1873 book on Pope Pius IX
–Vatican I declared,
“‘For the fathers of the Fourth Council of Constantinople, following closely in the footsteps of their predecessors, made this solemn profession: ‘The first condition of salvation is to keep the norm of the true Faith. For it is impossible that the words of our Lord Jesus Christ Who said, ‘Thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my Church’ (Matt. 16:18), should not be verified. And their truth has been proved by the course of history, for in the Apostolic See the Catholic religion has always been kept unsullied, and its teaching kept holy.’ …for they fully realized that this See of St. Peter always remains unimpaired by any error, according to the divine promise of our Lord and Savior made to the prince of his disciples, ‘I have prayed for thee, that thy faith may not fail; and do thou, when once thou has turned again, strengthen thy brethren’ (Luke 22:32)
“‘So, this gift of truth and a never failing faith was divinely conferred upon Peter and his successors in this chair, that they might administer their high duty for the salvation of all; that the entire flock of Christ, turned away by them from the poisonous food of error, might be nourished on the sustenance of heavenly doctrine, that with the occasion of schism removed the whole Church might be saved as one, and relying on her foundation might stay firm against the gates of hell.”
Questions:
1. Has Francis kept the Catholic religion unsullied and teaching holy, remained unimpaired by any error, have unfailing faith from Christ’s prayer, strengthen his brethren with the Catholic Faith, turned the poisonous food of error away from the flock of Christ, nourished the Catholic flock with heavenly doctrine, removed all occasion of schism that the Church might be saved as one, and stayed firm against the gates of hell?
2 If the answer is yes, why would he need to be deposed or declared so for heresy, and if the answer is no, how is he the pope, without violating the infallible Vatican I declaration?
Whatever past theologian used to justify Bergoglio as pope, such as John of St. Thomas, can no longer apply with the teaching of the First Vatican Council.
Vatican I is not only referring to ex cathedra statements concerning obedience.
The First Vatican Council also declared:
Both clergy and faithful, of whatever rite and dignity, both singly and collectively, are bound to submit to this power by the duty of hierarchical subordination and true obedience, and this not only in matters concerning faith and morals, but also in those which regard the discipline and government of the Church throughout the world….
Since the Roman Pontiff, by the divine right of the apostolic primacy, governs the whole Church, we likewise teach and declare that he is the supreme judge of the faithful [52], and that in all cases which fall under ecclesiastical jurisdiction recourse may be had to his judgment [53]. The sentence of the Apostolic See (than which there is no higher authority) is not subject to revision by anyone, nor may anyone lawfully pass judgment thereupon [54]. And so they stray from the genuine path of truth who maintain that it is lawful to appeal from the judgments of the Roman pontiffs to an ecumenical council as if this were an authority superior to the Roman Pontiff….
So, then, if anyone says that the Roman Pontiff has merely an office of supervision and guidance, and not the full and supreme power of jurisdiction over the whole Church, and this not only in matters of faith and morals, but also in those which concern the discipline and government of the Church dispersed throughout the whole world; or that he has only the principal part, but not the absolute fullness, of this supreme power; or that this power of his is not ordinary and immediate both over all and each of the Churches and over all and each of the pastors and faithful: let him be anathema.
In Summary
If Bergoglio fulfills Vatican I’s definition of pope, why would he need to be deposed? The only possible reason is that he doesn’t fulfill the definition, but then Vatican I would be false. Therefore, he either doesn’t need to be deposed or he’s not pope. Otherwise, it can’t be argued that he needs to be deposed. Vatican I ends the debate.
Pretty well lays it out…what’s their excuse now???
If Vatican II is a true council then Catholicism was a false religion up until 1958 when the modernist Roncalli usurped the throne of St. Peter and corrected Christ and the Church. Somewhat like Luther who also corrected Christ and the Church 500 years ago.
The fact that heresy can exist in the ordinary magisteirum, and not merely lesser degrees of theological error, is because “purported” ecumenical councils (e.g., council of Hieria) of the past have in fact taught heresy. So there is nothing intrinsically incompatible with heresy existing in the ordinary magisterium. The fact that the pope can teach heresy publicly in his official capacity is in fact admitted by Bellarmine in the cases of Nicholas and Honorius. So your issue isn’t with me, it’s with Bellarmine and the facts of history.
SPERAY REPLIES: You wrongly interpret Bellarmine and misrepresent his position, but the fact of history is that the Church has never taught heresy. If it did, then it’s no better than Protestatant religions. I have no issues with the facts of history, but you do. You deny the facts. You also reject the marks of the Church AS THE CHURCH teaches them. You hold them like the Protestants, who recite the Apostles’ Creed AND YOU PROVE THAT YOUR RELIGION IS FALSE BY YOUR OWN EXAMPLE and YOUR ARGUMENTATION. So thank you for helping our cause.
The point of this article is that your argumentation is heretical just like John of St. Thomas’ position is now heretical. If the pope fulfills the Vatican 1 definition of pope, then there’s no need warn, declare, or depose him for heresy. Otherwise, he’s not pope.
In reply to cs and his like…the Church has left no stone unturned nor any truth weak and able to be compromised. All his and their arguments and facts are flawed, misapplied, misunderstood according to the Church, and the reason we are seeing such chaos in all their expertise. Those who look for fault and complicate issues are those of ill will, weak and lacking in the Faith to no ones fault but their own.