Fake pope, fake president, and fake news is the universal theme on the world’s stage. Therefore, fake Catholics putting out fake Catholic theology will be par for the course in a religious discussion against sedevacantism. Salza and Siscoe’s latest “True Meaning of Bellarmine’s Ipso Facto Loss of Office Theory for a Heretical Pope” is no exception.
We’ve seen in the past from Salza and Siscoe how Christ left a wolf to watch over the Flock, how Pope Celestine III issued a heretical canon law, how can. 188.4 is a severe vindictive penalty, how Bellarmine held to ecclesiastical warnings for heretical popes, etc.
They begin their latest by asking how a true pope is removed from office. They turn to Bellarmine, the saint who they incidentally side against using the writings of John of St. Thomas.
- Bellarmine discussed the issue of a pope who becomes a heretic only in the context of a pope becoming a heretic as a private theologian and not in the exercise of his magisterium. In other words, his heresy could never infect the Church’s official teachings, laws, or other magisterial acts, as has happened in the Vatican 2 religion.
- Sedevacantists don’t believe the Vatican 2 popes lost their office, but that they never had the office to lose. Thus, applying Bellarmine’s thesis against sedevacantism is a red herring.
- The Vatican 2 pope and clerics support Marxist ideology and government leaders as we’ve seen in Biden’s fake election. They support homosexuality as seen in the promotion of homosexual friendly bishops and priests. They support feminist ideology with women serving in the sanctuary and in places of authority over men. They promote a blasphemous understanding on the nature of the Church with false ecumenism. They pray with and worship in synagogues, mosques, and Protestant churches. Why Bellarmine is still being used in attempt to justify how Bergoglio is somehow pope is mind-boggling.
- Bellarmine held that a manifestly heretical pope is an oxymoron. Canonists Wernz and Vidal explain: 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. [1]
Other problems with Salza and Siscoe’s article
- Salza and Siscoe’s definition of manifest heresy is false. Rev. Charles Augustine makes the proper distinctions in his commentary. [2]
- Salza and Siscoe pit the 2nd opinion against the 5th opinion, but the opinions differ in nature. The 2nd opinion concerns occult heresy and the 5th opinion concerns manifest heresy. Both opinions can be held at the same time as some great theologians such as Vatican I theologian Franzlin did. [3] Bellarmine didn’t condemn the 2nd opinion, but said that it wasn’t proven to him.
- Salza and Siscoe make a big deal out of a couple of Bellarmine’s references. For instance, in the 2nd opinion:
For Jurisdiction is certainly given to the Pontiff by God, but with the agreement of men, as is obvious; because this man, who beforehand was not Pope, has from men that he would begin to be Pope, therefore, he is not removed by God unless it is through men.
And in De Ecclesia Militante:
Moreover it is certain, whatever one or another may think, that an occult heretic, if he be a bishop or even the supreme Pontiff, does not lose his jurisdiction, dignity, or the title of head in the Church, until either he publicly separates himself from the Church, or is convicted of heresy (aut convictus haereseos) and separated against his will.
In both scenarios, Bellarmine is referring to occult heresy only. Since an occult heretic can be pope with jurisdiction (according to Bellarmine), a judgment call by the bishops (authorities) would be required for men to know the heresy and that his office has been removed.
- Bergoglio is not an occult heretic. Thus, Bellarmine’s two references don’t apply.
- If Bellarmine meant that bishops are necessary under all circumstances as Salza and Siscoe assert, then Bellarmine would be contradicting himself with the example of Nestorius who lost his authority after preaching heresy.[4]
- Lastly, Salza and Siscoe attempt to show that Protestants of Bellarmine’s day make the same argument as sedevacantists today. What we see is that Lutheran theologian Gerhard quotes the teaching of Catholic theologians but misapplies the Catholic principle. Bellarmine is attacking the Protestant application, not the principle. I fully support what Bellarmine said against Gerhard. We are not Bible Only Heretics.
- If Salza and Siscoe are so certain Francis is the Vicar of Christ, then they must adhere to him the way they would have adhered to Pope St. Pius X, or would they have sat in judgment on his magisterium also?
Salza and Siscoe have once again failed miserably. Their kraken turns out to be a krill.
Footnotes:
[1] Jus Canonicum by the Rev F X Wernz S.J. and the Rev P Vidal S.J. (1938)
[2] 1. 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.
2 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.
3 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. https://archive.org/details/1917CodeOfCanonLawCommentary/page/n3549
[3] Johann Baptist Franzelin, Theses de Ecclesia Christi, th. 23, pp. 402-423
[4] And in a letter to the clergy of Constantinople, Pope St. Celestine I says: The authority of Our Apostolic See has determined that the bishop, cleric, or simple Christian who had been deposed or excommunicated by Nestorius or his followers, after the latter began to preach heresy shall not be considered deposed or excommunicated. For he who had defected from the faith with such preachings, cannot depose or remove anyone whatsoever. (On the Roman Pontiff, 30)
Speray's Catholicism in a Nutshell 
Salza and Siscoe are both vain men. What good is it to defend a man like Jorge Bergoglio, when they personally think he is a heretic and don’t agree or respect him as they would like somebody as Pope Leo XIII?
It would be like me constantly defending Joe Biden as the legitimate president while personally believing that there was massive voter fraud and knowing his background was filled with illegal activity such as with China.
While they will always have their core followers and may pick up a few easily misguided folks, the fact that they keep writing at length (literally) about the subject just shows how they are on the losing spectrum. In a sense, Bergoglio and the Vatican II bishops are the sedevacantist best friends because they have made it abundantly clear what they believe and it’s not Catholicism. There is only one option for Catholics at this point.
Ever wonder why Salsa and the Kid are so bent on the pope issue? Probably because they are so good at confusing issues that they lead themselves into never being sure of what is or is not the truth.
Why are they so bent on worrying about what everyone else believes and understands? Could it be insecurity in their fake apologetics? Personally, I don’t get excited with these folks due to their fundamental lack of accepting simple logic and teachings of the Church. For whatever reason they make a super big deal out of the pope issue and in so doing further confuse the issue for many. Hey, if the man in the chair has raised so much confusion about the faith and has apparently misspoken, blasphemed, continued to follow and implement pre- VATII heretical practices, assisted and participated in pagan rituals, condoned gay life and been silent on many other undesirable, corrupt and anti-Catholic subjects, why would they think he is a Catholic POPE??? And why you would think S&S and their fake compadres would continue to make excuses and present him as a valid pope? I don’t know either. Guessing it makes them feel better in their feel-good church.
“They turn to Bellarmine, the saint who they incidentally side against using the writings of John of St. Thomas.”
John of St. Thomas isn’t critiquing Bellarmine in the passage you allude to. He is in fact summarizing Bellarmine’s view.
SPERAY REPLIES: Yes, he’s critiquing and criticizing Bellarmine. He says, Bellarmine objected…and then says, I answer to Bellarmine.
“Bellarmine discussed the issue of a pope who becomes a heretic only in the context of a pope becoming a heretic as a private theologian and not in the exercise of his magisterium.”
This is demonstrably false. the phrase “private teacher” extends to the pope’s official teaching capacity, and not merely his private theological opinions. This is evident from Bellarmine’s response to the cases of Nicholas and Honorius.
SPERAY REPLIES: NOPE! Popes have erred in the past but not in teaching as the pope for the whole church. Your following examples proves me right. Thank you!
Bellarmine writes,
The twenty-sixth is Nicholas I, whom several condemn, because he taught that baptism conferred in the name of Christ, without expression of the three persons, was valid. That is contrary not only to the evangelical institution, but even to the decrees of other Popes, namely, of Pelagius and Zachary, who condemned the baptism of those who are only baptized in the name of Christ and not expressly in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit, and is clear in the same place. Nor can the response be given that in the time of Nicholas, it was still not defined whether baptism was invalid if conferred in the name of Christ, for that was defined in the English Council and confirmed by Pope Zachary who preceded Nicholas.
I respond: Nicholas was not defining a question on faith when he spoke; rather, he only expressed his opinion in passing as a private teacher. For what he intended to teach in that canon was not on the form of baptism, but only on the minister concerning which he had been asked. Therefore, after he responded and defined that baptism was valid, even if given by a Jew or a pagan, which the question was especially about, he added in passing that baptism is valid whether it is given in the name of the three persons or in the name of Christ alone. In this he followed the opinion of Ambrose as he says himself. Still, in my judgment, this opinion is false, but not heretical. There is no certain definition of the Church that is discovered on this affair, and various opinions are discovered among the Fathers.
In this context, Pope Nicholas was responding to several questions sent by unidentified Bulgarians in his official capacity (although he wasn’t defining the matter definitively). Similarly, in his response to the case of Honorius, Bellarmine writes,
You might say: But certainly these Councils believed that the Pope could err. I respond: Those Fathers only believed that the Pope could err as a private man, which is a probable opinion, although the contrary seems more probable to us. That is all that Honorius is accused of, that he fostered heresy in private letters.
However, if we read the two letters of Honorius, he clearly wasn’t acting as a private individual, since Sergius appealed to him to resolve a theological dispute between the patriarchates of Constantinople, Jerusalem, and Alexandria. Later both Sergius and Paul of Constantinople appealed to his authority to defend their doctrine.
SPERAY REPLIES: You don’t see papal error in Church teaching, which is the point you miss. In fact, you don’t see papal error going against Church doctrine. In all cases, the Church hadn’t yet made a pronouncment, unlike the Vatican 2 popes who have rejected past papal teaching for the whole Church. Your entire religion is now antichrist. I’m starting to believe that your christ is really antichrist and not Jesus.
“Sedevacantist don’t believe the Vatican 2 popes lost their office, but that they never had the office to lose.”
Sedevacantist have you to demonstrate that either John XXIII or Paul VI were considered notorious heretics prior to the their elections.
SPERAY REPLIES: You have taken Salza and Siscoe’s work, which I have already shown to be wrong. It doesn’t have to be notorious canonically speaking. I personally hold to the 2nd opinion and 5th opinion. Therefore, I don’t think a pope can be an occult heretic, either.
If your argument is deductive that since they taught heresy, that they were therefore never popes in the first place then that contradicts the notion of universal and peaceful acceptance of the person of the Roman Pontiff, which Billot considers a dogmatic fact.
SPERAY REPLIES: I answer here: https://stevensperay.wordpress.com/2019/02/21/the-universal-acceptance-argument-revisited/
“Bellarmine held that a manifestly heretical pope is an oxymoron. Canonists Wernz and Vidal explain:
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.”
Unfortunately Wernz –Vidal have misinterepted Bellarmine as I demonstrate in my book https://contrasedevacantism.blogspot.com/2021/01/book-contrasedevacantism-definitive.html
SPERAY REPLIES: They have not misinterpreted Bellarmine, you have. You’re only repeating Siscoe’s nonsense.
“Bellarmine would be contradicting himself with the example of Nestorius who lost his authority after preaching heresy.”
Nestorius did not automatically lose his office after beginning to preach heresy.
SPERAY REPLIES: According to Bellarmine and Pope St. Celestine, he did lose it. They even explained why and how.
Otherwise, it would make no sense for St. Cyril to write to the clergy and laity in Constantinople that unless Nestorius repented of his heresy he would be excommunicated.
SPERAY REPLIES: You look at St. Cyril but not Pope St. Celestine, who told us that Nestorius’ excommunications were invalid because preached heresy. That means he automatically lost his office and had no power to excommunicate himself.
Bellarmine writes in his treatise On the Councils,
The third Council was the first of Ephesus, in which it is certain that the Emperor did not preside, rather the Roman Pontiff through legates.
…
Fourthly, from the epistle of Cyril to the people of Constantinople, in which he says that if Nestorius did not come back to his senses within the limit set by Pope St. Celestine, he would be deprived of communion with the Church.
SPERAY REPLIES: You’re looking at the penalty imposed. Very simple.
Regarding Bellarmine’s fourth point, The New Schaff-Herzog Encyclopedia provides some historical background,
In August 430, Celestine held a synod at Rome and excommunicated Nestorius unless he should publicly recant within ten days after learning of the decree. He wrote to the same effect to Nestorius, the clergy of Constantinople, John of Antioch, Juvenal of Jerusalem, the Macedonian bishops, and Cyril. The latter [i.e., Cyril] was formally authorized to pronounce anathema on Nestorius unless he should recant within the appointed time.
SPERAY REPLIES: Again, you’re looking at the penalty. The pope already told us that Nesterius had no power long before the penalty.
In November of the same year, St. Cyril convened to a synod at Alexandria and wrote the “third letter” to Nestorius, which contained the twelve articles against Nestorian doctrines. However, it wasn’t until the Council of Ephesus in 431 that the bishops officially condemned Nestorius,
SPERAY REPLIES: A later condemnation doesn’t mean that Nestorius didn’t lose his office automatically.
The holy synod said: As, in addition to all else, the excellent Nestorius has declined to obey our summons and has not received the holy and God-fearing bishops we sent to him, we have of necessity started upon an investigation of his impieties. We have found him out thinking and speaking in an impious fashion, from his letters, from his writings that have been read out, and from the things that he has recently said in this metropolis which have been witnessed to by others; and as a result we have been compelled of necessity both by the canons and by the letter of our most holy father and fellow servant Celestine, bishop of the church of the Romans, to issue this sad condemnation against him, though we do so with many tears.
SPERAY REPLIES: Has no bearing on the fact that Nestorius already lost his power.
The central sedevacantist claim that a pope loses his office ipso facto for manifest heresy, without judiciary interference finds little support in the canonical or theological literature.
SPERAY REPLIES: IT’S EVERYWHERE. I already provide Wernz/Vidal. I’ll provide 2 saints out of several: St. Antoninus, O.P. (1389-1459) “In the case in which the pope would become a heretic, he would find himself, by that fact alone and without any other sentence, separated from the Church. A head separated from a body cannot, as long as it remains separated, be head of the same body from which it was cut off. ‘A pope who would be separated from the Church by heresy, therefore, would by that very fact itself cease to be head of the Church. He could not be a heretic and remain pope, because, since he is outside of the Church, he cannot possess the keys of the Church.’” (Summa Theologica cited in Actes de Vatican I. V. Frond pub.)
St. Alphonsus Liguori, C.SS.R. (1696-1787) “If ever a pope, as a private person, should fall into heresy, he would at once fall from the pontificate. If, however, God were to permit a pope to become a notoriously and contumacious heretic, he would by such fact cease to be pope, and the apostolic chair would be vacant.” (Verita della Fede, Pt. III, Ch. VIII. 9-10)
The oft-cited passage from St. Robert Bellarmine certainly doesn’t support the sedevacantist case, since Bellarmine explicitly teaches that a reigning Pontiff will always remain such until he has been legitimately deposed by a council of bishops.
SPERAY REPLIES: Nope. He said, “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.”
Your next examples are on councils, which is another subject altogether.
In his treatise On the Councils, Belllarmine writes,
The Lutherans, who call themselves Protestants, propose eight conditions for celebrating a Council… Thirdly, that the Roman Pontiff should not summon the Council, nor preside in it, but that it should be on the other side of those litigating, just as when someone is accused and no man is at the same time the judge and the accusing party.
…
The third condition is unjust, because the Roman Pontiff cannot be deprived of his right to summon Councils and preside over them, in whose possession this right has already been for 1500 years, unless he were first convicted by the legitimate judgment of a Council and is not the Supreme Pontiff. Moreover, what they say, that the same man ought not be a judge and a party, I say has place in private men, but not in a supreme prince. For the supreme prince, as long as he is not declared or judged to have legitimately been deprived of his rule, is always the supreme judge, even if he litigates with himself as a party.
…
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 writes shortly afterward in the same chapter,
The Lutherans, who call themselves Protestants, propose eight conditions for celebrating a Council…Sixthly, that the Roman Pontiff would absolve all prelates from the oath of fidelicty, in which they have been bound.
…
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 fidelicty 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.
This is why John of St. Thomas, despite his criticism of Bellarmine, can say,
It cannot be held that the pope, by the very fact of being a heretic, would cease to be pope antecedently [prior] to a declaration of the Church. It is true that some seem to hold this position; but we will discuss this in the next article. What is truly a matter of debate, is whether the pope, after he is declared by the Church to be a heretic, is deposed ipso facto by Christ the Lord, or if the Church ought to depose him. In any case, as long as the Church has not issued a juridical declaration, he must always be considered the pope, as we will make more clear in the next article.
SPERAY REPLIES: Bellarmine and John of St. Thomas were giving opinions about what they think might happen if a pope became a heretic. Bellarmine didn’t think a pope could become a heretic and I’m with him. He was just answering a hypothetical question. THE FACT IS YOUR VATICAN 2 RELIGION IS NOT CATHOLIC and proves that John of St. Thomas was wrong. He even said what you have was impossible and he would be the first to join our ranks if he lived today. Opinions hundreds of years ago have no bearing on the facts of today. We have Vatican 1, canon law, and the teachings of Leo XIII and Pius XII, which demonstrate that Bergoglio ain’t pope.
“SPERAY REPLIES: Yes, he’s critiquing and criticizing Bellarmine. He says, Bellarmine objected…and then says, I answer to Bellarmine.”
Bellarmine nowhere denies the necessity of fraternal corrections prior to deposition. In fact he affirms it. The quote from JST where you falsely accuse him of criticizing Bellarmine, is in fact just a summary of Bellarmine’s view.
SPERAY REPLIES: Nope! JST tells us that Bellarmine denies warnings and you will not be able to show a quote from Bellarmine where he required warnings.
“NOPE! Popes have erred in the past but not in teaching as the pope for the whole church. Your following examples proves me right. Thank you!”
The case of Honorius is a case of the pope addressing the whole church, since he sent his letters to the patriarchates of Constantinople, Antioch and Jerusalem. This would qualify as the pope acting as pastor of the universal church.
SPERAY REPLIES: Honorius didn’t teach heresy.
Furthermore, simply because the pope addresses the universal church doesn’t mean his statements are infallible or irrevocable.
SPERAY REPLIES: Popes can’t teach heresy. Get that through your head.
Unless they meet the conditions for a definitive statement they subject to error and even heresy.
SPERAY REPLIES: Where are you getting such nonsense? Popes can’t teach heresy.
If you admit they are subject to error, then I don’t see why you wouldn’t admit heresy, since the Magisterium itself cannot teach either.
SPERAY REPLIES: Heresy is against dogma. Popes can only err when the Church hasn’t defined the something or not universally ordinarily taught.
A clear example of the Magisterium teaching error non-definitively is the decree to the Armenians, or the condemnation of Galileo.
SPERAY REPLIES: Those errors (if they are errors at all) are not heretical. You don’t seem to get it. The Vat2 religion has completly warped your way of thinking. If the pope taught heresy, the Church falls into heresy. It’s that simple.
.
“You don’t see papal error in Church teaching, which is the point you miss.”
Except Bellarmine explicitly teaches that Popes have error in matters of theology.
SPERAY RPELIES: Not in Church teaching against dogma.
“You have taken Salza and Siscoe’s work,”
The term “taken” implies I’ve plagiarized their work. I’ve never done such a thing. I’ve given them full credit wherever I utilize their writings or private correspondence.
SPERAY REPLES: You taken their whole theology. None of it is your own.
“It doesn’t have to be notorious canonically speaking.”
You might want to elaborate on this point further.
SPERAY REPLIES: I did in the article that you apparently didn’t read. Salza and Siscoe’s definition of notorious is wrong.
“I personally hold to the 2nd opinion and 5th opinion. Therefore, I don’t think a pope can be an occult heretic, either.”
Those are two contradictory views.
SPERAY REPLIES: Not really. One concerns occult heresy and one concerns manifest heresy.
“SPERAY REPLIES: I answer here: https://stevensperay.wordpress.com/2019/02/21/the-universal-acceptance-argument-revisited/”
The theologians you allude to clearly mean moral unanimity, since another dogmatic fact is the ecumenicity of councils, which Vatican I constitutes, which clearly wasn’t accepted by all Catholics.
SPERAY REPLIES: You didn’t read the article.
“According to Bellarmine and Pope St. Celestine, he did lose it. They even explained why and how. .You look at St. Cyril but not Pope St. Celestine, who told us that Nestorius’ excommunications were invalid because preached heresy. That means he automatically lost his office and had no power to excommunicate himself.”
The case of Nestorius contradicts your claim that the mere external violation of the law, without taking into consideration the delinquent’s culpability, entails ipso facto excommunication; since Celestine warned Nestorius that unless he recanted of his heresy he would be excommunicated.
SPERAY REPLIES: Declared xcommunication is a penalty. It comes after the fact. Bellarmine refers to it in the 5th opinion. “This is the opinion of all the ancient Fathers, who teach that manifest heretics immediately lose all jurisdiction… heretics already before being excommunicated are outside the Church and deprived of all jurisdiction. For they have already been condemned by their own sentence, as the Apostle teaches (Tit. 3:10-11), that is, they have been cut off from the body of the Church without excommunication, as St. Jerome affirms…”
Only when the sin or delict of heresy becomes judicially certain, does it entail ipso facto excommunication. As for the quotes from Pope Celestine in Bellarmine’s treatise On the Roan Pontiff, I would have to check the primary sources regarding what the pope said in context. However, even with what I have available, the quotes themselves could easily be interpreted as saying that Celestine himself is nullifying Nestorius’s excommunications.
SPERAY REPLIES: Nope! He clearly said that that Nestorius’ excommunications were already invalid. He had no power at the time it did them. That’s abundantly clear, but you can’t admit it because it destroys your entire argument.
I don’t have access to the text of St. Antoninus, but I do have access to St Alphonsus. St Alphonsus certainly doesn’t help the sedevacantist case.
In his treatise on the Truth of Faith, St. Alphonsus writes,
When in time of schism we are in doubt about the true Pope, the council may be convened by the cardinals and the bishops; and then each of the elected Popes is obliged to follow the decision of the council because, at that time, the Apostolic See is considered vacant. It would be the same if the Pope would fall notoriously and perseveringly, persistently in some heresy. However, there are those who affirm with more foundation that in the latter case, that the Pope would not be deprived of the papacy by the council as if it were superior to him, but he would be stripped directly by Jesus Christ because he would then become a subject completely disqualified and deprived of his office. (Truth of Faith (1767), penultimate chapter “On the Superiority of the Roman pontiff over the councils”, art. I, Preliminary Notions, 2°)
SPERAY REPLIES: This quote doesn’t help you at all and I GAVE YOU THE QUOTE FROM ST. ALPHONSUS THAT PROVES US RIGHT AND YOU WRONG! LOL.
St. Alphonsus defends the same idea in 1768 in his refutation of the errors of Febronius:
If ever the Pope, as a private person, falls into heresy, then he would be immediately stripped of papal authority as he would be outside the Church and therefore he could not be the head of the Church. So, in this case, the Church should not truly depose him, because no one has a superior power to the Pope, but to declare him deprived of the pontificate. (We said: if the Pope fall into heresy as a private person, because the Pope as Pope, that is to say, teaching the whole Church ex cathedra cannot teach an error against Faith because Christ’s promise cannot fail). (Vindiciae pro suprema Pontificis potestate adversus justinum febronium, 1768, Chapter VIII, response to the 6th objection)
SPERAY REPLIES: WHAT’S THE PROBLEM?
In his dissertation on the Roman Pontiff, St. Alphonsus writes,
Then (when he is a manifest and external heretic) the Pope is not deprived of his power by the Council as by a superior, but … he is immediately despoiled of it by Christ (Disseratio de Rom. Pont. 121 (OMG I, 107)
https://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?id=mdp.39015076650939&view=1up&seq=98&q1=heretic
SPERAY REPLIES: Ok, and????
“Your next examples are on councils, which is another subject altogether.”
No, it’s about the case of a heretical pope. Be a man and admit the fact that you can’t reconcile what Bellarmine says in these passages with your sedevacantist heresy.
“Bellarmine didn’t think a pope could become a heretic and I’m with him.”
Bellarmine clearly taught that a pope could publicly teach heresy, but that he could never be a formal heretic, hence he could never be deposed.
SPERAY REPLIES: Nope!
“THE FACT IS YOUR VATICAN 2 RELIGION IS NOT CATHOLIC”
Sedevacantism is heresy as I demonstrate in my book.
SPERAY REPLIES: You demonstrated no such thing. You only showed that you can’t comprehend what you read. You even quote me on your website and then misrepresented me. You quote me saying, “Presuming the acts occurred, they wouldn’t have constituted the loss of the papacy since they were clearly done under duress at the time and affirmed with the confession of Marcellinus…” THAT MEANS the formal element was absent. Then you try to say I was wrong by saying what I said in the quote. You’re actually agreeing with me. Lol.
“Nope! JST tells us that Bellarmine denies warnings and you will not be able to show a quote from Bellarmine where he required warnings.”
Robert Bellarmine explicitly states that fraternal corrections are required, citing the authority of Titus 3:10.
SPERAY REPLIES: PAY ATTENTION TO WHY YOU’RE WRONG.
He writes,
The fourth opinion is of Cajetan. There, he teaches, that a manifestly heretical Pope is not ipso facto deposed; but can and ought to be deposed by the Church. Now in my judgment, such an opinion cannot be defended. For in the first place, that a manifest heretic would be ipso facto deposed, is proven from authority and reason. 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: and he understands this before excommunication and sentence of a judge. (On the Roman Pontiff, Volume I, Book II, translated by Ryan Grant (Post Falls, ID: Mediatrix Press, 2015), 305).
SPERAY REPLIES: Warnings are to establish a manifest heretic, but it is already presumed in the question. Therefore, he’s quoting St. Paul as to what happens with a manifest heretic. AND LOOK WHAT HE SAYS…HE’S AUTOMATICALLY DEPOSED. IT’S NOT DONE BY THE CHURCH.
The opinion of Cajetan was that a pope still remained the pope even after the declaratory sentence, but needed to be stripped of his office by the Church. Bellarmine rejects this thesis arguing that the pope after two warnings is demonstrated to be pertinacious, and is declared such by the college of bishops. The latter qualification is evident from his treatise on the councils as I cited previously.
SPERAY REPLIES: YOU HAVE TOTALLY MISUNDERSTOOD THE CLEAR MEANING OF BELLARMINE.
The passage you cite from John of St. Thomas in your other articles is not a criticism of Bellarmine, but merely a summary of his view.
SPERAY REPLIES: We all can read John of St. Thomas answering AGAINST Bellarmine. Even your boy Siscoe has admitted that John of St. Thomas was correcting Bellarmine. I cite a theologian below who also says the same.
This is evident when we compare the two texts side by side (which I show in my book).
SPERAY REPLIES: You showed it on your website proving you can’t comprehend. Warnings aren’t needed to establish what is already established. You make Bellarmine out to be an idiot.
“SPERAY REPLIES: Honorius didn’t teach heresy.”
So you admit that this was a case of the pope addressing the universal church, but you reject that he taught heresy. This makes no difference to my point since the Church (or at least the eastern portion of it) believed a pope could teach heresy.
SPERAY REPLIES: He wasn’t and he didn’t.
Popes after Adrian II clearly believed that Honorius was a heretic when they agreed to the anathemas of the sixth council, as well as several notable theologians of the late modern period such as Dom Chapman.
SPERAY REPLIES: Here’s what he said, “The letter [to Sergius, Patriarch of Constantinople] cannot be called a private one, for it is an official reply to a formal consultation. It had, however, less publicity than a modern Encyclical. As the letter does not define or condemn, and does not bind the Church to accept its teaching, it is of course impossible to regard it as an ex cathedra utterance . . . It should be noted that he [Emperor Constantine Pogonatus] calls Honorius “the confirmer of the heresy and contradictor of himself”, again showing that Honorius was not condemned by the council as a Monothelite, but for approving Sergius’s contradictory policy of placing orthodox and heretical expressions under the same ban . . . The fault of Honorius lay precisely in the fact that he had not authoritatively published that unchanging faith of his Church, in modern language, that he had not issued a definition ex cathedra. . . . The new pope, Leo II, had naturally no difficulty in giving to the decrees of the council the formal confirmation which the council asked from him, according to custom. The words about Honorius in his letter of confirmation, by which the council gets its ecumenical rank, are necessarily more important than the decree of the council itself: “We anathematize . . . Honorius, who did not attempt to sanctify this Apostolic Church with the teaching of Apostolic tradition, but by profane treachery permitted its purity to be polluted.” This appears to express exactly the mind of the council, only that the council avoided suggesting that Honorius disgraced the Roman Church. (The Catholic Encyclopedia, 1910, Vol. VII, “Honorius”)
“SPERAY REPLIES: Popes can’t teach heresy. Get that through your head.”
Bellarmine clearly admitted the possibility of a pope teaching heresy in his official capacity (i.e., his authentic or ordinary magisterium). I explain this in the introduction of my book.
SPERAY REPLIES: Bellarmine said no such thing and believed a pope could not fall into heresy. He was giving an opinion to hypothetical question.
“SPERAY REPLIES: Heresy is against dogma. Popes can only err when the Church hasn’t defined the something or not universally ordinarily taught.”
Have you even read Bellarmine? The whole context is about heresy, where he explicitly admits that a pope can teach heresy in his official capacity, albeit that he will never be a formal heretic, and hence can’t be deposed.
SPERAY REPLIES: I’ve read Bellarmine a bunch of times, but you don’t understand him. Wernz/Vidal understood Bellarmine but you think they are wrong. I can cite several theologians who hold the Bellarmine exactly as I’ve said. Theologian and Superior of the Birmingham
Oratory, Fr. Henry Ignatius Dudley Ryder (1837-1907) acknowledged, “It has always been maintained by Catholic theologians that for
heresy the Church may judge the Pope, because, as most maintain, by
heresy he ceases to be Pope. There is no variance on this head amongst
theologians that I know of, except that some, with Torquemada and
Bellarmine, hold that by heresy he ipso facto ceases to be Pope: whilst
others, with Cajetan and John of St. Thomas, maintain that he would
not formally [as opposed to materially] cease to be Pope until he was
formally deposed.” (Catholic Controversy, 6th ed., Burns & Oates, pp.
30-31) I can cite others who disagree with your interpretation of Bellarmine. Other than Salza and Siscoe, I’ve not seen anyone intepret Bellarmine as you do.
“SPERAY REPLIES: Those errors (if they are errors at all) are not heretical. You don’t seem to get it. The Vat2 religion has completly warped your way of thinking. If the pope taught heresy, the Church falls into heresy. It’s that simple.”
My point is, if the magisteirum (in this case an ecumenical council can teach error pertaining to the sacraments), I don’t see why a pope can’t teach heresy non-definitively.
SPERAY REPLIES: THERE ARE DIFFERENT TYPES OF ERRORS. Vatican I fathers found 40 papal error in history, none of which went against Catholic doctrine.
.
“SPERAY REPLES: You taken their whole theology. None of it is your own.”
Most of my research is independent of them. In fact, I believe they most likely got the two quotes from Bellarmine’s treatise On the Councils from me.
SPERAY REPLIES: Give me a break. Salza and Siscoe have been doing this a lot longer than you. You’re too cowardly to admit who you are. Lol.
“SPERAY REPLIES: I did in the article that you apparently didn’t read. Salza and Siscoe’s definition of notorious is wrong.”
I address what notoriety means in my book. I have no idea what they’re definition is.
SPERAY REPLIES: My article gives the canonical definition from a canonist.
“SPERAY REPLIES: Not really. One concerns occult heresy and one concerns manifest heresy.”
They are contradictaory because a pope can’t be ipso facto deposed for heresy by occult
SPERAY REPLIES: That’s an opinion, which Bellarmine doesn’t condemn. He just said that it wasn’t proven to him. It’s not contradictory anyway. You can hold to both as many theologians did.
“SPERAY REPLIES: You didn’t read the article.”
What evidence do you have that I didn’t read the article?
SPERAY REPLIES: By your replies.
“SPERAY REPLIES: Declared xcommunication is a penalty.”
A declaratory sentence isn’t a penalty.
SPERAY REPLIES: YES, IT’S A PENALTY, WHICH IS WHY IT’S IN THE PENAL CODE. That’s why I quoted the 5th opinion, which you ignore.
Only when the sin or delict of heresy becomes judicially certain, does it entail ipso facto excommunication. As for the quotes from Pope Celestine in Bellarmine’s treatise On the Roan Pontiff, I would have to check the primary sources regarding what the pope said in context. However, even with what I have available, the quotes themselves could easily be interpreted as saying that Celestine himself is nullifying Nestorius’s excommunications.
“SPERAY REPLIES: Nope! He clearly said that that Nestorius’ excommunications were already invalid. He had no power at the time it did them. That’s abundantly clear, but you can’t admit it because it destroys your entire argument.”
You are relying on a secondary source. The passage isn’t clear cut as you want it to be.
SPERAY REPLIES: The source is Bellarmine. IT IS CLEAR.
I don’t have access to the text of St. Antoninus, but I do have access to St Alphonsus. St Alphonsus certainly doesn’t help the sedevacantist case.
In his treatise on the Truth of Faith, St. Alphonsus writes,
“SPERAY REPLIES: This quote doesn’t help you at all and I GAVE YOU THE QUOTE FROM ST. ALPHONSUS THAT PROVES US RIGHT AND YOU WRONG! LOL.”
SPERAY REPLIES: WHAT’S THE PROBLEM?”
You clearly don’t know how to read. St. Alphonsus is arguing that a pope is deposed by Christ, not the council, when it issues a declaratory sentence.
SPERAY REPLIES: HE SAID, “If, however, God were to permit a pope to become a notoriously and contumacious heretic, he would by such fact cease to be pope.” It’s not by a declarative sentence.
This is evident when he writes,
However, there are those who affirm with more foundation that in the latter case, that the Pope would not be deprived of the papacy by the council as if it were superior to him, but he would be stripped directly by Jesus Christ because he would then become a subject completely disqualified and deprived of his office.
SPERAY REPLIES: And?
“Bellarmine clearly taught that a pope could publicly teach heresy, but that he could never be a formal heretic, hence he could never be deposed.
SPERAY REPLIES: Nope!”
Contrary to popular belief, Pighius’ view was not that a pope could not teach heresy publicly, but that he would never become a pertinacious heretic. This view was also held by St. Robert Bellarmine. In the fourth book of the second volume, Bellarmine writes,
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.
This is despite stating that all Catholics and heretics agree that a pope can err as a private teacher. He writes in the same book,
With these things being noted, all Catholics and the heretics agree on two things. Firstly, that the Pontiff, even as Pontiff, can err in particular controversies of fact [e.g., whether so and so should be promoted to the episcopate, or whether it was done lawfully, or whether he must be deposed], even together with a general Council, because these depend especially on the testimonies of men. Secondly, the Pope can err as a private teacher from ignorance, even in universal questions of law concerning both faith and morals, just as what happens to other teachers.
It should be noted that Bellarmine says that all Catholics agree that a pope can fall into heresy as a private teacher, despite adhering to Pighius’s view that a Pope can never be deposed for heresy. The only way to reconcile these two passages is by drawing a distinction between formal and material heresy. When Bellarmine says that a pope can “err” through ignorance he’s referring to heresy properly speaking (and not lesser degrees of theological error). This is evident from the proceeding paragraphs.
SPERAY REPLIES: LOL.
“THE FACT IS YOUR VATICAN 2 RELIGION IS NOT CATHOLIC”
Sedevacantism is heresy as I demonstrate in my book.
“You only showed that you can’t comprehend what you read.”
You’re bearing false witness. The notion that there are no bishops with ordinary jurisdiction is outright heretical, which you affirmed previously.
SPERAY REPLIES: Wrong! What’s outright heretical are the teachings from your religion that man has a God-given civil right to practice a false religion, that the death penalty is contrary to the gospel, inhuman, etc., and that God wills the diversity of all religion and sex. Are you one in faith with your pope on these teachings?
“You even quote me on your website and then misrepresented me.”
No, because your argument in the quote is that it had the same effect regardless of whether he was a formal apostate or not.
SPERAY REPLIES: Not at all. You quote my entire paragraph and still didn’t see it. I made it abundantly clear that it was not the same.
Bellarmine clearly denies that Marcellinus lost his office because it was certain to the public he only did it out of fear. So this contradicts your claim.
SPERAY REPLIES: That’s what I said. I wrote: “Presuming the acts occurred, they wouldn’t have constituted the loss of the papacy since they were clearly done under duress at the time and affirmed with the confession of Marcellinus.” DO YOU SEE? You actually agree with me. You can’t comprehend what you read and you just proved it 100%.
When Bellarmine uses the phrase private teacher, he pretty much means anything that isn’t ex cathedra. The case of Honorius clearly proves my point, since Honorius was resolving a dispute pertaining to the universal church, which is evidenced by the fact that he sent notice to the patriarchates of Constantinople, Antioch and Jerusalem.
The quote fro Dom Chapman merely affirms what I just said.
SPERAY REPLIES: Wrong. You’re not even close.
“SPERAY REPLIES: Popes can’t teach heresy. Get that through your head.”
Bellarmine clearly admitted the possibility of a pope teaching heresy in his official capacity (i.e., his authentic or ordinary magisterium). I explain this in the introduction of my book.
SPERAY REPLIES: Bellarmine said no such thing and believed a pope could not fall into heresy. He was giving an opinion to hypothetical question.
“SPERAY REPLIES: Heresy is against dogma. Popes can only err when the Church hasn’t defined the something or not universally ordinarily taught.”
Have you even read Bellarmine? The whole context is about heresy, where he explicitly admits that a pope can teach heresy in his official capacity, albeit that he will never be a formal heretic, and hence can’t be deposed.
“I can cite others who disagree with your interpretation of Bellarmine. Other than Salza and Siscoe, I’ve not seen anyone intepret Bellarmine as you do.”
I cited Bellarmine where he explicitly states that the pope is to be considered such until a declaratory sentence from the college of bishops. You simply refuse to engage the quotes.
SPERAY REPLIES: He doesn’t say a declaratory sentence is needed beforehand. Where’s the quote?
“SPERAY REPLIES: THERE ARE DIFFERENT TYPES OF ERRORS. Vatican I fathers found 40 papal error in history, none of which went against Catholic doctrine.”
But the Magisterium can’t teach any kind of error. That’s my point. The theological grade really doesn’t matter.
SPERAY REPLIES: Yes, it matters. A theological opinion is not like the rest.
“SPERAY REPLIES: Give me a break. Salza and Siscoe have been doing this a lot longer than you. You’re too cowardly to admit who you are. Lol.”
I published those two quotes before they did.
SPERAY REPLIES: Really?
“SPERAY REPLIES: My article gives the canonical definition from a canonist.”
I also cite several canonists in my book regarding the meaning of notoriety.
“SPERAY REPLIES: YES, IT’S A PENALTY, WHICH IS WHY IT’S IN THE PENAL CODE. That’s why I quoted the 5th opinion, which you ignore.”
Canonist Fr. Sebastian Smith,
finally, 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 jure 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.
SPERAY REPLIES: And? What are you arguing? I didn’t say it was imposing the heresy. I’m saying that excommunication is a penalty. Sometimes it’s declared somethimes it is not.
Canonist Edward Dragin,
A declaratory sentence of a punishment latae sententiae may be given by a Superior, but this does not inflict the penalty, because the latter was latae sententiae and therefore inflicted at the very moment of the commission of the crime — all the declaratory sentence does is to make the crime committed and the penalty, already incurred, judicially manifest, a process which carries with it certain canonical effects.
SPERAY REPLIES: You’re not arguing against me.
“However, there are those who affirm with more foundation that in the latter case, that the Pope would not be deprived of the papacy by the council as if it were superior to him, but he would be stripped directly by Jesus Christ because he would then become a subject completely disqualified and deprived of his office.
SPERAY REPLIES: And?”
Meaning, the more firm position is that the pope only loses his office when he has been declared by the church as a heretic.
SPERAY REPLIES: THAT’S NOT WHAT HE’S SAYING.
You’re bearing false witness. The notion that there are no bishops with ordinary jurisdiction is outright heretical, which you affirmed previously.
“SPERAY REPLIES: Wrong! What’s outright heretical are the teachings from your religion that man has a God-given civil right to practice a false religion, that the death penalty is contrary to the gospel, inhuman, etc., and that God wills the diversity of all religion and sex. Are you one in faith with your pope on these teachings?”
You’re side stepping the issue. Sedevacantism is heretical as I demonstrate in my book.
SPERAY REPLIES: ANSWER THE QUESTION COWARD!
“SPERAY REPLIES: That’s what I said. I wrote: “Presuming the acts occurred, they wouldn’t have constituted the loss of the papacy since they were clearly done under duress at the time and affirmed with the confession of Marcellinus.” DO YOU SEE? You actually agree with me. You can’t comprehend what you read and you just proved it 100%.”
You’re using the quote in support of your nonsensical view that even the mere appearance that the pope is heretic would mean that has fallen from his office. The case of Marcellinus does not support your narrative.
SPERAY REPLIES: NO I’M NOT. LOL. I’m using the quote to support the idea that in 5th century, some people erroneously thought apostasy under duress would cause loss of an office. I made it clear that that was a wrong idea. I made myself very clear, too. YOU CAN’T COMPREHEND WHAT YOU READ.
Now answer the question if you’re united in faith with your pope who calls the death penalty contrary to the gospel and inhumane and that God wills the diversity of all religions and sex?
SPERAY REPLIES: BEFORE I BEGIN, I NOTICED THAT YOU DIDN’T ANSWER MY LAST QUESTION WHICH WAS ASKED TWICE NOW. IF YOU DON’T ANSWER IT THIS 3RD TIME, YOUR COMMENTS WILL BE SENT TO SPAM AND WE WILL ASSUME THAT YOU DON’T ANSWER IT BECAUSE YOU HAVE BEEN PROVEN WRONG AND YOU KNOW IT.
“SPERAY REPLIES: He doesn’t say a declaratory sentence is needed beforehand. Where’s the quote?”
“The third condition is unjust, because the Roman Pontiff cannot be deprived of his right to summon Councils and preside over them, in whose possession this right has already been for 1500 years, unless he were first convicted by the legitimate judgment of a Council and is not the Supreme Pontiff. Moreover, what they say, that the same man ought not be a judge and a party, I say has place in private men, but not in a supreme prince. For the supreme prince, as long as he is not declared or judged to have legitimately been deprived of his rule, is always the supreme judge, even if he litigates with himself as a party.”
SPERAY REPLIES: I’m talking about for manifest heresy. We already acknowledge that occult heresy requires a judgment. We don’t see in this quote a judgment is needed before manifest heresy. He’s talking about councils and is not specific. I’ll have to look to see if he’s talking about his opinion or others. The context is missing.
“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.”
SPERAY REPLIES: It doesn’t say for manifest heresy, which is the point. In the 5th opinion, Bellarmine says that the pope ceases by himself, not by judgment, for manifest heresy. Occult heresy is another subject. The quote you’re providing is about councils and what’s required. Again, the context is missing, too.
“SPERAY REPLIES: Yes, it matters. A theological opinion is not like the rest.”
Explain to me how its possible for the magisterium to give anything erroneous. As a matter of historical record, there have been councils and bishops who have attempted to exercise the authentic magisteirum to teach heresy. Catholics have also believed that the pope can teach heresy in his authentic magisteirum, as is evidenced from the case of Honorius.
SPERAY REPLIES: And? Catholics have believed all kinds of things. Cajetan and JST believed different from Bellarmine and Torrquamada. I’m not talking about what Catholics were permitted to believe but what it is true and what they aren’t permitted to believe now. Honorius didn’t teach heresy. You are not free to think that popes can teach heresy now. Vatican I, MCC, SC, and canon law and makes this clear. Heresy by its very nature severs one from the BODY of the Church. IT’S GAME OVER RIGHT THERE.
Bellarmine clearly admits that a pope can teach heresy in his official capacity.
SPERAY REPLIES: No, he does not. That is a lie.
Now whether you deny he is referring to the pope in his capacity as pastor of the universal church, that’s subject to debate.
SPERAY REPLIES: Nope.
But he certainly admits he can teach heresy in authentic magisteirum. So if the pope can teach heresy in his authentic magisterium, then he can teach it on a universal scale, supposing the definition is non-definitive as in the case of Honorius.
SPERAY REPLIES: Nope. You got it all wrong.
“SPERAY REPLIES: Really?”
Yes. I published them months ago.
“SPERAY REPLIES: YES, IT’S A PENALTY, WHICH IS WHY IT’S IN THE PENAL CODE. That’s why I quoted the 5th opinion, which you ignore.”
SPERAY REPLIES: And? What are you arguing? I didn’t say it was imposing the heresy. I’m saying that excommunication is a penalty. Sometimes it’s declared somethimes it is not.”
You argued in your last post that the declaratory sentence itself was a penalty, which it clearly is not. All it does is make the crime judicially certain or manifest.
SPERAY REPLIES: I argued that excommunication was a penalty. If it’s a declared excommunication, it’s still a penalty.
“SPERAY REPLIES: THAT’S NOT WHAT HE’S SAYING.”
That’s exactly what St. Alphonsus is saying. In fact, it’s in line with what Suarez and Bellarmine said.
SPERAY REPLIES: No, it is not.
According to John of St. Thomas, both Bellarmine and Francisco Suarez held the same view that Christ would depose the pope after he had been declared an incorrigible heretic by a general council. John of St. Thomas writes,
Hence, Bellarmine and Suarez are of the opinion that, by the very fact that the Pope is a manifest heretic and declared to be incorrigible, he is deposed by Christ our Lord without any intermediary, and not by any authority of the Church.
SPERAY REPLIES: Where does Bellarmine say this? I know what JST has reported as saying.
“SPERAY REPLIES: ANSWER THE QUESTION COWARD!”
You bear false witness. If I’m a coward because I prefer anonymity, then you would likewise be a coward, because you began this anonymously until you were ousted by Robert Siscoe. But as for your accusations, I can simply deny that you are interpreting them correctly.
SPERAY REPLIES: You’re a coward for not answering the question. I did not begin this anonymously. I began using my website with my name on it. I used a anonymous name for a few comments on one particular website so that my name would not be on that website. I told several people who I was and one of them told Siscoe. Sisco always used an anonymous name on my site, until he accused me of doing it. You don’t use your name for your site or book. My friend at introibo can’t use his real name because of his profession. What’s your excuse?
““SPERAY REPLIES: NO I’M NOT. LOL. I’m using the quote to support the idea that in 5th century, some people erroneously thought apostasy under duress would cause loss of an office. I made it clear that that was a wrong idea. I made myself very clear, too. YOU CAN’T COMPREHEND WHAT YOU READ.”
In the previous section regarding Liberius, you wrote, “if Liberius freely signed the Creed or did so secretly under duress, he would have lost his papacy for the appearance of heresy in his weakness in pleasing man rather than God.”
Then you go on to confuse, as Bellarmine did, antipope Felix with St. Felix.
Then you go on to say, “It was never proven, but because of these acts, Marcellinus, in his day, was considered to have lost his papacy.” And then you go onto state that “the reason why the pope cannot appear to apostatize from the faith boils down to the fact that the Catholic Church cannot be led by a doubtful pope.
SPERAY REPLIES: I wrote: “If Liberius was publicly seen or understood to be under real duress when signing the false creed he would not have lost his papacy.” There are distinctions between occult and public heresy. I was clear what I believe but that others in the past believed differently.
YOU DIDN’T ANSWER MY LAST QUESTION WHICH WAS ASKED TWICE NOW. IF YOU DON’T ANSWER IT THIS 3RD TIME, YOUR COMMENTS WILL BE SENT TO SPAM AND WE WILL ASSUME THAT YOU DON’T ANSWER IT BECAUSE YOU HAVE BEEN PROVEN WRONG AND YOU KNOW IT. I DON’T WANT TO HEAR ANYTHING ELSE FROM YOU BUT THE ANSWER TO THIS QUESTION. Are you united in faith with your pope who calls the death penalty contrary to the gospel and inhumane and that God wills the diversity of all religions and sex?
“Are you united in faith with your pope who calls the death penalty contrary to the gospel and inhumane and that God wills the diversity of all religions and sex?”
Many dogmatic theologians have interpreted the changes to the Catechism as being merely prudential in nature (e.g., Dr. Christian Washburn).
SPERAY REPLIES: Don’t care about the catechism. This is the faith of Francis where he rejects dogma. ARE YOU UNITED IN FAITH WITH HIM? THIS IS HIS FAITH, WHICH REJECTS THE CATHOLIC FAITH.
Regarding the plurality of religions, Pope Francis clarified twice that he was referring to God’s permissive will.
SPERAY REPLIES: Yes, but sex is not God’s permissive will. Therefore, his heresy is in saying that sex is God’s permissive will. So are you united to Francis’ faith, YES OR NO? ANSWER THE QUESTION!!!
But like I said, this has nothing to do with Francis, but everything to do with the sedevacantist thesis that public heresy entails ipso facto excommunication.
SPERAY REPLIES: It has everything to do with your false religion. Because the Catholic Church is ONE IN FAITH. You have proven that you are not ONE IN FAITH. It also proves why manifest heresy by nature severs one from the Body of the Church, because if it didn’t the Church loses it’s 4 marks. Very simple logic. NOW ANSWER THE QUESTION!!! The point of this exercise is to show why you are the real heretic.
“SPERAY REPLIES: I’m talking about manifest heresy. We already acknowledge that occult heresy requires a judgment. We don’t see in this quote a judgment is needed before manifest heresy. He’s talking about councils and is not specific. I’ll have to look to see if he’s talking about his opinion or others. The context is missing.”
The context of the quote is about public crimes, since in the very next paragraph Bellarmine mentions the case of Marcellinius, who was clearly a public delinquent.
SPERAY REPLIES: Marcellinus was a saint.
The third condition is unjust, because the Roman Pontiff cannot be deprived of his right to summon Councils and preside over them, in whose possession this right has already been for 1500 years, unless he were first convicted by the legitimate judgment of a Council and is not the Supreme Pontiff. Moreover, what they say, that the same man ought not be a judge and a party, I say has place in private men, but not in a supreme prince. For the supreme prince, as long as he is not declared or judged to have legitimately been deprived of his rule, is always the supreme judge, even if he litigates with himself as a party.
Therefore, private men, when they litigate with their prince, usually appeal from the prince badly represented, to represent the same better, and it is confirmed from the ancient histories, ***for when Marcellinus sinned, and on account of it he gathered a Council, all the Bishops said he could not be condemned by anyone, rather he ought to be the judge, and the defendant,*** as Nicholas I relates in his epistle to the Emperor Michael. Likewise, Sixtus III, when he was accused of adultery, the Emperor gathered a Council with the Pope’s consent, but in that Council no man dared to strike up the case of the Pope unless first he would have said that he willed the case to be discussed, even if he would be judged by his own judgment, but not judged. It is clear both from the acts of that Council and from the epistle of the same Sixtus to the Bishops of the east.
You can go read the full context here:
https://contrasedevacantism.blogspot.com/2021/02/bellarmine-on-necessity-of-declaratory.html
“You are not free to think that popes can teach heresy now. Vatican I, MCC, SC, and canon law and makes this clear. Heresy by its very nature severs one from the BODY of the Church. IT’S GAME OVER RIGHT THERE.”
Fr. Berry admits the possibility of the pope teaching heresy according to his authentic magisterium.
SPERAY REPLIES: Some do admit it but if it happened, the person is severed from the Body of the Church by that very fact. GAME OVER.
He writes, “The Council declared the Roman Pontiff personally infallible when speaking officially as head of the universal Church, but left untouched the question whether the Pope in his private capacity, or in his official capacity as bishop, primate or patriarch, can fall into heresy or teach heresy. Some theologians maintain that he can. Straub cites Hadrian II and Innocent III as favoring this opinion.” (The Church of Christ, 273)
SPERAY REPLIES: And such a person would cease to member of the BODY of Church by the nature of the act.
Now if you argue that Fr. Berry doesn’t mention the case of the pope teaching the universal church, I would respond that it doesn’t matter, since he clearly admits the possibility of the pope teaching heresy in his authentic magisterium. The only time when ordinary acts of the papal magisteirum are infallible (supposing one accepts that this is possible) is when the pope intends to teach definitively.
“Bellarmine clearly admits that a pope can teach heresy in his official capacity.
SPERAY REPLIES: No, he does not. That is a lie.”
You’re bearing false witness again.
Bellarmine says that “all Catholics and the heretics agree… that the Pope can err as a private teacher from ignorance, even in universal questions of law concerning both faith and morals, just as what happens to other teachers.”
SPERAY REPLIES: Can err does not mean heresy. Popes have erred. We already know that. I give examples in my book. They weren’t heresy, which is rejection of dogma.
When he says all Catholics agree, that would include Bellarmine himself. The qualification he makes is “through ignorance,” meaning a formal heretic.
SPERAY REPLIES: What?
The context of the passage is about heresy properly speaking and not lesser degrees of theological error.
SPERAY REPLIES: Please provide the context.
Furthermore, as I already demonstrated, Bellarmine uses the phrase “private teacher” to refer to the pope’s official teaching capacity as is evident from the cases of Nicholas and Honorius. Whether they were heretics or not makes no difference, since Bellarmine admits the possibility that they could teach heresy in principle as “private teachers”.
SPERAY REPLIES: If it were impossible, then Bellarmine would not have dealt with the question, right? So what is your point?
“SPERAY REPLIES: I argued that excommunication was a penalty. If it’s a declared excommunication, it’s still a penalty.”
No, what you said was that the declaratory sentence itself is a penalty. The declaratory sentence doesn’t impose a penalty. You were clearly wrong.
SPERAY REPLIES: Nope. You just see what’s not there, like you do with everything.
“SPERAY REPLIES: No, it is not.”
St. Alphonsus clearly says that the pope is deposed by Christ after he is declared a heretic by the Church. I find it strange that you would deny the obvious.
SPERAY REPLIES: He doesn’t say that. He said, ““If ever a pope, as a private person, should fall into heresy, he would at once fall from the pontificate.” You’re the one denying the obvious.
“SPERAY REPLIES: Where does Bellarmine say this? I know what JST has reported as saying.”
There is nothing explicit regarding Christ deposing the pope in the passages I cited. But given that he requires a declaratory sentence, JST’s statement makes perfect sense. Perhaps if more of Bellarmine’s writings are translated we might find something more explicit.
SPERAY REPLIES: You don’t have Bellarmine saying it because he didn’t say it.
“My friend at introibo can’t use his real name because of his profession. What’s your excuse?”
I’m smart, unlike you.
SPERAY REPLIES: WHAT’S YOUR EXCUSE FOR NOT USING YOUR REAL NAME?
“SPERAY REPLIES: I wrote: “If Liberius was publicly seen or understood to be under real duress when signing the false creed he would not have lost his papacy.”
The case of Liberius refutes sedevacantism because Bellarmine says that Liberius remained the true pope until he was judicially declared as deprived of his office by the roman clergy.
Next, it is not at all credible that Jerome and Ruffinus could have such a discrepancy in their history, that one would deny something and the other affirms it. Even if Felix were an Arian (which still to this point is not proven) he did no harm to the Apostolic see. At that time Felix was an anti-pope, not a true and legitimate Pope, as two cannot be Pope together. The true Pope was still alive, namely Liberius. Wherefore (as we related from Theodoret above) no Catholic in Rome wanted to communicate with Felix at that time.
Next, two years after the fall of Liberius, concerning which we spoke above, then the Roman clergy abrogated Liberius from the pontifical dignity and conferred it upon Felix, whom they knew to be Catholic. From that time Felix began to be a true Pope.
The entire narrative that Bellarmine provides for Liberius is convoluted. First he confuses antipope Felix with Felix II. Second, he never resolves how antipope Felix lost his office, excepting noting, “Felix was ejected with his own by the Arians, and died not long after, whether beheaded, or consumed in labors.” Were Liberius and Felix supposed to reign together?
SPERAY REPLIES: I already know the story. The point of this was to show you that you misrepresened me. It doesn’t disprove sedevacantism, but it does show that Bellarmine didn’t think a pope had to be pertinacious heretic. Remember those warnings you claim to prove perntinacity? Liberius shows that your intepretation of Bellarmine is wrong.
“There are distinctions between occult and public heresy. I was clear what I believe but that others in the past believed differently.”
That would actually be a distinction between public and notorious heresy, since that’s what distinguishes the two (i.e. the level of judicial certainty), besides the degree of publicity (i.e., the number of people conscious of the delinquent’s crime).
SPERAY REPLIES: Not exactly, but I’m glad to know that you understand that there’s a difference between public and notorius heresy. You should go help out your boys Salza and Siscoe.
It’s amazing how you don’t see the diaster of your “pope”, the very thing that Christ was protecting in giving us a pope.
Even if Bellarmine said what you think, it would not change a thing. Bellarmine would have been proven wrong by your religion. That’s why I started my article out with Bellarmine not applying to sedevacantism and he can’t be used to justify a heretical religion.
“SPERAY REPLIES: Don’t care about the catechism. This is the faith of Francis where he rejects dogma. ARE YOU UNITED IN FAITH WITH HIM? THIS IS HIS FAITH, WHICH REJECTS THE CATHOLIC FAITH.”
I already answered that his words can be interpreted prudentially. So there is no heresy to speak of.
SPERAY REPLIES: So you’re denying that Francis’ teaching is heretical. You believe as he does that the death penalty is contrary to the gospel and inhumane. That makes you a heretic with your pope.
“SPERAY REPLIES: Yes, but sex is not God’s permissive will. Therefore, his heresy is in saying that sex is God’s permissive will. So are you united to Francis’ faith, YES OR NO? ANSWER THE QUESTION!!!”
That’s an easy one, God wills plurality of religions permissively, while positively willing the sexes.
SPERAY REPLIES: You didn’t answer the question. Francis didn’t say that God positively willed the sexes. He put diversity of religion in the same sentence as sex. Therefore, it must be concluded that he believes that God permissively willed the sexes.
“SPERAY REPLIES: It has everything to do with your false religion. Because the Catholic Church is ONE IN FAITH.”
Sedevacantism is heresy as I demonstrate in my book. So even if the post-conciliar Church is false, it doesn’t make sedevacantism true.
SPERAY REPLIES: You didn’t demonstrate it. I’ve already refuted your arguments here on this website. Yes, if the post-conciliar church is false, then sedevacantism must be true, since the Gates of hell will not prevail.
“manifest heresy by nature severs one from the Body of the Church, because if it didn’t the Church loses it’s 4 marks.”
Divine law doesn’t prescribe how public a crime must be to incur ipso facto excommunication, nor does it define the degree of certitude the public must have regarding the delinquent’s culpability.
SPERAY REPLIES: Pope Pius XII told us so and you’re denying it.
Both of these are prudential matters that must be determined by an ecclesial judge.
SPERAY REPLIES: If it’s by it’s very nature, then it’s not by the Church. The sin or crime does the severing by it’s nature, not a declaration later on, or else it’s not by it’s very nature.
This view is confirmed by the majority of canonists. For example, late 19th century canonist Fr. Sebastian Smith notes, “The judge seems the proper person to determine what number is sufficient in the case, considering all the circumstances.”
SPERAY REPLIES: Nope. It’s the other way around. You leave out the context of your quotes.
Canonist Edwin J. Murphy also adds,
A crime is public actually, if the crime itself and the author of the crime are known generally; with regard to the imputability, it is not necessary that this be known with absolute certainty, otherwise there would be no distinction between a public and a notorious crime; on the other hand there must be some evidence of the imputability, otherwise there would be no distinction between public and occult crimes.
SPERAY REPLIES: POpe Pius XII made the proper distinctions. He said “For not every sin, however grave it may be, is such as of its own nature to sever a man from the Body of the Church, as does schism or heresy or apostasy.” St. Robert Bellarmine taught, “For those Fathers, in affirming that heretics lose jurisdiction, did not cite any human law…but argued on the basis of the very nature of heresy… heretics already before being excommunicated are outside the Church and deprived of all jurisdiction. For they have already been condemned by their own sentence, as the Apostle teaches (Tit. 3:10-11), that is, they have been cut off from the body of the Church without excommunication, as St. Jerome affirms.”
“SPERAY REPLIES: I’m talking about manifest heresy. We already acknowledge that occult heresy requires a judgment. We don’t see in this quote a judgment is needed before manifest heresy. He’s talking about councils and is not specific. I’ll have to look to see if he’s talking about his opinion or others. The context is missing.”
“SPERAY REPLIES: Marcellinus was a saint.”
Because he repented. But this has nothing to do with the fact that Bellarmine is talking about public sins against the faith, not occult crimes in the context of the necessity of the declaratory sentence. So, it’s GAME OVER FOR YOU.
SPERAY REPLIES: Not exactly. It never happened and was reported that Marcellinus was under duress. If it didn’t happen, then it wasn’t public.
“SPERAY REPLIES: Some do admit it but if it happened, the person is severed from the Body of the Church by that very fact. GAME OVER.”
With the exception of Bellarmine, Suarez, Laymann, JST, Cajetan, etc.
SPERAY REPLIES: Not Bellarmine and the teaching is official in Pope Pius XII MCC.
“SPERAY REPLIES: Can err does not mean heresy. Popes have erred. We already know that. I give examples in my book. They weren’t heresy, which is rejection of dogma.”
SPERAY REPLIES: Please provide the context.”
With these things being noted, all Catholics and the heretics agree on two things. Firstly, that the Pontiff, even as Pontiff, can err in particular controversies of fact [e.g., whether so and so should be promoted to the episcopate, or whether it was done lawfully, or whether he must be deposed], even together with a general Council, because these depend especially on the testimonies of men. Secondly, the Pope can err as a private teacher from ignorance, even in universal questions of law concerning both faith and morals, just as what happens to other teachers.
Next, all Catholics agree on two other things, but only amongst themselves and not with the heretics. Firstly, the Pope with a general council cannot err when he issues decrees of faith or general precepts of morals. Secondly, the Pope, by himself or with a particular council, while stating something in a doubtful matter, whether he could err or not, must be obediently heard by all the faithful.
With such things being laid out, only four different opinions remain.
1) Should the Pope define something, even as Pope, and even with a general Council, it can be heretical in itself, and he can teach others heresy and that this in fact has happened thus. This is the opinion of all the heretics of this time, and especially of Luther, who in his book on councils recorded the errors even of general councils that the Pope approved. It is also the opinion of Calvin, who asserted that at some time the Pope with the whole college of Cardinals manifestly taught heresy on that question of whether the soul of man is extinguished with the body, which is a manifest lie, as we will show a little later. Next, he teaches in the same book that the Pope can err even with a general council.
2) The second opinion is that the Pope even as Pope can be a heretic and teach heresy, if he defines something without a general Council, something that this opinion holds did in fact happen. Nilos Cabásilas has followed this opinion in his book against the primacy of the Pope; a few others follow the same opinion, especially amongst the Parisian theologians such as John Gerson, Almain and still, Alonso de Castro as well as Pope Adrian VI in his question on Confirmation; all of these constitute infallibility of judgment on matters of faith not with the Pope, but with the Church or a General Council.
3) The Third opinion is on another extreme, that the Pope cannot in any way be a heretic nor publicly teach heresy, even if he alone should define some matter, as Albert Pighius says.
4) The fourth opinion is that in a certain measure, whether the Pope can be a heretic or not, he cannot define a heretical proposition that must be believed by the whole Church in any way. This is a very common opinion of nearly all Catholics.
These authors seem in some way to disagree with themselves because some of them say the Pontiff cannot err if he should proceed maturely and listen to the counsel of other pastors, while others say the Pope can err in no way whatsoever, even by himself; but really they do not disagree among themselves. For the latter would not deny whether the Pope should be held to proceed maturely and consult learned men; rather, they only wished to say that infallibility itself is not in a body of counselors or in a council of bishops, but in the Pope alone. On the other hand, the former would not have it that they place infallibility in the counselors, but only in the Pontiff; rather they wished to explain that the Pope ought to do what is in himself by consulting learned men and experts in the matter which is treated. If anyone would ask, however, whether the Pope could err if he should rashly define something, then without a doubt the aforesaid authors would all respond that it cannot happen that the Pope would rashly define something, for God has promised the end, and without a doubt he promised also the means which are necessary to obtain that end. It would be of little benefit to know that the Pope was not going to err when he rashly defined something unless we also knew that the providence of God would not permit him to define something rashly.
From these four opinions, the first is heretical; the second is not properly heretical, for we see that some who follow this opinion are tolerated by the Church, even though it seems altogether erroneous and proximate to heresy. The third is probable, though it is still not certain. The fourth is very certain and must be asserted, and we will state a few propositions so that it can be understood and confirmed more easily.
When Bellarmine says that a pope can’t define anything heretical, the context makes it abundantly clear that he is referring to ex cathedra statements.
“SPERAY REPLIES: If it were impossible, then Bellarmine would not have dealt with the question, right? So what is your point?”
My point is that popes can teach heresy in their official capacity (which you claim Bellarmine rejects), despite the fact that he says “All Catholics and heretics agree… that the Pope can err as a private teacher from ignorance, even in universal questions of law concerning both faith and morals, just as what happens to other teachers”. What don’t you understand about ALL CATHOLICS?
SPERAY REPLIES: The problem are the words “private teacher” which means not as the pope for the whole church.
“SPERAY REPLIES: He doesn’t say that. He said, ““If ever a pope, as a private person, should fall into heresy, he would at once fall from the pontificate.”
You’re the one denying the obvious.”
AHAHAHAH!
SPERAY REPLIES: And you’re not? Lol. At once fall, not after warnings and a declaration as you say.
“SPERAY REPLIES: You don’t have Bellarmine saying it because he didn’t say it.”
He clearly said that for a pope to lose his office a declaratory sentence was required, so there’s that for you.
SPERAY REPLIES: NOT FOR MANIFEST HERESY.
“SPERAY REPLIES: WHAT’S YOUR EXCUSE FOR NOT USING YOUR REAL NAME?”
I like my privacy. Why would I need any other excuse? I don’t do this for self-aggrandizement, unlike you.
SPERAY REPLIES: Self-aggrandizement? You’re killing me. You’re just a coward.
“SPERAY REPLIES: I already know the story. The point of this was to show you that you misrepresened me. It doesn’t disprove sedevacantism, but it does show that Bellarmine didn’t think a pope had to be pertinacious heretic. Remember those warnings you claim to prove perntinacity? Liberius shows that your intepretation of Bellarmine is wrong.”
I may have misrepresented you, but you also misrepresented Bellarmine regarding Liberius.
SPERAY REPLIES: I didn’t misrepresent Bellarmine regarding Liberius. I provide the teaching from Bellarmine.
Liberius didn’t lose his office ipso facto. And that’s the central sedevacantist claim. I don’t even think (personally) that corrections are required. But Bellarmine does teach they are required.
SPERAY REPLIES: I didn’t say Liberius lost his office ipso facto. I said he didn’t lose his office at all. Bellarmine did not teach that warnings are required.
“Even if Bellarmine said what you think, it would not change a thing. Bellarmine would have been proven wrong by your religion. That’s why I started my article out with Bellarmine not applying to sedevacantism and he can’t be used to justify a heretical religion.”
Well, as long as you admit Bellarmine isn’t on your side, I think I’ll be satisfied with the end result of this debate.
SPERAY REPLIES: Bellarmine is on my side concerning manifest heresy. I don’t necesarily agree with him over occult heresy. BUT IT DOESN’T MATTER WHAT BELLARMINE BELIEVED OR HELD. IT DOESN’T CHANGE THE FACT THAT YOUR POPE IS A MANIFEST HERETIC LEADING CATHOLICS AWAY FROM TRUTH AND ULTIMATELY GOD, WHICH EXACTLY WHAT A TRUE POPE IS NOT SUPPOSED TO DO ACCORDING TO OUR LORD.
Are you not united to your pope in faith, yes or no? You still have not answered the question after 5 times.
“SPERAY REPLIES: So you’re denying that Francis’ teaching is heretical. You believe as he does that the death penalty is contrary to the gospel and inhumane. That makes you a heretic with your pope.”
I never said I agreed with the prudential decisions of the Pope. I was just pointing out they can be interpreted in an orthodox sense. There have been plenty of commentaries that have interpreted Francis along these lines.
SPERAY REPLIES: THIS IS HIS FAITH. ARE YOU ONE WITH HIM IN THIS FAITH? ANSWER THE QUESTION.
“SPERAY REPLIES: You didn’t answer the question. Francis didn’t say that God positively willed the sexes. He put diversity of religion in the same sentence as sex. Therefore, it must be concluded that he believes that God permissively willed the sexes.”
No.
SPERAY REPLIES: NO WHAT? HE PROFESSES HERESY CONSTANTLY. HE’S BLASPHEMES CHRIST, OUR LADY, OUR CATHOLIC FAITH. HE’S A HERETIC PLAIN AND SIMPLE. ARE YOU ONE IN FAITH WITH HIM????
“SPERAY REPLIES: You didn’t demonstrate it. I’ve already refuted your arguments here on this website. Yes, if the post-conciliar church is false, then sedevacantism must be true, since the Gates of hell will not prevail. “
You’re insane. lol
SPERAY REPLIES: YES, I REFUTED YOU. WE ARE NOT HERETICS, BUT YOU ARE. YOU MUST HATE JESUS, TOO SINCE YOU CLAIM AN ANTICHRIST AS YOUR POPE.
“SPERAY REPLIES: If it’s by it’s very nature, then it’s not by the Church. The sin or crime does the severing by it’s nature, not a declaration later on, or else it’s not by it’s very nature. “
“SPERAY REPLIES: The problem are the words “private teacher” which means not as the pope for the whole church.”
Honorius is an example of the Pope addressing the whole church.
SPERAY REPLIES: HE DIDN’T TEACH HERESY. WHAT IS YOUR PROBLEM????
“Are you not united to your pope in faith, yes or no? You still have not answered the question after 5 times.:
I don’t take orders from you, demon. This conversation is over.
SPERAY REPLIES: YOU DON’T TAKE ORDERS FROM JESUS, EITHER. GLAD YOU’RE DONE. GOOD RIDDANCE, COWARD.
LOL CS! Answering a question is not taking orders. You know you’re screwed either way you answer it.
If you are not united as one in faith with the one you call pope, then you are in schism with your pope and his church. If you say you are one in faith with your pope then you have to explain how your faith is not heretical/apostate like his faith.
You remind me of those chief priests who tried to stump Jesus when they asked him by what authority he did such things but when they were asked a question they dishonestly answered the question.
Case in point: “And when he was come into the temple, there came to him, as he was teaching, the chief priests and ancients of the people, saying: By what authority dost thou these things? and who hath given thee this authority? Jesus answering, said to them: I also will ask you one word, which if you shall tell me, I will also tell you by what authority I do these things. The baptism of John, whence was it? From heaven or from men? But they thought within themselves, saying: If we shall say, from heaven, he will say to us: Why then did you not believe him? But if we shall say, from men, we are afraid of the multitude: for all held John as a prophet. And answering Jesus, they said: We know not. He also said to them: Neither do I tell you by what authority I do these things.” MT 21:23-27
Why don’t you quit wasting your time arguing in defense of a heretical Church which masquerades itself as the Catholic Church and actually become a Catholic by being honest with yourself.
“LOL CS! Answering a question is not taking orders. You know you’re screwed either way you answer it.”
I didn’t answer his questions because he displays signs of a demonized psychology. Besides, it’s really tangential to what we were discussing.
SPERAY REPLIES: No, I displayed crystal clear logic that exposes your nonsense. You are the heretic. Your pope is a heretic. Your religion is riddled with heresy.
“If you are not united as one in faith with the one you call pope, then you are in schism with your pope and his church. If you say you are one in faith with your pope then you have to explain how your faith is not heretical/apostate like his faith.”
Again, I don’t answer stupid questions.
SPERAY REPLIES: Asking whether you’re one in faith with your pope is a stupid question? It’s a brilliant question to prove that you’re dishonest. I could ask many more questions but you wouldn’t answer them. For instance, if the Catholic Church can teach heresy by catechism or law, what makes it different from Protestant religions? If the pope teaches truth but the bishops says he’s heretical and declare him not the pope, would you follow the pope or the bishop’s declaration? How would you know? Your answer would prove sedevacantism.
“You remind me of those chief priests who tried to stump Jesus when they asked him by what authority he did such things but when they were asked a question they dishonestly answered the question.”
I fail to see the parallelism.
SPERAY REPLIES: Jesus asked questions that would expose them. You can’t answer the question because if you say you’re one in faith with your pope, then you know that you’re admitting that you’re a heretic like him and if you say you’re not one in faith, then you prove that your religion misses the 4 marks. Very simple. You know it’s true, which is why you don’t answer, just like the chief priests who understood how the questions of Christ cuts to the heart.
“Why don’t you quit wasting your time arguing in defense of a heretical Church which masquerades itself as the Catholic Church and actually become a Catholic by being honest with yourself.”
You should go read my book where I demonstrate that sedevacantism is heretical. Whatever problems you suppose the post-conciliar Church has, sedevacantism certainly isn’t the solution. And that is my only goal in these discussions.
SPERAY REPLIES: Your book is severely flawed. You make opinions dogmas, such as JST’s or your interpretation of Bellarmine. They are opinions, not dogmas. You can’t show a dogma that a Catholic sede rejects. You only draw conclusions based on opinions and call them dogmas. Lol. Sedevacantism is a position that recognizes that Bergoglio can’t be pope without the gates of hell prevailing. Bergoglio himself makes part of the gates of hell. If you want to disprove sedevacantism, you must prove that Bergoglio is not a heretic, but you would have to reject Catholic dogma to do it. That’s the problem with your position and the purpose to the original question. You can’t answer whether you’re one in faith (1st mark of the church) with your pope.
Thanks for promoting my book, dummy. I don’t even need to pay for facebook ads.
SPERAY REPLIES: I’M NOT PROMOTING YOUR STUPID BOOK, COWARD. IT’S ALREADY BEEN COMPLETELY REFUTED, ANYWAY.
In the inimitable words of Arnold Schwarzenegger, “Who’s your daddy, and what does he do?” We both know that your father is the devil. You spew forth your vile filth in every comment. May God rebuke you, you unholy creature.
SPERAY REPLIES: You quote your comrade fake Catholic Schwarzenegger, who belongs to your fake religion. You defend an antichrist as the pope, who mocks Christ, blasphemes Our Lady, and says there’s no Catholic God, and then say I spew forth vile filth in every comment. No coward, I tell you the truth, while you tell lies in every comment.
CS,
Who is to say you aren’t using signs of demonized psychology? The question isn’t tangential to what you are discussing. You are defending the idea that Francis is an actual pope, so if he is an actual pope why wouldn’t you want to proudly proclaim that you are one in faith with him?
Do you not believe in what Pope St. Pius X said when he stated:
“When one loves the pope, one does not stop to debate about what he advises or demands, to ask how far the rigorous duty of obedience extends and to mark the limit to this obligation. When one loves the pope, one does not object that he has not spoken clearly enough, as if he were obliged to repeat into the ear of each individual his will, so often clearly expressed, not only viva voce, but also by letters and other public documents; one does not call his orders into doubt on the pretext- easily advanced by whoever does not wish to obey-that they emanate not directly from him, but from his entourage; one does not limit the field in which he can and should exercise his will; one does not oppose to the authority of the pope that of other persons, however learned, who differ in opinion from the pope. Besides however great their knowledge, their holiness is wanting, FOR THERE CAN BE NO HOLINESS WHERE THERE IS DISAGREEMENT WITH THE POPE.” Address to the priest of the Apostolic Union, Nov. 18, 1912 In Acta Apostolicae Sedis 4 [1912] p. 695
Earlier you said this conversation is over and yet you keep going and still won’t answer a simple question. Don’t you love Francis so much so, that you fear not being holy if you say you are not one in faith with him?
I must apologize Steven Speray, I didn’t realize you were this stupid. I thought I was having a conversation with a normal person. Unfortunately, I’ve been having a discussion with a moron this whole time.
SPERAY REPLIES: You really are obsessed with me. You say the conversation is over, then you come back again and again and again. You’ve been so thoroughly humiliated that you must try to redeem yourself with each additional comment. You claim I’m stupid and a moron and yet, you continue to argue with insults and no substance. Goodness. Your insults are really a badge of honor, since they come from a person who really thinks Bergoglio’s faith is the Catholic Faith.
“Earlier you said this conversation is over and yet you keep going and still won’t answer a simple question. Don’t you love Francis so much so, that you fear not being holy if you say you are not one in faith with him?”
I’m of the opinion that sedevacantism is false religion,
SPERAY REPLIES: Sedevacantism is not a religion. It’s a Catholic position. Your opinion is that Bergoglio’s faith is the Catholic Faith since you defend him as pope. Your opinions about sedevacantism are flawed in every sense of the word.
and that it’s only a matter of time before you renounce it. You should really go have a read of my book, I think it will help you.
SPERAY REPLIES: You don’t even comprehend what you read and yet think your book is going to help Catholics. You begin your book with the visibility of the Church, while you yourself are a prime example how your religion is not one in faith, the first mark of visibility of the Church. WHAT A JOKE YOU ARE!!!!!
CS,
What part of I’m of the opinion that sedevacantism is a false religion answers if you are one in faith with Francis?
If you asked me if I’m one in faith with Francis and I said, I’m of the opinion that the New Mass is a sacrilege, would that be answering your question?
There is only two options. Yes I am one in faith with Francis because I believe he is the Holy Father or no I am not one in faith with Francis because I don’t believe he is the Holy Father.
Are you ashamed of your pope Francis who just recently said this about so Catholics being obliged to adhere to Vatican II:
“You can be with the church and therefore follow the council (Vatican II), or you can not follow the council or interpret it in your own way, as you want, and you are not with the church…The council is the magisterium of the church…On this point we must be demanding, severe. The council cannot be negotiated…Please, no concession to those who seek to present a catechesis that does not accord with the magisterium of the church.” (Jan. 30, 2021 meeting with a group of catechists connected to the Italian bishops’ conference)
Sorry to see you have wasted so much of your time on such an individual (CS)who has many like his kind who will argue with everything and then prove they really don’t even care. This world is eat up with dumb-ass and we see where that has progressed in the church and country. If you give these folks a glass of fresh water, they would find fault with it…it’s who they are, how they think and the life they live…definitely not Catholic. It’s how the NO church is what it is and why Rome has so many ignoramus followers. All I can say to these individuals is…go give your pope a hug today.