On Sunday, July 5, my friend, Matt and I had breakfast at Bob Evans with Larry Hehman, a retire priest of the Diocese of Lexington. The meeting was planned to discuss “Pope” Francis and issues of the Church. I was invited to help lay out our case against the Vatican 2 religion. I called Matt that morning telling him that I wasn’t really interested in going. I had no hope in getting anywhere with Hehman. Matt said, “It’s not very hopeful, but we don’t know. We could say this about anyone…well, now is not the time to back out. I’m headed out.” I reluctantly went and met with them an hour later. Matt brought a folder full of information to be used in the conversation.
Hehman was unaware that we held to sedevacantism and after an hour and a half of talking, it never came up. In fact, we hardly argued. There was no point. He was the epitome of a Vatican 2 priest, both a modernist and a relativist. I don’t think he would be offended in me saying so, either. He’d be proud of it. There was no foundation, by which we could start an argument. Halfway through the meeting, Hehman asked about the folder, but Matt said that he had already shot it all down. No point in opening it up.
Jesus, the Gospel account of the cursing the fig tree, dogmas, the papacy, papal infallibility, the Immaculate Conception, Ark of Salvation, Luther and Lutheranism, Eastern Patriarchs, the death penalty, abortion, life, conscience, warfare, Joan of Arc, Adam and Eve, meat on Fridays, homosexuality, mortal sin, racism, “pope” Francis, theologians, Roman Catechism, usury, Constantine, the councils of Jerusalem, Trent, First Vatican Council, and Vatican 2 were the subjects touched upon during our conversation.
To get an idea on Hehman’s beliefs, check out his youtube channel. [1] I’m sure you’ll find some real gems of modernist thought. I’m not interested in looking for them. He also wrote a book titled, The Word of God with a Twist. In a TV interview, he tells us, “The people listen to what I say with their own twists. I can give I think a decent homily to a group. 95% say that’s wonderful, 5% they interpret it their way, and they say I’m going to write a letter to the bishop, because you’re a heretic.” [2]
In the following bullet points, I will not twist what Hehman told us Sunday morning. To the best of my ability, I will tell exactly what he told us as I remembered it.
Hehman explained that, “Jesus was an ignorant little boy. He didn’t know that He was God until later.” I replied that Jesus knew all things even in His mother’s womb. He was all God and all man. Hehman replied, “Jesus was all man like us. He came to understand that He was God. This is the Christ that I worship and the foundation of what I believe as a priest.” He made reference to a story in the apocrypha about Jesus playing with mud patties, which he said turned into bluebirds. When Jesus was called in by His mother, Hehman said Our Lord ran off for supper not aware of His divinity. However, Heyman’s recollection of the narrative found in the Infancy Gospel of Thomas is a far cry from the actual “gospel” account. [3] Regardless, Pope St. Pius X condemned as an error of the modernists in his Decree “Lamentabili sane exitu”, issued on 3 July, 1907, that “35. Christ did not always possess the consciousness of His Messianic dignity.”
Heyman asked if Jesus actually cursed the fig tree and what it meant. He didn’t think it made sense and questioned whether “cursing” is an accurate translation. He said we can’t know exactly what Jesus said for sure, since the translations could be faulty. As for what it meant, I told him that I believed it had to do with the Jews, but I’ll look it up later. Sure enough, Cornelius À Lapide’s commentary confirms, “Christ cursed the fig tree, and dried it up, that He might manifest His power, by which He was able in like manner to destroy and wither up the Scribes and the Jews, His enemies, if He wished; and to show that He would shortly suffer the Cross and death at their hands, not against His will, but voluntarily.” However, Hehman’s point was that our translation is not reliable. We don’t believe in every word in Scripture.
Throughout our conversation, Hehman kept saying, “We must get back to Jesus. What would Jesus do?” According to Hehman, the Church became “Roman” (he said it in a scoffing tone), which I later understood his meaning to be a corruption of Christ’s Church. Vatican 2 and its popes are trying to undo all the wrongs the Church had done over the years in corrupting the teachings of Jesus. He criticized previous councils like Vatican I and Trent, which he called “overkill.” He spoke of Vatican I with disdain.
He thought the center of the Church should be in Jerusalem, not Rome.
Hehman said, “Dogmas can come to be understood differently.” Matt replied, “What about Vatican I’s teaching that dogmas must be understood in the same sense and same understanding as the Church always had?” Hehman came back, “Oh, I don’t believe that. Where does Vatican I say this dogmatically?”
He told us, “The Church is still trying to figure it out. The Church has been wrong about many things.” He was abundantly clear that we don’t have to believe everything the popes teach in their encyclicals, apostolic exhortations, bulls, etc. When I asked what specifically has the Church been wrong about in the past? He said, “Usury. Jesus was clear about usury, but now the whole church is involved in it and the Vatican is corrupt.”
He was happy about the new teaching against the death penalty. He thought the Church was wrong in the past in its stance and specifically criticized St. Thomas Aquinas on the issue.
He loves “Pope” Francis and told us that Francis was one of the greatest popes ever.
Hehman said papal infallibility concerns the “words of Christ and the people’s faith. It’s when everybody, the pope, bishops, and people, everybody believes in something. It’s not about pope, pope, pope, but when all the bishops and people of God come to believe it.” He acted like the pope was the last on the list.
I asked what he thought of Paul VI’s letter to the Patriarch of Constantinople referring to the Eastern Orthodox as the “Church of Christ.” “Is the Eastern Orthodox religion part of the Church of Christ?” “They probably are.” Hehman replied. He was clear that all baptized non-Catholics are part of the Church.
He said that conscience is what really matters at the end. It doesn’t matter if you believe in Jesus or what religion you hold. It all comes down to conscience.
He told us that he didn’t believe in a literal Adam and Eve.
He told us that homosexuality in the past is not the same as homosexuality today.
He said the Church has always been pro-life. I told Father, “According to everything you’ve said thus far, the Church could change its position on abortion in the future.” He retorted, “Yes, the Church might have a different understanding on life, too.”
I asked Father about his past. How did he believe in high-school? He told us that the priest and nuns told him that if he ate a wiener on Friday, he would go to hell. I pressed him and asked, “What if you ate meat on Friday by accident?” He acknowledged that it wouldn’t be considered a mortal sin. I pressed him further, “So you’re saying that if knew what the Church taught and ate meat anyway, that’s not a mortal sin?” He repeated what I said, “Yes, if you say to hell with the Church, I’m eating meat on Friday. You’re not going to hell for it.” He continued, “I didn’t know what a mortal sin was. The whole thing is ridiculous.” For someone who kept talking about how we should get back to Jesus, you’d think obedience would be part of that equation. There is a thing called the 4th Commandment and breaking it in the fullest sense is a mortal sin, but not to Hehman. I told him that we were like the priest and nuns in his school days. He said, “I know, that’s sad.” I couldn’t control my laughter. He was serious, too, which made it all the funnier.
As we parted ways, Hehman said he was still interested in seeing what’s in the folder. I replied, “It’s all pre-Vatican 2 stuff. You wouldn’t be interested.” His final words were that he studied pre-Vatican 2 theology and thought much of it was good. Therefore, he said, “There’s still hope for me?”
Matt was shellshocked, since he arranged the meeting with the hope of converting him. He was sorry about the whole thing, but now realizes that the meeting was gold. We got a real look into the mind of a Vatican 2 priest and where priests like him are coming from. If you think he’s an anomaly, Hehman is revered in the Lexington Diocese with a hall named after him at Christ the King Cathedral.
Footnotes
[1] https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCIm8TcIvOCagXuOrq3H2mGA
[2] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SLtM-WNiTPw
[3] The Infancy Gospel of Thomas from the CE: 2. This child Jesus, when five years old, was playing in the ford of a mountain stream; and He collected the flowing waters into pools, and made them clear immediately, and by a word alone He made them obey Him. And having made some soft clay, He fashioned out of it twelve sparrows. And it was the Sabbath when He did these things. And there were also many other children playing with Him. And a certain Jew, seeing what Jesus was doing, playing on the Sabbath, went off immediately, and said to his father Joseph: Behold, your son is at the stream, and has taken clay, and made of it twelve birds, and has profaned the Sabbath. And Joseph, coming to the place and seeing, cried out to Him, saying: Why do you do on the Sabbath what it is not lawful to do? And Jesus clapped His hands, and cried out to the sparrows, and said to them: Off you go! And the sparrows flew, and went off crying. And the Jews seeing this were amazed, and went away and reported to their chief men what they had seen Jesus doing.
A real V2 priest, heretic and mdernist…
To quote a good priest friend of mine who is an Exorcist, “It is always an inside job”, and this is just one of the 98% of priests who are making evil happen. No surprise here for me.
Do the other 2% of priests recognize them as Catholics?
« I asked what he thought of Paul VI’s letter to the Patriarch of Constantinople referring to the Eastern Orthodox as the “Church of Christ.” “Is the Eastern Orthodox religion part of the Church of Christ?” »
Where can we find this letter ?
Paul VI, Telegram after the election of a new Patriarch of Constantinople, July, 1972: “At the moment when you assume a heavy charge in the service of the Church of Christ…” (L’Osservatore Romano, July 27, 1972, p. 12.)
Bubbalooey Hehman is a pathetic example of even a NO pretend priest. A mister know-it-all who actually knows nothing of the Catholic faith. I guess once you screw around long enough and loose the faith…its truly gone. SAD
It is pride and bad will that binds people to the Vatican II sect. Many people have invested much of their time and treasure in the false religion and will not give it up. When the Vatican II sect took control of the Catholic Church’s assets, some people who were guided by the Holy Ghost new almost instantly that something was wrong, others it took years of study and a careful look at the rotted fruits of the Vatican II sect to understand what happen. I believe Vatican II is an chastisement that will end in the triumph of Our Lady and the Church. I don’t believe this is the Great Apostasy but it is a reflection of it. As was the apostasy the Church went through at the time of St. Vincent Ferrer. His words sound almost modern “I do not believe there ever existed in the world so much pomp and vanity. So much impurity is at present day defined in the world’s history and epoch so criminal we must go back to the day’s of Noah and the Universal flood…. It is my belief, when the Vatican II sect is exposed to all it’s crimes it will crack and splinter and crash to the earth. Out of the rubble the Catholic Church will emerge from the catacombs and many will be converted. I believe this will happen after the material chastisement spoken of at Fatima. It is without a doubt that Vatican II is the spiritual chastisement the material chastisement will come after the spiritual chastisement is over.
It is interesting that his name is a derivative of the German Ashkenazic name Heidemann I wonder if a generational curse is in play here as many Jews are blinded and continue in following a false religion. I always look for other reasons for spiritual blindness especially among the well educated, who you would think would be the first to see God’s truth because of their gifts but 2 Tim.4:3 may be the order of the day here. I was wondering if he declared himself to be a homosexual since he defended the practice and didn’t believe it was a sin?
He did not declare himself a homosexual or hint that he was one. However, I’d be surprised if he is against the LBGTQIA movement. The local “bishop” Stowe supports it. See
https://www.gloria.tv/post/gacReMmL9kh61p3tCbB7HoWvi
Lexington Bishop John Stowe OFM conv, Kentucky, delivered a video message complimenting his diocese’s pro-gay ministry (FaceBook.com, June 15).
“I’m happy to greet you during this pride month,” Stowe said. Pride is the most serious of the seven deadly sins.
Stowe is “sorry that the Church is not as welcoming [toward homosexuals] as it should be” – which is true because too many bishops, Stowe is one of them, divert homosexuals from the motherly arms of the Church into the clutches of the demons.
He correctly observes “that the issue of sexual orientation has become so divisive in our Church” – because bishops like Stowe replace the Gospel with homosexual propaganda.
Stowe regrets that members of the Catholic hierarchy are pushing homosexuals away [into perdition].
He is among them as he expresses gratitude for his “LGBT ministry” that has “put their rainbow flag outside of the church” welcoming “all people” [into hell].
According to Stowe, his ministry is pushing for the “message of inclusion” [into sin] and has “participated in gay pride events.”
IN THE CONCILIAR VAT2 RELIGION, POPES AND BISHOPS GET TO BE GAY AND PROMOTE HOMOSEXUAL, BI-SEXUAL, TRAN-SEXUAL LIFESTYLES. THAT’S WHY IT’S NOT THE CATHOLIC CHURCH.
Fr Hehman is blinded and rigid in his errors. Just like the wokes, who invent different definitions for words so nobody can refute them.
Eg., racism is when the dominant race discriminate against the subdominant races, not when anyone (black or white) thinks and treats other persons depending on their race.
Thanks for sharing that Steven. You set an example for the virtue of patience before an outrageous heretic, especially being amused rather than angry at his pathetic idiocy. Hehman is like the Jews who were told how to get to heaven but refused to go. Another soul killer who thinks he’s above God’s law.
yeah… but you’re not better than the priest you mentioned above because you’re a sedevacantist heretic.
What a badge of honor coming from a man who thinks Heyman is a Catholic in good standing since he hasn’t been warned or declared a heretic.
Mr. Hehman’s syntax sounds very much like the heretical weasel wording of the Vatican II documents. His “honey” laced dialogue sounds demonic. his denial of Holy Scripture St. John 2:11 with such ease, reminds me of a story of Padre Pio’s encounter with the Devil. (Yes I know you aren’t a fan). The Padre was hearing confession when a slender well-dressed gentleman came into the confessional and proceeded to defend the most awful sins with a highly intelligent defense to every offering that the Padre countered with. The Padre became concerned and asked the man to invoke the Holy Trinity and plead the Blood of Jesus at that instant the Man with a Howling cackle disappeared leaving the stench of sulfur in his wake. Maybe if you meet this man again you should ask him to do the same. You may end up only having to pay for two Breakfasts yours and Matt’s.
Steve, Was your experience with Novus Ordo “priests” different while you were a Novus Ordo apologist? Or were you mainly around the “conservative” variety? I went to a Novus Ordo Jesuit HS in the 90’s and the above would be more or less what you would get especially from the younger “priests.” Liberalism and “Historicism” had turned thier faith and reasoning faculties to mush.
They were a mixed group back in the 80’s when I was in school. My last priest before joining the navy was orthodox by novus ordo standards.
“What a badge of honor coming from a man who thinks Heyman is a Catholic in good standing since he hasn’t been warned or declared a heretic.”
I never said he was in good standing, just that you’re no better than him, since you are also a heretic as I’ve already proven.
SPERAY REPLIES: Oh, but you do argue that clerics like him are Catholics in good standing and you can’t say he’s a heretic based on your argument. He hasn’t been warned or declared a heretic, which according to your argument, he must be before you can say he’s a heretic and non-member of the Church. Therefore, you do think that Hehman is a Catholic in good standing. That’s the whole problem with your satanic religion, Jonathon. You can believe whatever in hell you want and you’re still a Catholic and member of the Church. IT’S STUPID! Yet, you actually twist canon law to defend it.
https://contrasedevacantism.blogspot.com/2020/06/sedevacantism-is-heretical_6.html
St. Robert Bellarmine required warnings to establish pertinacity, contrary to your claim that JST criticized him.
SPERAY REPLIES: No Bellarmine didn’t require warnings or else you would point to him saying warnings are necessary. And yes, JST said that Bellarmine OBJECTED to warnings and says to Bellarmine that warnings are necessary. Your articles are silly and prove you don’t know what you’re reading.
https://contrasedevacantism.blogspot.com/2020/06/steven-speray-does-john-of-st-thomas.html
SPERAY REPLIES: Your article is laughable. Please leave it just as it is to show your stupidity. Thank you!
Sedevacantism is ultimately self-refuting.
https://contrasedevacantism.blogspot.com/2020/07/sedevacantism-is-self-refuting.html
SPERAY REPLIES: This article demonstrates that you don’t understand us. There is no contradiction. If a crime severs one from the BODY (EXTERNAL forum) of the Church by it’s nature, when would that person who committed the crime be severed from the BODY of the Church, after the crime or after the declaration of the crime? What does “nature” mean? Again, please don’t change your articles, they are priceless. Lol. Please write more and help us out. Thank you!
The Great Apostasy will be filled with people like this man. The people at that time will deny Christ with the full knowledge that Christ is Lord. They will choose not to follow him just as this man has. This man has made his own god and his own religion. If you substitute the name, Bacchus or Dionysus when he uses Our Lord’s name you get a pretty good idea where this foolish man is coming from. his augment is a Protestant one. He is under the judgment explained in John 3:36 his arrogance has a price …but the wrath of God abideth on him”
How about the fact that everybody in the novus ordo world believes this man and those like him are Catholics in good standing with the Church? They believe the Catholic Church is a religion where you believe what you want. Is that not already apostasy by them all?
I understand your point. But my take on it is that the Adherents to the cult are like many Protestants. They follow the wolves so they are spoken of in ” 2 Peter 2;1 “Sect of perdition’ But the nature of Great Apostasy as you know the Greek “apostasia’ means defection, revolt, or rebellion “a willful falling away” In Tim 3:1-5 we have a laundry list of what the world will look like. ‘Men shall be lovers of self…’ 5 Having an appearance indeed of godliness…”Although we do have many who can be placed in these categories now, as Mr. Helman with his appearance of godliness the willful falling away has to be with full knowledge that they are rejecting God. At that time the vast majority of people will be secularists.2 Thess. 2:3 “a revolt first and the man of sin be revealed” this will be the time of AntiChrist and 2 Thess 2:9-11 will be in play. Rev 17:1-5 ushers in the false Church. This is when the secularists will fall under the spell of antiChrist and after this Our Lord’s triumph. I believe Vatican II is the chastisement spoken of in Fatima and at other places by Our Lady. I believe that a material chastisement will follow the spiritual chastisement. I also believe the Church that has been relegated to the catacombs will emerge after the material chastisement. We know that the Vat. II cult is not the Catholic Church and since “Satan cannot cast out Satan This evil entity has to attack the Church and do battle with Christ”s Bride.” He will be standing in the Holy place” Matt. 24:15 That can’t be the Vatican as it is now or a Novus Ordo Church in Jerusalem. That place has to be a Catholic Church She is the only candidate that can fulfill this. Probably in Jerusalem because I believe that the Vatican will be destroyed. I understand your objections and many will agree with you. I log on to NOW all the time to give my opinion and mostly get beat up and receive all those ad hominem attacks but I use that as penance so I will spend less time in Purgatory. LOL
“SPERAY REPLIES: Oh, but you do argue that clerics like him are Catholics in good standing and you can’t say he’s a heretic based on your argument.”
There is distinction between simpliciter tolerati and tolerati who have been excommunicated.
SPERAY REPLIES: It makes no difference in this case. In your religion, you don’t have to believe in dogmas. Hehman proves it. You get to believe whatever you want and run parishes, diocese, or even the whole church.
“No Bellarmine didn’t require warnings or else you would point to him saying warnings are necessary. And yes, JST said that Bellarmine OBJECTED to warnings and says to Bellarmine that warnings are necessary. Your articles are silly and prove you don’t know what you’re reading.”
It’s right there in the article for everyone to read.
SPERAY REPLIES: Yes, I know. He objected to warnings as JST says. Lol.
“If a crime severs one from the BODY (EXTERNAL forum) of the Church by it’s nature,”
I’ve already explained that the passage could be interpreted as meaning dispositively. Or it could refer exclusively to notorious crime of heresy.
SPERAY REPLIES: You didn’t answer the question.
“they are priceless. Lol. Please write more and help us out. Thank you!”
Not as priceless as your heretical belief that there are no bishops with ordinary jurisdiction.
SPERAY REPLIES: What difference does it make if your bishops don’t have to believe at all? LOL
https://contrasedevacantism.blogspot.com/2020/06/novusordowatch-most-sedevacantists-are.html
Speray replies: It’s nice to know that you’re so obsessed with me, Jonathon.
“when would that person who committed the crime be severed from the BODY of the Church, after the crime or after the declaration of the crime?”
When the crime is notorious in fact, but the question of whether a crime is notorious in fact is sometimes doubtful, therefore the necessity of declaratory sentence which has no juridicial effect.
As far as clerics are concerned (especially the case of a Roman Pontiff), the common good would require a declaratory sentence.
So by its very nature has no meaning according to you. It’s really by declaratory sentence and not by its very nature as Pope Pius XII taught.
The question of when a crime becomes notorious in fact is sometimes doubtful; hence the necessity of a declaratory sentence (which has no juridicial effect).
The declaratory sentence works retroactively to the point when the crime was first (notoriously) committed.
So you’re saying that we must recognize as a member of the Body of the Church someone who is not actually a member of the Body of the Church until the Church makes the declaratory sentence? It renders the teaching of Pope Pius XII absurd. It really has no meaning. It all comes down to the declaration. This is the whole problem with your argument.
“So you’re saying that we must recognize as a member of the Body of the Church someone who is not actually a member of the Body of the Church until the Church makes the declaratory sentence? It renders the teaching of Pope Pius XII absurd. It really has no meaning. It all comes down to the declaration. This is the whole problem with your argument.”
Your teaching that the sin of heresy severs a man from the body of the Church is absurd, as I demonstrated in the article above.
SPERAY REPLIES: NO, that’s Pope Pius XII’s teaching. You’re calling his teaching absurd. Your article is absurd.
My position is in line with all the canonical literature available.
SPERAY REPLIES: No, it’s completely the opposite. You just don’t know what you’re reading.
Here, my position pertains to clerics, specifically the Pope. The common good and the unity of the church necessitates a declaratory sentence in the case of a hypothetical heretical pope.
SPERAY REPLIES: NOT FOR HIM TO LOSE OFFICE.
Canon law also makes such a provision with regard with clerics. And St. Robert Bellarmine explicitly states, the “condition of the one possessing it is better.”
SPERAY REPLIES: WRONG AGAIN.
Here is what Fr. Sebastian Smith says,
1260. Consequently, when the crime is notorious, the judge can pass sentence and inflict the proper penalty without any previous trial whatever, so far as concerns the crime itself. Hence it is not necessary to cite the accused for trial, to examine witnesses, etc. We say, so far as concerns the crime itself; since the case is different with the notoriety of the crime. For while in notorious cases the crime itself need not be proved, – notoriety being the best proof, – yet its notoriety must, like every other fact, be fully, clearly, and legitimately established, ‘ for instance, by the deposition of two unexceptionable witnesses, ‘ who testify not only that they were them selves personally present when the crime was committed, but also that they saw it committed in the presence of the whole community, or at least the greater part of such community.
1262. Moreover, in order that the judge may have power to proceed without trial, the crime must be notorious, not only materially, but also formally — that is, it must be notorious not only that the crime was committed by the accused, but also that it was committed with malice, and that in such manner that in both these respects there can be no possible excuse or defence. Whenever there is a doubt on any of these points, the judge must give the accused the benefit of the usual trial, and observe the prescribed judicial formalities. 1263. Accordingly, it is the advice of all canonists, that, even where the crime is notorious, both materially and formally, the judge will act wisely and prudently if he observes the usual formalities of judicial proceedings or trials — that is, if he gives the accused the benefit of the customary trial, just as in cases which are not notorious. Hence the judge will do well to cite the accused for trial, hear his defences, etc. ‘ For, as the sacred canons say : “ Multa dicuntur notoria, quae non sunt. ”. It is, no doubt, owing to this that the law of the Church, as above explained, dispensing with trials in notorious cases, has now fallen into general desuetude, and that at present it is the universal practice of all ecclesiastical tribunals to observe the custom ary forms of trials in all notorious cases, even where the notoriety is clearly established. From this general custom, says Stremler, ‘ it were temerity to depart.
This is also relevant to the discussion
https://play.google.com/books/reader?id=zaovAQAAMAAJ&hl=en&pg=GBS.PA44
There is a principle in moral theology known as in dubiis tutior via elegenda est (in cases of doubt, the safer path is to be chosen). Fr. Sebastian Smith states that it would be temerarious to depart from the sentence even when the crime is permanently notorious, let alone when it is doubtful.
Canon 2223 also states that a declaratory sentence is required when the common good demands it. Clearly, the office of the papacy pertains to the common good.
466. Q. Is a Pope who falls into heresy deprived, ipso jure, of the Pontificate?
A.
(1) There are two opinions: one holds that he is, by virtue of divine appointment, divested, ipso facto, of the Pontificate; the other, that he is, jure divino, only removable. Both opinions agree that he must at least be declared guilty of heresy by the Church —i.e., by an ecumenical council or the College of Cardinals.
Sebastian Smith quotes 1880’s Vicar-General of Valence D. Craisson as reference who also gives two opinions. The first opinion is the pope “is deprived of the pontificate by divine law, but afterwards he must be declared by a judicial pronouncement of the Church to have fallen from the Pontifical dignity on account of the crime of heresy.” (Thanks to NovusOrdoWatch’s translater.)
Craisson also gives reference to the earlier work of R. de M in Principles of Canon Law.
“NO, that’s Pope Pius XII’s teaching. You’re calling his teaching absurd. Your article is absurd.”
By reducing the question of heresy vis-à-vis membership in the Church to a matter of sin and divine law, sedevacantist have unwittingly conceded that pertinacity (i.e., willful and deliberate choice) must be demonstrated in the external forum, since the form of heresy is pertinacity.
SPERAY REPLIES: Tanquerey: For there to be pertinacity, it is not necessary that the person should be admonished several times and persevere for a long time in his obstinacy, but it is sufficient that consciously and willingly (sciens et volens) he refused a truth proposed in a sufficient manner…
Furthermore, the presumption of moral immutability in the external forum is derived from canon law, not divine law (here I have in mind self-professing Catholics).
Pius XII is referring to the notorious crime of heresy. When heresy is notorious by a notoriety of fact, one incurs ipso facto excommunication.
SPERAY REPLIES: That’s not what Van Noort says Pius taught. It’s the sin according to Van Noort and The Ecclesiastical Review.
One does not presuppose that the crime is notorious. Like any other juridicial facts, the fact of notoriety must be juridicially established.
SPERAY REPLIES: IT’S NOT THE CRIME AND SO THE REST OF YOUR ARGUMENT IS FINISHED.
As. Fr. Smith writes,
“For while in notorious cases the crime itself need not be proved, – notoriety being the best proof, – yet its notoriety must, like every other fact, be fully, clearly, and legitimately established, ‘ for instance, by the deposition of two unexceptionable witnesses, ‘ who testify not only that they were them selves personally present when the crime was committed, but also that they saw it committed in the presence of the whole community, or at least the greater part of such community.”
He continues that it would temerarious to depart from issuing a declaratory sentence, despite the sentence not being strictly necessary.
However, a declaratory sentence is strictly required when the common good demands it per canon 2223.
In the case of a hypothetical heretical pope, the need for such a declaration is all the more pronounced since the unity of the Church is at stake; some saying the pope is a heretic, while others denying.
SPERAY REPLIES: I just demonstrated how Smith was quoting Craisson who makes it clear that the pope loses office before the declaration.
St. Robert Bellarmine explicitly states that the “condition of the one possessing the office is better.” Here, I will quote him in context:
Yet, they object [the Lutherans], that Papist bishops have left the true faith, therefore, they are non longer bishops, thus pious ministers can rightly take up their places.
I respond to this argument of Brenz (after which he admits that there may be a doubt where the true faith might be, although with us it is very certain): we cannot depose catholic bishops who have possessed their seats for so many centuries peacefully, unless they are legitimately judged and condemned; for in every controversy the condition of the one possessing it is better. Moreover, it is certain that catholic bishops were not condemned by any legitimate judgement. For who condemned them, apart from the Lutherans? But these are accusers, not judges. Who indeed made them our judges? On that account, even if our bishops were already condemned, they would not immediately succeed them, when no one had made them bishops, that is, those who had the authority of establishing bishops: nor would they be true bishops since no one ordained them, who had the right to ordain as we showed above.
“he first opinion is the pope “is deprived of the pontificate by divine law, but afterwards he must be declared by a judicial pronouncement of the Church to have fallen from the Pontifical dignity on account of the crime of heresy.” (Thanks to NovusOrdoWatch’s translater.)”
Right, which still requires a declaratory sentence to establish the fact of the notoriety of his crime.
SPERAY REPLIES: NO ONE JUDGES THE POPE OF A CRIME. The whole point of the canon 1556: CANON. 1556
“Prima Sedes a nemine iudicatur.”
The first or primatial see is subject to no ones judgment. This proposition must be taken in the fullest extent, not only with regard to the object of infallibility. For in matters of faith and morals it was always customary to receive the final sentence from the Apostolic See, whose judgment no one dared to dispute, as the tradition of the Fathers demonstrates. 1 Neither was it ever allowed to reconsider questions or controversies once settled by the Holy See. 2 But even the person of the Supreme Pontiff was ever considered as unamenable to human judgment, he being responsible and answerable to God alone, even though accused of personal misdeeds and crimes. A remarkable instance is that of Pope Symmachus (498-514). He, indeed, submitted to the convocation of a council (the Synodus Palmaris, 502), because he deemed it his duty to see to it that no stain was inflicted upon his character, but that synod itself is a splendid vindication of our canon. The synod adopted the Apology of Ennodius of Pavia, in which occurs the noteworthy sentence : ” God wished the causes of other men to be decided by men; but He has reserved to His own tribunal, without question, the ruler of this see.” 3 No further argument for the traditional view is required. A general council could not judge the Pope, because, unless convoked or ratified by him, it could not render a valid sentence. Hence nothing is left but an appeal to God, who will take care of His Church and its head.”
The Canon comes from Pope St. Nicholas, epistle (8), Proposueramus quidem, 865: “… “Neither by Augustus, nor by all the clergy, nor by religious, nor by the people will the judge be judged… ‘The first seat will not be judged by anyone.’”
“since the form of heresy is pertinacity” (i.e., that which makes it properly a sin).
It’s presumed by those who should know better. Read the canonists who say just that.
“The common good and the unity of the church necessitates a declaratory sentence in the case of a hypothetical heretical pope.
SPERAY REPLIES: NOT FOR HIM TO LOSE OFFICE.”
Didn’t I say the declaratory sentence has a retroactive effect?
The pope would have lost office already and we don’t recognize a non-catholic as pope until declared so, which is the point of Craisson.
(1) I’ve already established that you are heretic by denying that the Church currently possesses ordinary jurisdiction. This demonstrates that you don’t have competence in theology, let alone canon law.
SPERAY REPLIES: You have not shown the dogma of the Church but opinions. Opinion don’t make dogmas. A heretic is one who knowingly rejects dogma, you know, with pertinacity. If the Church declares that ordinary jurisdiction is required for the church to exist, then I accept it. I wouldn’t be able to explain it, but I would accept it. It’s funny how you the laymen can judge me as a heretic after arguing that ecclessiastical warnings and declarations are needed first. You’re killing me.
(2) “For there to be pertinacity, it is not necessary that the person should be admonished several times and persevere for a long time in his obstinacy, but it is sufficient that consciously and willingly (sciens et volens) he refused a truth proposed in a sufficient manner… ”
There is nothing in divine law that says we presume moral imputability in the external forum.
SPERAY REPLIES: I quoting a theologian that proves you wrong. I can quote several more that say the same thing.
(3) “It’s presumed by those who should know better. Read the canonists who say just that.”
You just refuted yourself. You are distinguishing between clerics and laymen. Should we not presume guilt for laymen? In fact, all the canonical literature says the exact opposite regarding the necessity of a canonical trial for clerics. Again, such a presumption is derived from canon law, not divine law.
SPERAY REPLIES: It depends on what laymen, but the person is guilty until innocence is proven in canon law. And popes and cardinals don’t fall under the penal code anyway and none of this applies to them.
(4) The pope would have lost office already and we don’t recognize a non-catholic as pope until declared so, which is the point of Craisson.
Who is “we”? You are an incompetent laymen as your belief in a material church aptly demonstrates. You clearly unqualified to assess doctrine.
SPERAY REPLIES: The whole church. You are an incompetent laymen who doesn’t understand basic theology. In your religion, you can believe whatever you want and still be a member of the Body of the Church. That’s not the Catholic religion.
First, the fact that the crime is actually notorious in fact would need to be juridically established. Second, the common good demands such a declaration to establish this fact for everyone. .
SPERAY REPLIES: Nope. Popes and cardinals don’t fall under the penal code. They don’t get warned and punished. When they fall into heresy, they tacitly resign office and are outside of the Church. It’s very simple. That’s why Bellarmine taught, “Therefore, the true opinion is the fifth, according to which 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.This is the opinion of all the ancient Fathers, who teach that manifest heretics immediately lose all jurisdiction… NOT AFTER WARNINGS OR DECLARATION BECAUSE heretics already before being excommunicated are outside the Church and deprived of all jurisdiction.”
Notice that the fallen pope can be punished only after he’s lost office for heresy. It’s not a pope that’s judged but an ex-pope.
“The pope would have lost office already and we don’t recognize a non-catholic as pope until declared so, which is the point of Craisson”
You’d have to provide the complete context. I certainly won’t be taking your word for it.
It’s pretty clear but you won’t hear anyway. You have already made up your mind.
You are confused. The declaratory sentence has no juridicial effect fwhatsoever. It’s merely a declaration that an individual has notoriously committed the crime of heresy. The declaration works retoactively. Meaning, the pope is not being “judged” in the sense that penalty is not being imposed upon him.
SPERAY REPLIES: Popes don’t get judged for crimes. You’re the one confused.
Delisle Antoine Lemieux, “The Sentence in Ecclesiastical Procedure,” (Washington D.C.,: CUA Press, 1934), 6.
Declaratory, which pronounces the crime to have been committed and is retroactive in regard to the penalty, establishing that it was incurred by the very fact at the moment that the crime was perpetrated.
//
it may be merely declaratory—that is, it need not condemn the accused, but may simply declare that he is guilty of the crime charged, and has incurred the punishment inflicted ipso ſure by the law itself. It will be seen that in this third case the judge does not impose the penalty, but merely declares that the accused has committed a crime, for which the law itself inflicts the penalty ipso facto. Hence, too, the effect of a declaratory sentence is retroactive, i.e., takes effect from the moment the crime was committed,— and not merely from the time the declaratory sentence was pronounced.”
Sebastian B. Smith, “Elements of Ecclesiastical Law: Ecclesiastical punishments,” Volume II (Ecclesiastical Trials), (New York: Benziger Brothers, 1887), 270.
///
Notoriety of delict is by no means equivalent to a declaratory sentence. It is one thing not to be excused from observing a penalty and it is quite another thing to be subject to those most grave canonical effects which follow upon a declaratory sentence. From the very nature of a declaratory sentence, it follows that the penalty takes effect from the moment the delict was perpetrated.
Francis Edward Hyland, “Excommunication: Its Nature, Historical Development and Effects: A Dissertation,” (Washington DC: CUA Press, 1928), 51.
SPERAY REPLIES: Popes and cardinals don’t fall under the penal code. You obviously don’t understand.
“Popes don’t get judged for crimes. You’re the one confused.”
What don’t you understand that the declaratory sentence has no juridicial effect? The declaratory sentence doesn’t actually depose the person, it only establishes the fact of notoriety.
“Popes and cardinals don’t fall under the penal code. You obviously don’t understand.”
Where do you get the idea that cardinals aren’t subject to canonical sanctions?
Notoriety is specific kind of public crime (i.e., the majority of the community is conscious that he has committed an act of heresy with pertinacity).
Lol.
“Lol.”
I find it funny that you won’t post my other comment where I assert that you’re a heretic. You are too much of a coward.
Dude, it was already posted. Lol. You’re killing me. You call me a coward and you’re too afraid to put your name on your own articles and comments.
“You have not shown the dogma of the Church but opinions. Opinion don’t make dogmas. A heretic is one who knowingly rejects dogma, you know, with pertinacity.”
No, according to you, even public material heretics are excluded from the body of the Church, hence your statement: “I quoted a theologian that proves you wrong. I can quote several more that say the same thing.”
SPERAY REPLIES: Material heretics are baptized non-Catholics. They are outside of the BODY already.
Since you pontificate on theology and canon law, you should be held to a higher standard.
SPERAY REPLIES: Lol. You have no idea what you’re talking about.
You fail to realize, as I explain in the article, that the reason why moral imputability is presumed in the external forum is because as canonist Fr. Edward Dargin argues,
In the case of censures latae sententiae, a delinquent is contumacious by the very fact of transgressing the law or precept to which he knows the punishment is attached. The very fact that the law orders something under penalty of ipso facto censure is, in itself, a general warning, and sufficient to indicate contumacy on the part of the person who disregards it.
SPERAY REPLIES: You left out the context. You really don’t understand and I’m not going to explain it to you.
However, not all canonists adopt this view. According to canonist Fr. John Heneghan,
If the heretic not only thinks formally sinful heretical thoughts but openly professes them, he thereby externalizes his error and is guilty of the delict of heresy. That a delict be verified there must be an external act, the malice of which derives from the subjective sin but the effect of which is a disturbance of the life of the Church as a social body. If the guilt of the heretic is publicly known by the community as unconcealable and inexcusable, his delict is notorious. A notorious delict cannot be merely presumed to be such by virtue of canon 2200.2, for the assumed presence of notorious guilt in a delict is not based upon a presumption of law. It is based upon evidence in the act itself that is so certain, both as to the fact of the violation and as to the guilt of the delinquent, that there can be no doubt concerning either element.
SPERAY REPLIES: You’re just clueless. What more can I say?
“It’s funny how you as a laymen can judge me as a heretic after arguing that ecclessiastical warnings and declarations are needed first. You’re killing me.”
I’m working from your own assumptions that even public material heretics are excluded from the church. Since you’ve incurred excommunication from the law itself, there are no bishops or popes to lift said excommunication (since notorious heresy is specially reserved to the Holy See per the the Constitution Apostolicae Sedis of Pope Pius IX.
SPERAY REPLIES: I’ve not incurred excommunication but you have and you have jurisdiction in your religion.
But as far as your argument that these are just “opinions”, here is what your favorite theologian St. Robert Bellarmine has to say:
https://contrasedevacantism.blogspot.com/2020/06/st-robert-bellarmine-refutes.html
Vatican I, Draft of a Dogmatic Constitution on the Church, c. 8 (Mansi 53, 314):
Finally, against the perverse doctrine of some innovators, we determine and declare that by divine ordination ecclesiastical governance does not pertain only to the internal and sacramental forum, but also to the external and public forum, and that full authority has been given to the Church by God, not only to guide by advice and persuasion, but also to command by laws and to coerce and force the deviant and stubborn by external judgement and by salutary penalties. It is clear that the Apostles themselves and the prelates who succeeded them have in every age used this power both to decide matters pertaining to faith and morals and to divine worship and the sanctification of the faithful and in establishing and sanctioning external discipline.”
Ibid., can. 12 (Mansi 53, 316): If anyone says that this power is only directive and not legislative, judicial, and coercive, Anathema sit.
Vatican I, First Draft of a Dogmatic Constitution on the Church of Christ, c. 10 (Mansi 51, 543):
There are two types of power in the Church, power of orders and power of jurisdiction. With regard to the latter, we teach that it is not only power in the internal and sacramental forum, but also power in the external and public forum, power that is absolute and quite complete, that is, legislative, judicial, and coercive. The subject of this power are the shepherds and teachers given by Christ, and they exercise it freely and independently of all secular dominion. Therefore, with full authority they rule the Church of God by needed laws that oblige in conscience, by definitive judgements, and by salutary penalties for the guilty, even if they are unwilling; and they do this not only with regard to matters that concern faith and morals, worship and sanctification, but also with regard to matters concerning the external discipline and administration of the Church.
SPERAY REPLIES: I have no problem with this.
Benedict XIV, Epistle Ad assiduas (SS.mi D. N. Benedicti XIV Bullarium, t. IV, p. 163:
You see that the author of this horrid product tends and is headed towards weakening, shaking, and quite eliminating the power which Christ our Lord and Savior conferred on his Church not only to direct by advice and persuasion, but also to command by laws, and to coerce and force the deviant and stubborn by external judgements and salutary penalties. He so subjects the Church’s ministry to secular domination that he says that it is the latter that has the role of investigating and judging every external and visible matter of governance. A depraved and pernicious system, long ago rejected by the Apostolic See and expressly condemned as heretical, especially by Our Predecessor, John XXII, in the Constitution, Licet iuxta doctrinam…
SPERAY REPLIES: I don’t disagree.
SPERAY REPLIES:
“The whole church. You are an incompetent laymen who doesn’t understand basic theology. In your religion, you can believe whatever you want and still be a member of the Body of the Church. That’s not the Catholic religion.”
No, that is not my position at all.
SPERAY REPLIES: Yes it is your position. You’ve been arguing it the whole time. You use canon law to justify it.
“Nope. Popes and cardinals don’t fall under the penal code.”
You keep asserting that cardinals are not subject to the penal code. I don’t know where you are getting this from.
SPERAY REPLIES: I know you don’t. That’s why it’s so funny that you argue canon law and such and don’t know where I’m getting this. If I were you, I’d go hide under a rock because you’ve just destroyed yourself for not knowing.
“They don’t get warned and punished. When they fall into heresy, they tacitly resign office and are outside of the Church.”
According to canon 188.4 that applies to all bishops. However, this needs to be interpreted in light of Canon 2197.3, since only notorious crimes incur ipso facto excommunication.
SPERAY REPLIES: Again, you’re proving that you don’t know what you’re talking about. Can 2197 is part of the penal code and has nothing to do with can. 188. I see that you got your training in canon law by reading two quacks on the subject. This is hysterical. Every time you reply, you dig yourself a deeper of hole and you’re oblivious to it all. It’s sad to see people like you so blinded by pride and obsession. You don’t know when to stop.
Bellarmine also asserts that the “condition of the one possessing the office is better.”
“It’s very simple. That’s why Bellarmine taught”
Robert Bellarmine and Pietro Ballerini would disagree as I demonstrate here:
https://contrasedevacantism.blogspot.com/2020/06/steven-speray-does-john-of-st-thomas.html
SPERAY REPLIES: Bellarmine would disagree with himself? I was quoting him and you say that he would disagree. Yes, please keep up your article and don’t change a thing. It actually helps me, makes a fool of you, and you don’t see it.
“I have no problem with this… I don’t disagree.”
Clearly you do disagree since you asserted that there were no bishops with ordinary jurisdiction. You have already shown yourself to be a heretic.
SPERAY REPLIES: Nope. You don’t understand what you’re quoting and how it applies.
“I know you don’t. That’s why it’s so funny that you argue canon law and such and don’t know where I’m getting this. If I were you, I’d go hide under a rock because you’ve just destroyed yourself for not knowing.”
Cardinals are subject to certain elements of canon law such as simonical elections and perhaps also for belonging to freemasonic associsaitons. Otherwise, the apostolic constitution Vacantis Apostolicae Sedis of Pope Pius XII would make no sense.
SPERAY REPLIES: I said cardinals don’t fall under the penal code and the code says just that. Even popes are subject to certain elements of canon law but not the penal code. You have shown that you don’t know what you’re talking about.
Furthermore, canon 1557 also includes bishops.
” Again, you’re proving that you don’t know what you’re talking about. Can 2197 is part of the penal code and has nothing to do with can. 188. I see that you got your training in canon law by reading two quacks on the subject. ”
According to canonist Fr. Leo Arnold Jaeger canon 188, § 4 needs to be interpreted in light of canon 2197, § 1. He writes,
It must be remembered that tacit resignation, which affects all ecclesiastical offices not excluding the episcopacy, may be a cause also of an episcopal see becoming vacant. Tacit resignation, or as it is sometimes called, equivalent resignation, is the result of certain explicitly determined facts, which, by a special disposition of law and of themselves, without the formalities of presentation, acceptance or declaration, produce the same effect as express resignation. Canon 188 enumerates taxatively the facts which produce tacit resignation. The only probable fact which might affect the episcopal office is that of public defection from the faith. This crime presupposes not an internal, or even external but occult act, but a public defection from the faith through formal heresy, or apostasy, with or without affiliation with another religious society. Simple schism without heresy would not suffice to constitute tacit resignation. The public character of this crime must be understood in the light of canon 2197 n. 1. Hence, if a bishop were guilty of this violation and the fact were divulged to the greater part of the town or community, the crime would be public and the see ipso facto becomes vacant.
SPERAY REPLIES: My statement still stands because can. 188 is not a penalty. He’s saying the principle of the penal code is applied, which is obvious. That’s why we use the principle of the penal code to apply to the pope even though the pope is not subject to the penal code.
Canon 1065:
§ 1. The faithful shall be discouraged from contracting marriage with those who have either notoriously rejected the Catholic faith, even if they have not gone over to a non-Catholic sect, or those who are enrolled in a society damned by the Church.
Canon 1066:
If a public sinner or one well known to be marked with a censure refuses to approach sacramental confession to be reconciled with the Church, the pastory should not assist at the marriage, unless grave cause urges, about which, if it can be done, he should consult the Ordinary.
Canon 1240:
§ 1. Unless they gave before death a sign of repentance, the following are deprived of ecclesiastical burial.
1o. Notorious apostates from the Christian faith, or those who notoriously gave their name to heretical sects or schismatic Masonic sects, or other societies of this sort;
2o. Excommunicates or those under interdict after a condemnatory or declaratory sentence;
3o. Those who killed themselves by deliberate counsel;
4o. Those who died in a duel, or from wounds related thereto;
5o. Those who ordered that their body be handed over for cremation;
6o. Other public and manifest sinners.
According to canonist Fr. John Anthony O’Reilly, the phrase ‘public sinner’ has a specific canonical signification. He writes,
The New Code [canon 2197.1] defines a public crime as one which has already been divulged or one which occurred in such circumstances, that it can easily be adjudged and must become public. “With a public crime must not be confused a manifest crime which requires that a greater number of positive witnesses who, through their certain knowledge and physical senses, thoroughly know of the affair and moreover can give testimony of it” (Wernz, 1. c., Tom. VI, No. 17). With this assertion in mind, and noting that the Code has added “manifest” along with “public,” [canon 1240.6] we venture the opinion that it is possible that one might have committed a public crime, yet would not be a public sinner in this canonical signification. The sinner must be known publicly and manifestly as such. This practically amounts to notoriety of fact, or at least a specific publicity and manifestation (Coronata, 1. c., No. 263).
SPERAY REPLIES: Yes, we understand all of this. If you paid attention to our arguments, you would know that we don’t necessarily say that pope loses office for occult heresy. We are following the principle, but penalties include more.
“Bellarmine would disagree with himself? I was quoting him and you say that he would disagree. Yes, please keep up your article and don’t change a thing. It actually helps me, makes a fool of you, and you don’t see it.”
Only a sedevacantist could interpret Bellarmine to mean exactly the opposite of what he explicitly stated.
https://contrasedevacantism.blogspot.com/2020/06/steven-speray-does-john-of-st-thomas.html
SPERAY REPLIES: Only fools like yourself says so. You’re the one who says Bellarmine means exactly opposite of what he explicitly stated.
“They don’t get warned and punished. When they fall into heresy, they tacitly resign office and are outside of the Church.”
That’s strange because according to Bellarmine even a pope can be publicly warned (as an act of charity, not jurisdiction).
SPERAY REPLIES: Bellarmine didn’t say a pope gets warned. Even JST says that Bellamine OBJECTED to warnings. If Bellarmine required warnings, you would be able to show where he said a pope gets warned. You can’t because he didn’t.
Only notorious heretics are severed from the Church. The term manifest public sinners has a specific canonical signification. And this applies to everyone, laymen or pope.
SPERAY REPLIES: You can’t make proper distinctions about anything.
Furthermore, both Cardinals and bishops can clearly be held on trial by the pope himself, or a council delegated by him.
SPERAY REPLIES: Again, you can’t make proper distinctions. Only the pope can judge cardinals, of course. POPES DON’T GET WARNED BECAUSE WARNINGS ARE PART OF THE PENAL CODE. POPES AREN’T SUBJECT TO THE PENAL CODE. Jonathon, you really are becoming a nuisance. You don’t know when to stop.
“Nope. You don’t understand what you’re quoting and how it applies.”
Ok genius. Tell me how the Church possesses jurisdiction in the external forum permanently by divine institution when no bishops possess ordinary jurisdiction?
SPERAY REPLIES: I’ve already said how, stupid.
“I said cardinals don’t fall under the penal code and the code says just that. Even popes are subject to certain elements of canon law but not the penal code. You have shown that you don’t know what you’re talking about.”
You also forget to mention that bishops are also included in that provision.
Canon 2330 and Canon 2335 are part of the penal code, so there are clearly exceptions. You can go read Fr. Augustine’s commentary on that particular canon for more.
SPERAY REPLIES: Blah, blah, blah. You’re full of hot air. I’ve read his commentary many times. You’re not interested in understanding the truth about anything.
In his apostolic constitution Vacantis Apostolicae Sedis, Pope Pius XII decreed,
None of the cardinals may in any way, or by pretext or reason of any excommunication, suspension, or interdict whatsoever, or of any other ecclesiastical impediment, be excluded from the active and passive election of the supreme pontiff. We hereby suspend such censures solely for the purposes of the said election; at other times they are to remain in vigor.
This clearly implies that Cardinals are subject to at least some of the penalites mentioned in the penal code, since heretics can’t be validly elected (i.e., the passive vote).
SPERAY REPLIES: Popes only judge cardinals and decide what to with them. Never denied it. Cardinal don’t fall under the penal code.
“My statement still stands because can. 188 is not a penalty.”
I never said it was a penalty. I said for tacit resignation to occur, the crime must be notorious in fact. And like any other judicial fact, it must be juridically established in the context of a canonical trial.
SPERAY REPLIES: Rev. Charles Augustine makes the distinctions in his commentary on canon law:
A crime is public if committed under, or accompanied by, circumstances which point to a possible and likely divulgation thereof. Canonists enumerate different degrees of publicity: almost occult (pene occultum), which is known to at least two witnesses; famosum or manifestum, which not only can be proved, but is known to many; and, finally, notorium. From this it will be seen that a real intrinsic distinction between a public crime and a crime notorious in fact can hardly be established. (We shall point out one distinctive trait below.) To fix the number of persons required for making a crime a public one is rather hazardous, though it may furnish a certain rule which will enable the judge to decide as to the secrecy or public character of a crime. Many canonists hold that at least six persons in a community, even the smallest (for in stance, a religious house of 10 or 12 inmates), must know of a crime, to render it public. Nor should there be any doubt about the character of the persons who are witnesses to the crime. Furthermore, the interest they may have in the crime should be weighed.
A crime is notorious by notoriety of law (notorietate iuris) if it has become an adjudged matter, according to can. 1902-1904, or judicially confessed, according to can. 1750. Extrajudicial confessions do not render a crime notorious by notoriety of law. Here we must take issue with the assertion that the Code acknowledges such confessions. Thus it has been stated 14 that it would be a notorium juris if the bishop or vicar-general would catch a clergyman in flagranti! The Code contains nothing to that effect, but requires (can. cit.) a confession before the judge sitting in court. A crime is notorious notorietate facti when it is publicly known and has been committed under such circumstances that it cannot be concealed by any artifice or be excused by any legal assumption or circumstantial evidence. The term nulla tergiversatione celari is equivalent to the other used in the Decretals. The second clause refers to imputability, which may be lessened by extenuating circumstances, according to can. 2201-2206. Hence not only the fact itself must be notorious, but also its criminal character. Thus, for instance, the fact of alienation may easily be proved by a legal deed, but whether it was criminal must be ascertained by other means; because it may be that the administrator or procurator had due permission and therefore acted lawfully. It is this element of inexcusability or of knowledge of the criminal character of the deed that appears to distinguish a public from a notorious crime. For the text manifestly lays stress on divulgation with regard to public crimes and emphasizes the criminal character as known and in excusable.
Every crime which is not public, says our text, is occult or secret. The Code distinguishes a twofold secrecy, viz.: merely material (materialiter occultum), which exists when the fact is unknown, or known only to the perpetrator and a few reticent persons; and formal (formaliter occultum), when the moral and juridical guilt is unknown. An example may illustrate the distinction. If a percussor cleric orum beats a pastor at night, his identity may remain unknown, though the effects point to a crime; if the priest was beaten in a public row, there may be a reasonable doubt as to the real perpetrator. The authors, therefore, assumed that a crime committed at night could not be notorious or public. However, this theory cannot be accepted in this general sense. Take, for instance, a sacrilegious burglary. If a sufficient number of persons witnessed such a crime and recognized the perpetrator, the crime could not be styled occult. Neither does it seem true that a duel is always a secret crime, as some maintain. For although duels are generally held in a secret place, yet there are, as a rule, witnesses and signs which admit of a perfectly safe judgment that a duel has taken place.
Once notoriety of fact has been juridically established no further declaration would be needed, although it would be temerarious to depart from one. When the common good demands it, a declaratory sentence is strictly required. The same process applies to the pope although this would occur as an act of charity not jurisdiction. I repeat the declaratory sentence has no juridicial effect, meaning, it doesn’t impose a penalty, it merely declares that a penalty has been incurred. It retroacts back to the time when the crime was initially committed.
SPERAY REPLIES: WRONG! The pope is not judged.
“Only fools like yourself says so. You’re the one who says Bellarmine means exactly opposite of what he explicitly stated.”
go read again. you seem to have problems with reading comprehension.
SPERAY REPLIES: Don’t have to. I’ve got it memorized. You clearly think Bellarmine means exactly opposite of what he says.
“POPES DON’T GET WARNED BECAUSE WARNINGS ARE PART OF THE PENAL CODE. POPES AREN’T SUBJECT TO THE PENAL CODE. ”
Warnings are in the Bible (Titus 3:10-11); hence Bellarmine and Ballerini’s statement. LOL
SPERAY REPLIES: No fooling but they don’t apply to everybody and Bellarmine didn’t say a pope is warned or else you would have pointed to that statement. Warnings are to make sure the individual understands he’s going against the teaching of the Church but you wouldn’t warn a manifest heretic since a manifest heretic is understood to be one who already knows better. I have several canonists that tell you that warnings are not always needed even for the layman. Again, you can’t make proper distinctions nor can you understand what you’re reading.
“I’ve already said how, stupid.”
Thanks for the compliment, genius. Your brain is the size of a nutshell.
SPERAY REPLIES: As dumb as I am, I’m still a whole lot smarter than you. Lol.
In our previous debate, you argued that the tria munera is exercised in confession (i.e., the internal / sacramental forum), through supplied jurisdiction.
SPERAY REPLIES: That’s one way, not the only way. I pointed to that fact when you say there’s no jurisdiction at all. It was a very simple example.
Unfortunately, this argument won’t cut it. Let me quote again:
Vatican I, Draft of a Dogmatic Constitution on the Church, c. 8 (Mansi 53, 314):
Finally, against the perverse doctrine of some innovators, we determine and declare that by divine ordination ecclesiastical governance ***does not pertain only to the internal and sacramental forum, but also to the external and public forum,*** and that full authority has been given to the Church by God, not only to guide by advice and persuasion, but also to command by laws and to coerce and force the deviant and stubborn by external judgement and by salutary penalties. It is clear that the Apostles themselves and the prelates who succeeded them have in every age used this power both to decide matters pertaining to faith and morals and to divine worship and the sanctification of the faithful and in establishing and sanctioning external discipline.”
Ibid., can. 12 (Mansi 53, 316): If anyone says that this power is only directive and not legislative, judicial, and coercive, Anathema sit.
Vatican I, First Draft of a Dogmatic Constitution on the Church of Christ, c. 10 (Mansi 51, 543):
There are two types of power in the Church, power of orders and power of jurisdiction. With regard to the latter, ***we teach that it is not only power in the internal and sacramental forum, but also power in the external and public forum, power that is absolute and quite complete, that is, legislative, judicial, and coercive.***
SPERAY REPLIES: I agree. That’s sounds right to me.
///
“Cardinal don’t fall under the penal code.”
I already listed at least two penalties Cardinals are subject to from the penal code. So, clearly you are wrong.
SPERAY REPLIES: The code says they are exempt unless expressly mentioned. Therefore, they are immune to the penal code. You make it sound like they aren’t immune to it. You’re clearly wrong. AND YOU MAKE THE POPE SUBJECT as if he can be warned and judged. Lol. You’re a heretic for saying so.
///
I’ve already that portion of Fr. Augustine. For a crime to be notorious in fact it must be perceived as a crime qua crime by the majority of a community.
https://contrasedevacantism.blogspot.com/2020/06/two-elements-of-notoriety.html
SPERAY REPLIES: I quote him in full. You don’t.
///
“WRONG! The pope is not judged.”
According to Bellarmine, a pope can be judged for heresy (or the suspicion of heresy). Notice, that he says that his heresy must be “proven”.
SPERAY REPLIES: Nope. He says, Therefore, the true opinion is the fifth, according to which 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.
Notice that it’s not the pope who’s judged but a pope who’s fallen from office.
Next, in the fourth Roman Council under Symmachus, we read that all the Bishops said the Council could not be summoned by right unless it were by the Pope, even if he were the one that were accused. For this purpose, did not Arius litigate with Alexander on the faith? And still in the Council of Nicaea Alexander sat, because he was a Bishop as a judge. Likewise, in the third Council Cyril presided in episcopal judgment, still it was said on the side of the Nestorians to have the side of those litigating. So also in the fourth Council, legates of Pope Leo presided, although the whole case turned the dispute between Leo and Dioscorus. It happens also that the Pope in a Council is not only the judge, but has many colleagues, that is, all the Bishops who, if they could convict him of heresy, they could also judge and depose him even against his will. Therefore, the heretics have nothing: why would they complain if the Roman Pontiff presides at a Council before he were condemned?
Bellarmine, Robert. On Councils: Their Nature and Authority (De Controversiis) (pp. 131-132). Mediatrix Press. Kindle Edition.
SPERAY REPLIES: And we already saw Bellarmine explain that a pope who is a heretic is not pope. Therefore, he can be judged.
The sixth condition is unjust and impertinent. Unjust, because inferiors ought not be free from the obedience to superiors, unless first he were legitimately deposed or declared not to be a superior, just as it would be unjust that as often as imperial assemblies were conducted, the Emperor ought to make the oath of fidelity that all the princes must offer in subjection to him free. Moreover, it is no new or recent thing that Bishops should furnish an oath of obedience to the Pope, as is clear from St. Gregory (lib. 1 epist. 31) and from cap. Significasti, extra de elect. Likewise, from the eleventh Council of Toledo (ca. 10). Furthermore, it is impertinent because that oath does not take away the freedom of the Bishops, which is necessary in Councils, for they swear they will be obedient to the supreme Pontiff, which is understood as long as he is Pope, and provided he commands these things which, according to God and the sacred canons he can command; but they do not swear that they are not going to say what they think in the Council, or that they are not going to depose him if they were to clearly prove that he is a heretic.
Bellarmine, Robert. On Councils: Their Nature and Authority (De Controversiis) (p. 133). Mediatrix Press. Kindle Edition.
SPERAY REPLIES: BECAUSE A POPE WHO FALLS INTO HERESY IS NOT POPE AS BELLARMINE EXPLAINED ON THAT SPECIFIC POINT. THEREFORE, HE CAN BE PUNISHED AND JUDGED AND DEPOSED, ETC. GET THAT THROUGH YOUR HEAD BUT YOU CAN’T BECAUSE YOU’RE INCAPABLE. IT’S SO SIMPLE. WERNZ/VIDAL ALSO EXPLAIN BELLARMINE: The fourth opinion, with Suarez, Cajetan and others [John of St. Thomas], contends that a Pope is not automatically deposed even for manifest heresy, but that he can and must be deposed by at least a declaratory sentence of the crime. “Which opinion in my judgment is indefensible” as Bellarmine teaches. Finally, there is the fifth opinion – that of Bellarmine himself – which was expressed initially and is rightly defended by Tanner and others as the best proven and the most common. For he who is no longer a member of the body of the Church, i.e. the Church as a visible society, cannot be the head of the Universal Church. But a Pope who fell into public heresy would cease by that very fact to be a member of the Church. Therefore he would also cease by that very fact to be the head of the Church.
“Bellarmine didn’t say a pope is warned or else you would have pointed to that statement.”
Bellarmine: The Authority is of St. Paul, who commands Titus, that after two censures, that is, after he appears manifestly pertinacious, an heretic is to be shunned:
SPERAY REPLIES: Bellarmine starts off: : “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. YOU DON’T WARN A MANIFEST HERETIC BECAUSE THE PURPOSE OF WARNINGS IS TO FIND OUT IF ONE IS A HERETIC AT ALL. Bellermine is using St. Paul on what happens to the manifest heretic NOT to find out if one is pertinacious since he’s already referring to the pope as a manifest heretic. VERY SIMPLE STUFF BUT IT’S TOO MUCH FOR YOU TO COMPREHEND.
Ballerini (an adherent of Bellarmine’s fifth opinion): Therefore the Pontiff who after such a solemn and public warning by the Cardinals, by the Roman Clergy or even by a Synod, maintained himself hardened in heresy and openly turned himself away from the Church, would have to be avoided, according to the precepts of Saint Paul.
SPERAY REPLIES: He doesn’t quote Bellarmine does he?
“I have several canonists that tell you that warnings are not always needed even for the layman.”
That’s true, but only after the fact of notoriety has been juridically established.
SPERAY REPLIES: Here’s what they say…Neither is it always demanded in the external forum that there be a warning and a reprimand as described above for somebody to be punished as heretical and pertinacious, and such a requirement is by no means always admitted in practice by the Holy Office. For if it could be established in some other way, given that the doctrine is well known, given the kind of person involved and given the other circumstances, that the accused could not have been unaware that his thesis was opposed to the Church, he would be considered as a heretic from this fact… The reason for this is clear because the exterior warning can serve only to ensure that someone who has erred understands the opposition which exists between his error and the teaching of the Church. If he knew the subject through books and conciliar definitions much better than he could know it by the declarations of someone admonishing him then there would be no reason to insist on a further warning for him to become pertinacious against the Church. (De Lugo, disp.XX, sect.IV, n. l57-158). See also: Diana, resol.36; Vermeersch, pg.245; Noldin, vol.i, “Compl. de Poenis Eccl.”, pg.21; Regatillo, pg. 508.)
Notice what warnings are for. Your “pope” Francis knows very well that he’s going against the Church and everybody with an ounce of faith knows it. Even your own argument condemns you and your religion.
“Again, you can’t make proper distinctions nor can you understand what you’re reading. ”
LOL. says the guy who thinks there are no bishops with ordinary jurisdiction.
SPERAY REPLIES: The fact that you say so proves you can’t make proper distinctions. Thank you for proving me right again and again and again. You just don’t know when to stop. It’s been game over from the beginning and you act like you have something. You have nothing. You most certainly belong to your demonic religion where you get to believe whatever you want and even be a heretic. Pope Innocent III, Eius exemplo, Dec. 18, 1208: “By the heart we believe and by the mouth we confess the one Church, not of heretics, but the Holy Roman, Catholic, and Apostolic Church.”
Pope Eugene IV, Council of Florence, “Cantate Domino,” 1441: “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…”
Your religion is completely full of heretics and you argue using canon law how heretics are part of the Catholic Church until warned and declared so. You have no idea how silly you look but you keep on doing what you do. You’re just like the flat-earthers thinking they are so right.
“That’s one way, not the only way. I pointed to that fact when you say there’s no jurisdiction at all. It was a very simple example.”
I never denied the existence of supplied jurisdiction. However, supplied jurisdiction is not ordinary jurisdiction.
“SPERAY REPLIES: I agree. That’s sounds right to me.”
You claim to agree, but in fact you reject it since you claim there are no bishops with ordinary jurisdiction.
SPERAY REPLIES: Nope. There’s another answer. No point in explaining to you.
Explain to me how you reconcile the two in your little brain.
SPERAY REPLIES: Very simple but since your brain is smaller than mine you would not be able to comprehend. You can’t even comprehend Bellarmine who couldn’t be more clear.
“You’re clearly wrong. AND YOU MAKE THE POPE SUBJECT as if he can be warned and judged. Lol. You’re a heretic for saying so.”
I already explained, as does Suarez, that the warnings would constitute acts of charity, and not jurisdiction. You merely continue to misrepresent my position.
SPERAY REPLIES: Why would a pope need to be warned? Don’t you understand what a warning is for? If the pope doesn’t know he’s going against a dogma, you got bigger problems than you realize. Suarez explains that his position is impossible, which is why he said a pope can’t become a heretic. He doesn’t think there was a way to solve it. The best his gives doesn’t work according to him. He didn’t even think a pope can be an occult heretic either. Do you agree with Suarez that a pope can’t be an occult heretic?
“He says, Therefore, the true opinion is the fifth, according to which the Pope who is manifestly a heretic ceases by himself to be Pope and head, ”
Yes, only after he has been proven to be a heretic through public and solemn warnings, which is why he quotes Titus.
SPERAY REPLIES Warning aren’t necessary to prove a person to be a heretic. Nestorius wasn’t warned and yet lost jurisdiction. Bellarmine taught, “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 be taken from him.” THIS POINT BLOWS YOUR ARGUMENT APART AND PROVES THAT YOU MISREPRESENT BELLARMINE.
“THEREFORE, HE CAN BE PUNISHED AND JUDGED AND DEPOSED, ETC. GET THAT THROUGH YOUR HEAD BUT YOU CAN’T BECAUSE YOU’RE INCAPABLE. IT’S SO SIMPLE.”
Bellarmine doesn’t require a declaratory sentence because in his view the public warnings suffice.
SPERAY REPLIES: HE DIDN’T SAY WARNINGS ARE REQUIRED!!!! His explanation of Nestorius and Liberius proves it. IT’S GAME OVER. YOU LOSE.
” YOU DON’T WARN A MANIFEST HERETIC BECAUSE THE PURPOSE OF WARNINGS IS TO FIND OUT IF ONE IS A HERETIC AT ALL. Bellermine is using St. Paul on what happens to the manifest heretic NOT to find out if one is pertinacious since he’s already referring to the pope as a manifest heretic. VERY SIMPLE STUFF BUT IT’S TOO MUCH FOR YOU TO COMPREHEND.”
The warnings serve to establish pertinacity. Or give the person the opportunity to repent.
SPERAY REPLIES: Warnings are to establish whether one is a heretic in some cases but if it’s already established that you’re a heretic and a manifest one, there’s no need for warning what’s already established. Bellarmine was referring whether such a person is deposed, not whether he’s a heretic for he is already saying that he so. He’s going after Cajetan for saying that a manifest heretic is not ipso facto deposed.
” that the accused could not have been unaware that his thesis was opposed to the Church, he would be considered as a heretic from this fact… The reason for this is clear because the exterior warning can serve only to ensure that someone who has erred understands the opposition which exists between his error and the teaching of the Church.”
SPERAY REPLIES: There are some who don’t understand the opposition which exists between their error and the teaching of the Church. Popes, theologians, etc. understand clearly when they go against a dogma of the Church.
When sedevacantists use “…” it’s probably missing some important details.
SPERAY REPLIES: NOPE, IT ALWAYS MEANS THAT’S ITS IRRELEVANT.
“He doesn’t quote Bellarmine does he?”
Ballerini is directly commenting on the fifth opinion in this context.
SPERAY REPLIES: HE DOESN’T QUOTE BELLARMINE DOES HE? As I showed, Bellarmine was quite clear in the 5th opinion and makes himself more clear with his explanation of Nestorius and Liberius.
“Nope. There’s another answer. No point in explaining to you.”
How can the Church possesses ordinary jurisdiction without bishops with ordinary jurisdiction?
SPERAY REPLIES: Oh no you don’t. You can’t understand Bellarmine’s 5th opinion and now what answers on jurisdiction? I’m not going down another rabbit hole.
////
“Why would a pope need to be warned? Don’t you understand what a warning is for?… He didn’t even think a pope can be an occult heretic either. Do you agree with Suarez that a pope can’t be an occult heretic?”
Bellarmine personally believed (his prefered opinion) that a pope couldn’t become a private heretic either.
‟It is probable and may piously be believed that not only as ‛Pope’ can the Supreme Pontiff not err, but he cannot be a heretic even as a particular person by pertinaciously believing something false against the faith.”
‟It is proved: 1) because it seems to require the sweet disposition of the providence of God. For, the Pope not only should not, but cannot preach heresy, but rather should always preach the truth. He will certainly do that, since the Lord commanded him to confirm his brethren, and for that reason added: ‛I have prayed for thee, that thy faith shall not fail,’ that is, that at least the preaching of the true faith shall not fail in thy throne. How, I ask, will a heretical Pope confirm the brethren in faith and always preach the true faith?”
SPERAY REPLIES: And? You didn’t deal with Suarez nor answered the question. Do you agree with Suarez that a pope can’t be an occult heretic?” So far you’ve argued that he can be an occult heretic. Again, Suarez knew that his arguments didn’t work and concluded that a pope can’t be a heretic even in the internal forum. Bellarmine’s position is my position. Quoting him doesn’t help you at all.
////
Bellarmine also taught that a Pope could be admonished/warned in the context of a Council he consented to:
d) The fourth reason is suspicion of heresy in the Roman Pontiff, if perhaps it might happen, or if he were an incorrigible tyrant; for then a general Council ought to be gathered either to depose the Pope if he should be found to be a heretic, or certainly to admonish him, if he seemed incorrigible in morals. As it is related in the 8th Council, act. ult. can. 21, general Councils ought to impose judgment on controversies arising in regard to the Roman Pontiff—albeit not rashly. For this reason we read that the Council of Sinvessano in the case of St. Marcellinus, as well as Roman Councils in the cases of Pope Damasus, Sixtus III, and Symmachus, as well as Leo III and IV, none of whom were condemned by a Council; Marcellinus enjoined penance upon himself in the presence of the Council, and the rest purged themselves (See Platina and the volumes of Councils).
Bellarmine, Robert. On Councils: Their Nature and Authority (De Controversiis) (pp. 45-46). Mediatrix Press. Kindle Edition.
SPERAY REPLIES: I’ve already answered this. You’re trying to make Bellarmine out to be an idiot. Read it closely. Bellarmine has already explained that a pope can’t be a heretic. If it’s found out that he is a heretic, then he is no longer pope and must be deposed. And even a layman can admonish a pope if he seemed incorrigible in morals as happened in history.
It is certain that hitherto a Council has never been called for this purpose. The same can be said about the fourth reason. For on account of suspicions on the doctrine and life of Popes, no Council has been convened apart from provincial or national Councils. Nor does it seem necessary for a greater Council; for while the Pope is truly a Pope, he cannot be judged by any Council, unless perhaps he himself were to grant the power to a Council of examining his case, and it could impose a judgment of Council but not a coercive judgment; consequently, the Pope can equally give power to a particular or general Council.
Bellarmine, Robert. On Councils: Their Nature and Authority (De Controversiis) (p. 48). Mediatrix Press. Kindle Edition.
SPERAY REPLIES: Lol. You don’t know what you’re reading. Look what he’s saying. This is so simple and doesn’t help you at all. It helps me. Thank you for the quotes.
Now, the second opinion is of some canonists, who would have it that the Pope is above a Council and can be judged by no man against his will, yet he can subject himself to a Council and grant it power over him; if he did this he ought to acquiesce to the judgment of the Council, even if it were a question of his deposition. So the Gloss teaches in can. Nos si incompetenter, 2. q. 7, and in can. In Synodo, d. 63. The last opinion is nearly common, namely that the Pope is so above a Council that he could not even subject himself to its judgment if it were a question of a properly coercive judgment.
Bellarmine, Robert. On Councils: Their Nature and Authority (De Controversiis) (pp. 224-225). Mediatrix Press. Kindle Edition.
SPERAY REPLIES: Another quote that helps me, not you.
////
“SPERAY REPLIES: NOPE, IT ALWAYS MEANS THAT’S ITS IRRELEVANT.”
Then, you wouldn’t mind citing the complete text, or don’t you know Latin?
SPERAY REPLIES: Lol. It’s game over with Nestorius and Liberius. You’ve been knocked out and are laying on the floor still swinging. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mZx_8sBCNSA
Bellarmine also believed that Roman Clergy (and by that he meant the clergy within the city of Rome, and not the entire Roman Rite episcopate), would always have a bishop with Ordinary jurisdiction. He writes,
“The other is Pope Sixtus IV, who first through the Synod of Álcala, then by himself, condemned the articles of a certain Peter of Oxford, one of which was that the Church of the city of Rome could err. And although this seems to be understood particularly on account of the Pope, still, because the Roman Church is not only the Pope but the Pope and the people, then when the Fathers or Popes say the Roman Church cannot err they mean that in the Roman Church there is always going to be a bishop teaching in a Catholic way and a people believing in a Catholic way.”
////
He also teaches that there must always be bishops with ordinary jurisdiction.
The fifth Mark is the Succession of Bishops in the Roman Church deduced from the apostles even to us; hence it is called Apostolic. Besides, all the Fathers used this succession as a most clear argument to show the true Church.
…
First, in no way can the Church exist without shepherds and bishops, as St. Cyprian rightly teaches, the Church is the people united to the bishop, and the bishop is in the Church, and the Church in the bishop… This is certainly proved from St. Paul… Where he teaches apostles, he means the pastors who were going to exist in the church even to the day of judgment… From which it follows, it is not a true Church that has either no shepherds, or at least no true ones.
The second note; only those who are within the Church have always been held to be true bishops. That is, those who were shown to descend from the apostles through a legitimate succession and ordination. All others were thieves and robbers, obviously who did not enter through the gate, but went in from another place.
…
The third note requires two things; that some bishop should rightly be said to descend from the apostles, and hence be a legitimate bishop. One is succession, the other is ordination. As to succession, it requires that he who desires to be counted as a true bishops should succeed some apostle, in the way that Clement succeeded Peter, and Polycarp succeeded John.
…
I say secondly, the argument we advance from legitimate succession is to particularly prove it is not a Church where there is no succession, which is evident; but it doesn’t’ necessarily follow, that there is a Church where there is a succession. Therefore, by this argument we evidently prove that there is no Church among the Lutherans. On the other hand, that there is no Church among the Greeks, we prove in another way, for without a doubt they were convicted of schism and heresy in three plenary councils, of the Lateran, Lyons and Florence, particularly their heresy denying the procession of the Holy Spirit from the Son, which is a manifest heresy, and Lutherans and Calvinists also affirm that.
https://contrasedevacantism.blogspot.com/2020/06/st-robert-bellarmine-refutes.html
Do you reject Bellarmine’s twofold opinion that there must always be bishops with ordinary jurisdiction in general, and in particular in the city of Rome?
http://www.catholic-hierarchy.org/diocese/droma.html
SPERAY REPLIES: These opinions are more damaging to you since to succeed also means to hand down the faith and not just ordination, etc. YOUR BISHOPS DON’T HOLD THE FAITH AND HAVE NOT SUCCEEDED IN FAITH NOR TRANSMITTED THE FAITH TO OTHERS. Before you get into a discussion about jurisdiction, you must first understand that the Faith must be present or else you don’t have it unless common error is involved somehow.
“These opinions are more damaging to you since to succeed also means to hand down the faith and not just ordination, etc. ”
You are clearly unwilling to engage with what Bellarmine actually says because to accept what he says is to implicitly admit that you’ve been a heretic all along.
SPERAY REPLIES: Nope. Even if I disagreed with Bellarmine, which I don’t necessarily, it wouldn’t make me a heretic since opinions don’t make for dogmas. But what he says is not what you’re saying. A bishop with delegated jurisdiction can possess the same authority as one with ordinary jurisdiction. There’s also the issue of exceptions, such as extraordinary circumstances, etc. However, you are clearly unwilling to engage with the fact that your bishops don’t even profess the faith. You can’t defend your religion. You only attack mine.
“Do you agree with Suarez that a pope can’t be an occult heretic?” So far you’ve argued that he can be an occult heretic. Again, Suarez knew that his arguments didn’t work and concluded that a pope can’t be a heretic even in the internal forum.”
I don’t have a firm position on whether a pope can personally be a heretic since that isn’t a defined matter. Where does Suarez suggest that his arguments “don’t work”.
SPERAY REPLIES: Have you not argued that a pope can be a personal heretic by saying the pope must be a notorious heretic before losing office? As for Suarez, you haven’t actually read his material like I have. You just pick out a few quotes that someone else already found for you.
“Bellarmine’s position is my position. Quoting him doesn’t help you at all.”
No, it really isn’t.
SPERAY REPLIES: Yes, it really is.
” SPERAY REPLIES: Lol. You don’t know what you’re reading. Look what he’s saying. This is so simple and doesn’t help you at all. It helps me. Thank you for the quotes.”
That’s only because you don’t what you’re reading. The warnings constiute acts of charity not jurisdiction per Suarez and Ballerini.
SPERAY REPLIES: I was responding to your quotes from Bellarmine, where he says nothing about warnings. Lol. You can’t even read and place my comments under the right points you make.
Ballerini no where says that laymen can admonish a pope for heresy. You confuse morals and heresy.
SPERAY REPLIES: I was replying to your Bellarmine quote on councils and he specifically said in the quote you provided, “to admonish him, if he seemed incorrigible in morals.” Thank you for proving once more that you’re clueless about what you’re reading. I really feel sorry for you.
“Even if I disagreed with Bellarmine, which I don’t necessarily, it wouldn’t make me a heretic since opinions don’t make for dogmas.”
It’s not an opinion. It’s dogma. Leo XIII:
“He who made Peter the foundation of the Church, also selected the twelve, whom He called Apostles. Just as the authority of Peter must be perpetuated in the Roman Pontiff, so also the ordinary power of the Apostles must be inherited by their successors, the bishops. Hence the order of bishops pertains of necessity to the very constitution of the Church.” (De Initate Ecclesiae, 29 June 1896).
SPERAY REPLIES: I agree with Pope Leo 100%. You’re not going to get an argument out of me against him.
“A bishop with delegated jurisdiction can possess the same authority as one with ordinary jurisdiction.”
Delegated jurisdiction is not the same as ordinary jurisdiction. The dogma is that the church must possess ordinary jurisdiction. You can go read my article again.
SPERAY REPLIES: I was replying to what was said. You’re misapplying my comment because you can’t read properly.
“There’s also the issue of exceptions, such as extraordinary circumstances, etc.”
There are no exception or extraordinary circumstances that would permit your view without undermining the indefectibility of the Church. Your position makes you a protestant.
SPERAY REPLIES: Nope. It’s you who is the Protestant since you’re united to the Vat2 popes who praise Protestants, endorses them, uses their works to teach, and venerates them. https://stevensperay.wordpress.com/2020/03/23/the-vaticans-veneration-of-arch-heretic-martin-luther/
It has just been proved that the Apostles must have successors to perpetuate their powers of teaching, governing, and sanctifying until the end of time;
SPERAY REPLIES: Yes, I agree.
but it is a well-known fact that the bishops, and the bishops alone, have ever claimed and exercised these powers in their fullness,
SPERAY REPLIES: Only the Apostles had universal jurisdiction. Not their successors. Bishops have the powers of teaching, governing, and sanctifying, but not all of them. Yours don’t. Ours do.
and they alone have ever been recognized as the legitimate successors to these powers. Before the so-called Reformation of the sixteenth century, the right of the bishops to rule as successors of the Apostles was never questioned, except by a few individuals swayed by political or private interests.
SPERAY REPLIES: Agreed. The “reformers” didn’t profess the faith just like yours don’t.
Even today, all parties admit that the bishops were the recognized successors of the Apostles, at least from the second century until the time of the pseudo-Reformation. Testimony from the Apostles and early Fathers prove that they were recognized as such from the earliest years of the Church. Now it is manifestly impossible for any body of men to obtain recognition as successors of the Apostles from the very beginning of the Church, and maintain that position undisputed for sixteen centuries, unless they were in fact what they claimed to be, — true successors.
SPERAY REPLIES: I recognize my bishop as a successor to the Apostles.
Any other hypothesis would mean that the Church, as Christ founded it, ceased to exist with the death of the Apostles, and that the world has since been without the means of salvation;
SPERAY REPLIES: And yours has been without the means of salvation. However, your religion of Vatican 2 says non-Catholic religions do have a means of salvation.
it would mean that Christ failed in His promise to be with the Church all days, even to the consummation of the world. If the bishops of the Church are not the successors of the Apostles, then there are no successors, for no one else has even claimed this distinction; in that case the power and authority committed to the Apostles have lapsed, and cannot be renewed, except by a direct intervention of Christ in conferring them anew and re-establishing His Church. Such an act on the part of Christ would have to be confirmed by the performance of miracles as the only means by which we could be assured of its reality.
https://contrasedevacantism.blogspot.com/2020/06/fr-elwood-sylvester-berry-on-formal.html
“However, you are clearly unwilling to engage with the fact that your bishops don’t even profess the faith. You can’t defend your religion. You only attack mine.”
I plan on starting a blog dealing with all the theological arguments against Vatican II when time permits. But as it stands I’ve conclusively demonstrated that sedevacantism is not a viable option which is the only purpose of my blog.
SPERAY REPLIES: You can’t even get Bellarmine right and you’re going to tackle Vatican 2? You’re sick!
“Have you not argued that a pope can be a personal heretic by saying the pope must be a notorious heretic before losing office? As for Suarez, you haven’t actually read his material like I have. You just pick out a few quotes that someone else already found for you. ”
I’m pretty sure you don’t read latin, so you’re relying on the same sources as I am.
SPERAY REPLIES: You didn’t answer the question.
“I was replying to your Bellarmine quote on councils and he specifically said in the quote you provided, “to admonish him, if he seemed incorrigible in morals.” Thank you for proving once more that you’re clueless about what you’re reading. I really feel sorry for you.”
I feel sorry for all those deceived by sedevacantism.
SPERAY REPLIES: I feel sorry for all those deceived by the Vat2 religion.
Bellarmine distinguishes between a pope who is incorrigible in morals and one suspect of heresy. You clearly can’t read.
SPERAY REPLIES: Lol. That’s the point I made, you goofball.
Second, if you go read Fr. Luciens article on sedeprivaitonism he argues that Bellarmine required warning to establish pertinacity. And he does as a sedeprivationist. Of course you will argue that he’s wrong. But Bellarmine clearly says that a Pope can be admonished for suspicion of heresy, and he nowhere suggests that laymen can admonish him.
SPERAY REPLIES: Luciens would be wrong if he said Bellarmine required warnings to establish pertinacity in a pope. As for sedeprivationism, I’m not necessarily opposed to it. It’s a fascinating theory. Bellarmine is quite aware that a laymen can admonish a true pope since history has examples…
St. Bridgit of Sweden wrote to Pope Gregory XI, “Show yourself a man and begin to renew My Church which I have bought with My blood, so that it may be born again and return to its former state … But this you shall know of a surety, that if you do not obey My will, judgment will be passed upon you as upon a prelate who is degraded and deprived of his ecclesiastical vestments. Everything that has formerly been peace and honor to you shall then be damnation and shame. …And every devil in hell shall have a piece of your soul and fill it with everlasting damnation.”
St. Catherine of Sienna wrote to the same pope, “Most Holy Father … because He [Christ] has given you authority and because you have accepted it, you ought to use your virtue and power. If you do not wish to use it, it might be better for you to resign what you have accepted; it would give more honor to God and health to your soul. … If you do not do this, you will be censured by God. If I were you, I would fear that Divine Judgment might descend on me.”
“As for sedeprivationism, I’m not necessarily opposed to it. ”
https://contrasedevacantism.blogspot.com/2020/07/response-to-introiboadaltaredei2-on.html
Congratulations! You just won first prize for straw-man argument of the year. Lol.