as Bellarmine, the law, etc. You refuse to see the obvious. You’re position is the heretical one, Robert. You reject Vatican I and the law.
There must come appoint in which God abandons those who spend their life attacking his suffering Church. This seems to be the explanation of the COMPLETE blindness.
SPERAY REPLIES: I agree. You suffer from COMPLETE blindness. You still can’t admit that Bellarmine undercuts your entire position with Liberius case. Rev. Augustine was most clear in his commentary that public heresy causes one to lose office. You’re a complete liar about everything.
And Steve did not answer the (simple) question I asked, but instead, he replied with another question. The reason Steven won’t answer the question is because he CAN’T answer the question (as I said before, Sedevacantism is untenable. They attack, but their own position cannot be defended).
SPERAY REPLIES: I have the answer but I’m giving you the opportunity to play it out but you won’t do it. I asked you what the popes say about it. You accuse of us of going against a dogma, and dogmas come from definitions from popes. Can you tell us the definition of a visible church from the teachings of the popes?
Wait until you see how sedevacantists answer this basic question Steve can’t answer. You will be surprised. They all profess the Protestant heresy PUBLICLY regarding the visible Church. Now, in your opinion, what happens when someone publicly professes a heresy? Do they cease to be Catholic?
SPERAY REPLIES: You have publicly professed heresies in your articles and in the comments in my blog. I’ve demonstrated them over and over again, yet, you continue on in your heresies lying about us.
Lastly, consider the rotten fruits of the sedevacantist sects (which are certainly not part of the Catholic Church). The fruits could not be more bitter and pernicious. The sedevacantist apologists make the Webstboro Baptist sect look like angels. These rotten fruit is more evidence of the rotten tree.
SPERAY REPLIES: You’ve already used this argument and I’ve already debunked a dozen times, but you refuse to see the obvious. Look at your own sect, and all the rotten fruits. You have them by law and decree, too. Just take a look at Revolution in Pictures by Tradition in Action. You’re a total hypocrite!!!!
Steve,
You raise all the same questions that I have answered numerous times.
SPERAY REPLIES: You’re not honest. You don’t answer questions.
You have absolutely no idea what you are talking about when it comes to canon law (and everything else). You don’t understand the terminology; you mix and match unrelated items, and draw false conclusion. I’ve tried to help you see the truth, but it is hopeless.
SPERAY REPLES: You have absolutely no idea what you are talking about when it comes to canon law (and everything else). You don’t understand the terminology; you mix and match unrelated items, and draw false conclusion. I’ve tried to help you see the truth, but it is hopeless. See, two can play that game.
Regarding your errors, I will point out just one now. Not because it is the worst (far from it), but only because I happened to read it just recently and it is fresh in my mind. The following comes from one of your “refutations” of John Salza. It is one of many errors found in your reply.
Salza wrote: “In short, the Sedevacantist thesis rests entirely upon the private judgment of its own adherents. Sedevacantism is, in fact, nothing more than Protestantism by professing Catholics – a hodge-podge of private opinions by splintering factions without any internal controls. This is why various branches of sedevacantism have already elected about 20 different popes throughout the world! They are sure that we don’t have a true pope, but they cannot even agree on who the real pope is!”
Here is your reply. The part to call attention to is in caps:
Speray: This is so ridiculous that it’s hard to believe he would make such a stupid statement. …This argument by Salza could be used by anybody. I could say Salza uses his private judgment that Ratzinger is pope. After all, EVERYBODY WE’VE ACCEPTED AS TRUE POPES THOUGHOUT THE YEARS IS BY PRIVATE JUDGMENT. Sure, someone elected them, but we must ultimately accept them by our own judgment.” (End)
Reply: I bet you still don’t see the problem with your “reasoning,” do you? Here’s the problem: When the Church elects a pope and presents the man to the Church as being pope (“Habemus Papam”), it is not an act of private judgment when the faithful accept him as being pope (any more than it is an act of private judgment to accept a dogma that has been defined by the Church).
SPERAY REPLIES: I was making a point and you left out the rest of my answer which explains what I meant. I actually gave examples later but I see you don’t bring them up because they prove you wrong. Here is the rest of my answer…If you follow Salza’s argument, the Church would have been obligated to follow several antipopes in history such as Anacletus II. He was an antipope and most of the cardinals recognized him. Benedict X was an antipope and reigned for 9 months. Follow Salza’s private judgment and you are expected to follow these antipopes, since you’re not allowed to follow your own private judgment that an antipope is an antipope.
On the contrary, those who reject the man who was elected and presented by the Church as being pope, are relying on their private judgment in opposition to the judgment of the Church. In this case, the private judgment of the individual is in direct contradiction to the public judgment of the Church.
SPERAY REPLIES: Cum ex proves you wrong. Read it again especially the italicized parts…
6. In addition, [by this Our Constitution, which is to remain valid in perpetuity We enact, determine, decree and define:] that if ever at any time it shall appear that any Bishop, even if he be acting as an Archbishop, Patriarch or Primate; or any Cardinal of the aforesaid Roman Church, or, as has already been mentioned, any legate, or 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;
(ii) it shall not be possible for it to acquire validity (nor for it to be said that it has thus acquired validity) through the acceptance of the office, of consecration, of subsequent authority, nor through possession of administration, nor through the putative enthronement of a Roman Pontiff, or Veneration, or obedience accorded to such by all, nor through the lapse of any period of time in the foregoing situation;
(iii) it shall not be held as partially legitimate in any way;
(iv) to any so promoted to be Bishops, or Archbishops, or Patriarchs, or Primates or elevated as Cardinals, or as Roman Pontiff, no authority shall have been granted, nor shall it be considered to have been so granted either in the spiritual or the temporal domain;
(v) each and all of their words, deeds, actions and enactments, howsoever made, and anything whatsoever to which these may give rise, shall be without force and shall grant no stability whatsoever nor any right to anyone;
(vi) those thus promoted or elevated shall be deprived automatically, and without need for any further declaration, of all dignity, position, honour, title, authority, office and power.
So the pope’s teaching just proved you wrong.
Everything we accept is by private judgment. We use our private judgment to accept the Faith or not. You use your private judgment against the Catholic Faith and accept only what you want to accept by true popes and the false popes you believe are true popes. You’re a joke, Robert! You don’t even follow your own religion. You are your own little sect.
Now, if history is any indication of the present, you will not be able to understand what I just wrote. You will not comprehend the difference between accepting something proposed by the Church, and simply forming a private judgment. And then you will continue to post on your website that you “refuted” Salza with your explanation.
SPERAY REPLIES: Pope Paul IV refuted it. I also have presented historical precedents but you will not be able to understand and yet you will continue with your same ole same ole arguments. Again, you don’t even follow your own religion.
And if my articles are as bad as you claim, how do you explain my receiving e-mails from priests all over the world who have either abandoned the sedevacantism sect, or else stopped short just before embracing the error, after reading the articles? These are men who have been formally trained in theology, whereas you are less than a rank amateur.
SPERAY REPLIES: Interesting that you bring it up. I’ve had several priests refer to me as doctor and one theological professor thanking me for my witness. But to answer your questions, I know how dishonest novus ordo priests are. I’ve gone to speak with dozens of them and they all (without exception) refuse to answer the questions (like you) and all of them continue to promote their Vatican 2 religion. I have witnesses to this fact, too. Your priests are looking for a way and will accept any answer given regardless if it actually deals with issues. Also, you’re a liar. You have publicly misrepresented St Robert Bellarmine in all of your writings as I’ve demonstrated. You have misrepresented Canon law and Rev. Augustine such as canon 188.4 who Augustine plainly explains “tacit resignation” is public heresy. You lie about everything! You belong in your Vatican 2 religion. Your “pope” Francis is a perfect fit for you. After all, you Vatican 2 “catholics” can believe whatever you want and still be a member in your church. What a complete joke!!!!!!
Robert,
I don’t me to be rude, but I never asked you a question regarding my comments about Pope Paul IV and his document on Cum Ex from the 1500’s. I was just making a comment about it. I asked you about whether you would recognize John Paul 2 as a saint and if you acknowledged whether the koran he kissed, the Zoroastrian Stole he wore, and the bindi that he received from the Hindu as second class relics on behalf of the whole Church? You never answered. Are you ashamed? Why do you answer comments instead of questions?
I will make a comment to your comment about Pope Paul IV.
You said… “What he (Pope Paul IV) said is that a pope who deviated from the faith could be contradicted.
This is totally absurd.
Read below and show me where he says if a pope deviated from the faith he could be contradicted
Pope Paul IV 1559 Cum Ex Apostolatus Officio
“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.”
All Sedevacantist are not alike. Neither are Novus Ordos SSPX or Feenyites alike either in there beliefs. In fact your whole Novus Ordo Church is more diverse with people who have more erroneous opinions because they are lead by your Jorge Bergoglio who doesn’t even care whether he speaks Heresy. You cannot lump all sedevacantist together.
Dominic,
Regarding canonizations, the first thing to note is that I have the exact same problems with JPII as you do.
SPERAY REPLIES: You shouldn’t since you hold that it’s a dogmatic fact that Francis is pope.
I also expect many of the Acts of the recent popes to be rendered null when the current crisis ends, and I would not be one bit surprised if some of the recent popes were declared heretics by the Church.
SPERAY REPLIES: I already dealt with this with you. A dogmatic fact is a fact that can’t change. Therefore, since you hold that it’s a dogmatic fact that Francis is pope, you must hold that it’s infallibly certain that JPII is a saint and the acts by recent popes can’t be reversed. You accused me of error with my “private judgment” explanation, yet you go against your own principles. You must accept the acts of your recent popes on canonizations since they are infallible and immutable. It’s not about private judgment, right?
But what do you think the infallibility of canonizations guarantees? And assuming you believe it is “impossible” for JPII to have been canonized by a true pope (which some Sedevacantists believe), explain why?
Regarding Cum ex Aposolatus.
You (Dominic) wrote: “I will make a comment to your comment about Pope Paul IV. You said… ‘What he (Pope Paul IV) said is that a pope who deviated from the faith could be contradicted.’ This is totally absurd. Read below and show me where.”
My Reply: You did not cite the part I was referring to. You cited a different section. But the section you did cite only confirms another point that I made. First, here is the part I was referring to regarding contradicting a pope who deviates from the Faith:
Cum ex Apostolatus: “In assessing Our duty and the situation now prevailing, We have been weighed upon by the thought that a matter of this kind is so grave and so dangerous [to the Faith] that the ROMAN PONTIFF, who is the representative upon earth of God and our God and Lord Jesus Christ, who holds the fullness of power over peoples and kingdoms, who may judge all and be judged by none in this world, MAY NONETHELESS BE CONTRADICTED IF HE BE FOUND TO HAVE DEVIATED FROM THE FAITH.”
Notice, he says the Roman Pontiff, the representative of God on earth, may be contradicted. He does not say a FORMER pope (who lost his office for heresy) could be contradicted. Please tell me how the above statement from Paul IV differs from what I said, which you referred to as being “totally absurd”.
SPERAY REPLIES: Why may the pope be contradicted if he be found to have deviated from the faith???? Because he’s no longer pope at that moment that he deviates from the faith. Read Cum ex in full. It’s totally clear but you have to twist its plain meaning because it refutes your entire argument.
Regarding the portion of Cum ex you cited in your reply, did you not notice what he was referring to? As I wrote in the previous post, he is referring to one who deviated from the faith PRIOR to being elected. He says the election of one who fell into heresy PRIOR to being elected is null.
Cum ex Apostolatus: “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…”
But the judgment of whether a pope fell into heresy prior to his election is not made by individual Catholics in the street but by the competent authorities in the Church.
Speray replies: You missed two points. First, the Church could say “Habemus Papam” and he wouldn’t be the pope, but you faulted me on private judgment and said he would be pope. Secondly, the beforehand reference can refer to finding out after the election, too. But also, judgment on whether a cardinal falls into heresy can be judged by any Catholic and it’s our duty to do so. We must recognize heretics, especially the higher-ups precisely because the mess we find today. Pope St. Celestine I confirmed and approved the average lay Catholic for rejecting by their own private judgment that Nestorius lost his office of Patriarch of Constantinople.
Steve,
You do not have a clue. Your writings are so bad it is actually embarrassing.
SPERAY REPLIES: Yet, you continue on. Why? Because I’ve exposed you as the liar that you are and you know it. It bothers you so much that you have been proven wrong on every point that you’ll continue to lie about the issues.
All of you ravings have been answers, but you are unable to understand the answer. You misrepresent the teachings of Bellarmine;
SPERAY REPLIES: WRONG. That’s your specialty. Bellarmine was clear about Liberius and you continue to lie about it. It’s astounding that you can say that I misrepresent him. YOU’RE A SICK MAN!
you openly reject all of the theologians and canonists I have quoted in the past when you are unable to twist them to fit you opinion (remember how you declared “they’re all wrong!);
SPERAY REPLIES: All of the theologians and canonists? You have a select few and I have the majority on my side. I don’t have to twist anything. Yes, they are all wrong when they go against all the saints and popes, especially Vatican I.
and you clearly have no clue about canon law.
SPERAY REPLIES: I actually go to canon lawyers to get their input. You clearly have no clue about canon law.
You’re a member of a heretical sect,
SPERAY REPLIES: A heretical sect would be a sect that teaches heresy. That would be you, not me. Your religion teaches heresy by your own admission.
and, as is commonly the case with members of heretical sects, you spend you life attacking the Mystical Body of Christ.
SPERAY REPLIES: You aren’t a member of the Body of Christ. As Pope Pius XII taught, only those who profess the true faith are to be considered members of the body of Christ. You don’t believe Vatican I. You reject Pope Pius IX who condemns you in Quanta cura.
It will take a miracle for the scales to fall from your eyes.
SPERAY REPLIES: It will take an exorcism for you.
Speray: “Yes, they are all wrong when they go against all the saints and popes, especially Vatican I.”
Reply: But the theologians I am referring to (Billot, Van Noort, Fr. Berry) all came after Vatican I. When I refuted one of your many errors by citing them, you said “they’re wrong”. I have many others who directly contradict your “interpretation” of Vatican I.
Speray replies: I answered your Billot and Berry argument and they refute you. Apparently you didn’t read my reply very closely because I showed how you have taken your private interpretation of Billot and Berry’s teaching to fit your private theology. Your dogmatic facts argument kills you, not me.
Now what seems more likely, that they all misunderstood Vatican I, or that it is you who misunderstands Vatican I?
Speray Replies: No, you misunderstand all of them and you reject Vatican I. Besides, Billot and Berry’s position isn’t addressed at Vatican I. Billot and Berry’s teaching isn’t addressed very clearly by any popes. It’s a matter of theological opinion. You seem to think theological opinions by theologians are dogmas and then accuse us of being heretics for not accepting all of their teachings. That’s not how it works.
No need to answer, I already know you will consider your private interpretation to be the only correct one and anyone who disagrees to be “wrong”.
Speray replies: You are wrong on everything. You will consider your private interpretation to be dogma and those who don’t accept your private interpretation, you’ll consider them heretics.
And again, Steve, you have refuted nothing I’ve written.
Speray replies: I’ve refuted it all. What’s more, Cekada, Daly, etc. have refuted your garbage a long time ago. You and Salza just keep repeating old arguments.
You just keep repeating the same old arguments/errors that I have already responded to and refuted. I responded to your ravings in The Remnant (and received notes from people saying they were leaving Sedevacantism after reading it)
Speray replies: Your Remnant article is filled with lies and The Remnant wouldn’t post my reply. If you have led people out of sedevacantism, then that will be a very bad for you on Judgment Day!
and I offered, once again, to respond here to any argument you have (your very best one).
Speray reply: You won’t even answer what do the popes have to say.
The only conditions were that you allow the answer to remain whole (without interjecting comments throughout), and that you answer one simple question of mine. You refused to answer the simple question, and instead just keep repeating that you refuted me, etc. But it is probably all for the best. The long answer to all of your errors – and they are legion – will be available soon enough.
Speray replies: You still don’t get it. I asked you what do the popes say about it. You can’t point to any popes that say what you’re saying. That’s why you don’t provide any. You lose!
You criticize the Dimond Brother for their behavior, but you are just as bad, if not worse.
Speray replies: Unbelievable! Your behavior is precisely like the Dimonds. You keep lying about the issues.
Rotten fruits are the curse of the Sedevacantist sect, which clearly reveals, for those with eyes to see, that the tree itself is rotten.
Speray replies: Only a novus ordo defender would say such a thing. You are actually worse than your “popes.”
You see these rotten fruits in the others, but what you don’t see is that you are just as bad. In fact, you may be the worst of all, which is quite an accomplishment.
Speray replies: Boy, did I get to you! You don’t provide any evidence for anything you say. You make one false accusation after another. Where’s your next comment going to go? I bet you won’t provide those teachings from the popes that say what your saying.
Robert,
Why do you accuse Steve and sedevacantist of heresy and part of another sect apart from the Catholic Church? You’re a lay person and it’s your own private judgment to make such a statement. According to you it would have to be up to the decision of the Church and they would have to give two warnings first.
The Novus Ordo Church ( I assume you belong to it) hasn’t said anything officially against sedevacantism. However Bergoglio has said in a sermon that Traditionalist are resisting the Holy Spirit. This could mean a wide variety of “Trads” including if not limited to the SSPX. He critiques those who hold on to tradition, but embraces everybody else who reject Christ. Is he not a traitor along with his Predecessors since John XXIII?
Steve has already shown how the Novus Ordo Church formally denies that the Church is one in Faith. He has shown how the New Church shares in Communicatio in Sacris with other religions and how this has repeatedly been condemned by the Church from Pope Pius XII’s time and before. He has shown how other practices in the Novus Ordo have been previously condemned by popes such as Altar girls etc.
What have you shown? That a couple of obscure theologians support you position or rather your opinion? Opinions are meaningless if they don’t agree with the Church.
Dominic Wrote: “Robert, Why do you accuse Steve and sedevacantist of heresy and part of another sect apart from the Catholic Church? You’re a lay person and it’s your own private judgment to make such a statement. According to you it would have to be up to the decision of the Church and they would have to give two warnings first.”
Reply: There is a difference between a private judgment and a public judgment. I personally think John Paul II, Ratzinger and Pope Francis have all been heretics. (I also think most Sedevacantists are heretics.) That is my personal opinion. But a pope or Bishop does not lose their office over the personal opinion of a layman.
Speray replies: Of course a pope or bishop doesn’t lose their office over personal opinions of laymen. They lose it by operation of law. Also, you have a major problem. You privately think the Vatican 2 popes are heretics, therefore, you necessarily must have doubt about them as popes because you know that if a future pope nullifies their acts (which you’re hoping for) their papacy now is really meaningless. You doubt the recent canonizations of them. You should be infallibly certain when popes canonize. But again, you don’t follow them anyway. Your popes are meaningless to you now. You reject Vatican 2, the 1983 code of law, the novus ordo practices, etc, and of course, you doubt the canonizations. Your private judgment really affects everything. Objective truth is not made by private judgment, but whether you accept it is.
You’ve even gone so far as to suggest that the papacy is split into two. You’ll go to any distance to reject sedevacantism.
If Steve was a bishop, for example, and I was a layman in his diocese, I could conclude by private judgment that he was a heretics and I could hope that he was removed (just like I hope that Francis is removed by God or man). But canon law requires that Bishop Steve be issued a double-warning before being excommunicated and removed form office.
Speray replies: Rev. P. Charles Augustine, O.S.B., D.D., teaches that “excommunication [is] incurred ipso facto” and “no canonical warning or admonition is required.” Siscoe, every time we see in law “automatic, ipso facto, by law itself, operation of law, no declaration necessary” you say exactly opposite. You really reject the law itself.
In this case, my private judgment that Bishop Steve was a heretic, would have no affect whatsoever on the loss of jurisdiction.
Speray replies: No, loss of jurisdiction happens by public heresy. Canon 188: Any office becomes vacant upon the fact and without any declaration by tacit resignation recognized by the law itself if a cleric: 4. Publicly defects from the Catholic Faith. Rev. Augustine explains defection of faith as “public heresy.”
SPERAY REPLIES: Why may the pope be contradicted if he be found to have deviated from the faith???? Because he’s no longer pope at that moment that he deviates from the faith. Read Cum ex in full. It’s totally clear but you have to twist its plain meaning because it refutes your entire argument.”
Rely: Steve, if you read what it actually says, not what you want it to say, you will see what I have been saying, namely, that you have absolutely no idea what you are talking about. Here is what it says:
Cum ex Apostolatus: “In assessing Our duty and the situation now prevailing, We have been weighed upon by the thought that a matter of this kind is so grave and so dangerous [to the Faith] that THE ROMAN PONTIFF, who is the representative upon earth of God and our God and Lord Jesus Christ, who holds the fullness of power over peoples and kingdoms, who may judge all and be judged by none in this world, MAY NONETHELESS BE CONTRADICTED IF HE BE FOUND TO HAVE DEVIATED FROM THE FAITH.”
Notice it says “the Roman Pontiff … may be contradicted.” It doesn’t say “a former pope” can be contradicted, which is what you would like for it to say.
Now, I can already tell you that you will be unable to see this. Even though it says “the Roman Pontiff… the representative of God on earth” can be contradicted, nevertheless, you will “interpret” it to mean a non pope, who is not the representative of God on earth can be contradicted. And no matter how many times I show you that it specifically says “the Roman Pontiff”, and not “a former pope”, you will never be able to see it. You will always interpret “the Roman Pontiff” to mean a “non Roman Pontiff”.
Speray replies: So Robert, IS IT BY YOUR OWN PRIVATE JUDGMENT THAT A ROMAN PONTIFF HAS DEVIATED FROM THE FAITH IN ORDER THAT YOU MAY CONTRADICT HIM???? Where has your church declared the Vatican 2 popes from deviating the faith that justifies you contradicting them now?????
Based off your own argument, your own interpretation condemns you.
Also, your interpretation of the document is that a heretic can’t become a pope, but a pope can be a heretic and remain pope. In fact, the document is clear that no one can be a heretic because of the danger it entails. But you make exception for the head of the Church? That’s stupid! It’s clearly implied that a pope who has fullness of power and can’t be judged, ceases to be pope when he deviates from the faith. You can only contradict him if you judge him to have deviated from the faith, but he can’t be judged. Your interpretation necessarily makes a contradiction out of the document!
Like I’ve said, you are utterly blind. This is just one example out of countless others.
Speray replies: Right back at you! AND AS I PREDICTED, YOU DIDN’T PROVIDE THE TEACHING OF THE POPES. Another question you don’t answer. You just skip around like a Protestant that knows he’s been had. You’ve been doing this for years.
Robert,
Are you telling me that you privately believe that Francis and the rest of the gang are heretics but at the same time pope and as the Catholic Faithful we cannot believe they are not popes until the Church (bishops cardinals etc.) say they are not?
Do you think the present cardinals and bishops will warn him twice and if he doesn’t convert declare him a heretic and remove him from office any time soon? This must take place in order to fit in with what your saying? You realize this right?
Since you believe that a heretic can be pope and that the current Jorge Bergoglio is a heretic, then how are we to obey him?
We cannot go against his authority on matters of what he says even when he speaks from the ordinary magisterium. Vatican 1 says so… “all those things are to be believed with divine and Catholic faith which are contained in the Word of God, written or handed down, and which the Church, either by a solemn judgment or by her ORDINARY and universal teaching magisterium, proposes for belief as having been divinely revealed.”
Your going against this teaching above in quote aren’t you or your interpretation of Cum Ex is incorrect. If we were to go by what you are saying, then Cum Ex and Vatican 1 are contradicting each other in regards to how apply to the current situation in the Church?
You must be SSPX. A group that wants to flirt with the idea that they must have a pope no matter what and in the meantime just function without papal mandate from a pope they hate. SCHISMATIC is what it is.
Pope Boniface VIII the declared in Unam Sanctam “Furthermore, we declare, we proclaim, we define that it is absolutely necessary for salvation that every HUMAN CREATURE be SUBJECT to the Roman Pontiff.”
St. Antoninus:
“In the case in which the Pope would become a heretic, he would find himself, by that very fact alone and without any other sentence, separated from the Church. A head separated from a body cannot, as long as it remains separated, be head of the same body from which it was cut off.”
Robert you probably don’t agree with this great Saint because it leaves no room for your interpretation that he (the pope) has to been warned twice and then declared.
The Remnant is a joke for allowing you to post an article against Steve by attacking his person and at the same time speaking as insanely as you do. And those who were dumb enough to agree in their comments plainly show how (SSPX) people are so brainwashed and utterly lost. Most Sacred Heart of Jesus, Have Mercy on us!
Dominic,
Regarding this quote:
St. Antoninus: “In the case in which the Pope would become a heretic, he would find himself, by that very fact alone and without any other sentence, separated from the Church. A head separated from a body cannot, as long as it remains separated, be head of the same body from which it was cut off.”
Robert you probably don’t agree with this great Saint because it leaves no room for your interpretation that he (the pope) has to been warned twice and then declared.
Reply: A heretic according to whose judgment? The private judgment of individuals, or the judgment of the Church?
Speray replies: You say public heretic is only a heretic when the Church says so. Where does the Church say that????? Oh, that’s right, you don’t answer questions.
What if two individuals disagree about the matter? If Bob thinks he is a heretic, and Tom thinks he is not, is he the Pope for Tom, but not for Bob? Or is he the pope independent of the private judgment of individual Catholics?
Speray replies: If the pope goes around saying Jesus is not God, and Tom doesn’t think the pope is a heretic, then Tom isn’t Catholic. However, I already answered you that private judgment doesn’t make a heretic a heretic or a pope not pope. Private judgment is used to recognize who’s Catholic and who’s not, and private judgment recognizes what has already happened to the public heretic.
Here’s two quotes to show that judgment must be rendered by the Church:
Billuart: “Christ by a particular providence, for the common good and the tranquility of the Church, continues to give jurisdiction to an even manifestly heretical pontiff until such time as he should be declared a manifest heretic by the Church.”
John of St. Thomas: “So long as he has not become declared to us juridically as an infidel or heretic, be he 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.”
SPERAY REPLY: The See of Peter always remains unimpaired by any error. Therefore, the above statements are now condemned.
If you disagree with the above quotes, provide one single citation saying that a pope who judged by be a heretic by private judgment ceases to be pope. You’re not going to find such a quote, because no one has ever taught such a thing. They have all presumed judgment by the Church.
SPERAY REPLIES: No one is saying a pope ceases to be pope by private judgment. You can’t get it straight!!!!
This is clear in Bellarmine’s own response to the “Third Opinion”.
SPERAY REPLIES: Bellarmine does not say that a pope is still pope if heretical. He makes that clear in the 4th opinion and 5th opinion.
Regarding how I have spoken to Steve, I was simply responding to him just as he has been doing to me publicly for years.
SPERAY REPLIES: You’re a plain liar. You knowingly lie about the facts after you’ve been shown the truth.
I decided to respond to him in like manner to see how he would respond. Sedevacantists can dish it out, but they can’t take it.
SPERAY REPLIES: What do you mean can’t take it? You can’t take it.
I haven’t found one sedevacantist who would have a reasonable discussion without personal insults and name-calling.
And if you disagree with my interpretation of Roman Pontiff, as meaning “Roman Pontiff” (in Cum ex), give me your interpretation. Steve interprets Roman Pontiff as meaning NOT Roman Pontiff (exactly the opposite of what it says).
Speray replies: Wrong. I don’t interpret it to say NOT Roman Pontiff. It says Roman Pontiff who has fullness of power, etc. etc. What I don’t do, is think that when it says the Roman Pontiff deviates from the faith, he still remains pope. If Pope X rejected God, I might say, “We can’t listen to the pope.” That doesn’t imply that I believe he’s still pope. I wouldn’t have to say, “we can’t listen to the former pope.” I sometimes refer to Francis as pope, but that doesn’t mean I believe he’s pope. It’s just a reference and a way of speaking.
The document clearly says a Roman Pontiff who deviates from the faith can be contradicted. You confused the section saying the election of a pope who deviated form the faith PRIOR to his election is null, with the idea that a pope who deviated from the Faith AFTER being elected immediately loses his office. These are not one and the same. But both require the judgment of the Church, not private judgment.
SPERAY REPLIES: YOU DIDN’T ANSWER THE QUESTIONS AGAIN!!!! So Robert, IS IT BY YOUR OWN PRIVATE JUDGMENT THAT A ROMAN PONTIFF HAS DEVIATED FROM THE FAITH IN ORDER THAT YOU MAY CONTRADICT HIM???? Where has your church declared the Vatican 2 popes from deviating the faith that justifies you contradicting them now?????You say we can’t use private judgment to determine that a pope has lost his jurisdiction, but you can use your private judgment to disregard and reject your popes jurisdiction. That’s the whole problem with your position and that includes the SSPX who reject their popes jurisdiction and disregards the ordinaries.
Correction: Jim Conditt is the one sedevacantists I have met who is reasonable and who can discuss the issues in a calm and reasonable manner. He’s the only one I have ever met. A rare exception to the rule.
Robert,
I’m not answering any more of your questions until you answer mine. Again I never asked you about St. Antoninus. It was a comment or statement I made. Read the questions again because I’m not going to re-write them over.
I don’t agree with your private interpretation of what Cum Ex says because if I did then I would be in a pickle. That pickle is where you are at and I’m not willing to go there. Why? Because I would be in schism with a heretical pope who is leading a heretical Church which unites me with a heretical “faithful” (faithless). One could never have peace of mind because all the cardinals and bishops of the church believe in the same heresies as the heretical pope which would make it impossible for them to warn and declare him when they all need to be warned and declared as well!!! It should have happened years ago when they saw it coming, but now it is too late and the gates of Hell prevailed according to your logic. This is why automatic, ipso facto, without any need of declaration are key phrases to solve the matter.
Name me one Bishop or Cardinal in the Church who is currently alive that will dare warn Francis I of what he is doing and in turn get a majority of the bishops to make the go ahead decision to install a new pope?
SSPX Bishops don’t count because they are in schism and already have been declared so by Benedict XVI as not having having canonical status and legitimate membership in the Church. Benedict XVI said in his letter of 2009 regarding the Four SSPX bishops “As long as the Society does not have a canonical status in the Church, its ministers do not exercise legitimate ministries in the Church.” http://w2.vatican.va/content/benedict-xvi/en/letters/2009/documents/hf_ben-xvi_let_20090310_remissione-scomunica.html
Robert…I was raised Traditional Catholic 70 years ago and up until a few years after VATII…middle 60s or so. I gradually melded into Novus Ordo because everyone else did likewise and obviously how could my church and especially our Pope be wrong??? Over time it became clear and obvious something was and had been going in a deviant direction from my Traditional Catholic faith. Most thankfully I returned and have followed it as is was before VATII to a tee..ie nothing being changed. Note..nothing been changed !
I have followed this and that and other correspondence on what happened to the church and the Faith. There are many many ideas on this issue but indeed, there are clear and concise instruction for the faithful on how to cope with and accommodate such times.
What you profess and practice is NOT Catholic!!! I will not explain because I will not again fall into error or corruption of my Faith by listening to such objections, expertise and false facts like you and yours present.
You are so infatuated with Novus Ordo and discrediting the idea of a vacant chair in Rome that your sensibilities are numb to totally lacking.
I fail to see or follow what point you are trying to prove.
I don’t mean to be flippant but you have progressively achieved that perfect state of ‘ding-bat’ ! You cannot and will not go anywhere with your lost Faith and dire console to get even.
I don’t believe Bergoglio is truly a pope. I also think Ratzinger had to have been a heretic. But how will I be saved? There s no sede or even traditional mass in my country. I don’t how I can be forgiven of my mortal sins. I don’t even know if the brown scapular I wear can help me, how can Iget and remain in a state of sanctifying grace? It’s hard not to give into despair. I just want to be in Christ’s true Church,wherever it is.
In Japan, the Church went 300 years without priests. During the French Revolution, some areas went 20 years without a priest.
Make a good act of contrition everyday. Learn to live a holy life and avoid sin.
Wear the Brown Scapular and pray the Rosary daily.
Do the best you can do and trust in Christ!