1. Since you’re all divided in faith over doctrines and morals, how is your religion the Catholic Church when the first mark and article of faith of oneness identifying the Catholic Church is missing? [1]
2. What did Pope Pius IX mean when he stated: “And, we cannot pass over in silence the boldness of those who “not enduring sound doctrine” [II Tim. 4:3], contend that “without sin and with no loss of Catholic profession, one can withhold assent and obedience to those judgments and decrees of the Apostolic See, whose object is declared to relate to the general good of the Church and its right and discipline, provided it does not touch dogmas of faith or morals.” There is no one who does not see and understand clearly and openly how opposed this is to the Catholic dogma of the plenary power divinely bestowed on the Roman Pontiff by Christ the Lord Himself of feeding, ruling, and governing the universal Church.”(Quanta Cura, Dec 8, 1864.)???
Footnote [1] The Vatican 2 popes teach that non-Catholics and non-Catholic religions form the Church of Christ and Bergoglio condemns the death penalty as immoral. That They May Be One (Ut Unum Sint) Are Protestants Christians and Members of the Church of Christ? ‘Pope’ Francis’ Heresy on the Death Penalty
Speray's Catholicism in a Nutshell 
The R&R people are so afraid that the Church might be deprived of a Pope for a long time that they are ready to accept the most outlandish ideas.
You’re right and they have.
They all have an answer to argue their predicament. However, they will never admit to not being one in faith because they are caught on too many differing ideals, understandings and practices. It’s comical to see them squirm in their panic and pride but wait until they go over to one of the kiss butt societies and all eventually get excommunicated.
The R&R crowd will jump through any manner of mental hoops to reconcile such a clear condemnation of Catholicism from a supposed “Pope”. I’ve had some insist that there’s not just the Church, but three churches: the Catholic Church, the conciliar church, and the Bergoglian church (my term); splitting the papacy into a hydra of any number of heretical “churches” just so they can have their Pope and eat him too.
And of course the paragon of Catholic Unity may only be found in Sedevacantists mass centers and seminaries, right? I know that the late priest, Fr. Cekada, taught at a seminary in Florida where the asinine material-formal thesis was being indoctrinated into poor unsuspecting souls, and said Father-Lecturer didn’t even believe it!
That is just one example among a thousand that could be given to demonstrate that the Sedevacantists “clergy” are not unified in any sense of the term, and so clearly lack all claims to Catholicity.
You may point your finger at the speck in the SSPX or R&R’s eye, but it might behoove you first to remove the log from your own!
There is no log in my eye. It’s apparent that you don’t know what the mark of unity means. Unity of faith does not mean unity in opinions. Lack of unity in the opinion realm has always existed in the Church. I don’t agree with the material-formal thesis, but I wouldn’t call it asinine. Your comment, however, is most certainly asinine.
I call it asinine, Mr Speray, because I have the philosophical training to see through it. Tell me, have you studied metaphysics? If not, how can you say one way or another if is sound philosophically or not?
SPERAY REPLIES: Philosophical training from where? You don’t even know the difference between the unity of faith and doctrines of opinions. You wrongly accuse me of hypocrisy from pointing THE CATHOLIC FAITH out by the first mark as if the Catholic Church is not one in faith! YOU ARE A HERETIC IF YOU THINK THE CATHOLIC CHURCH IS NOT ONE IN FAITH!
I don’t think that the those who adhere to the material-formal thesis are entertaining mere opinions Catholics are free to entertain.
SPERAY REPLIES: That’s your opinion.
Sanborn’s thesis (I know it doesn’t originate with him) goes directly contrary to what an actual Pope has taught and legislated.
SPERAY REPLIES: That is your opinion.
Pope Paul IV, in his Cum Ex Apostolatus Officio, has definitively made known that a heretic can never be Pope, can never be in possession of a valid election, and can never in the future be cleared of heresy and attain to the Chair of Peter, ever!
SPERAY REPLIES: The issue is little bit more complicated than you think. I don’t think you understand the thesis.
And that may be found in 6.i-vi of the same decree. I strongly encourage you to read it, and ask for grace of humility to submit to it, to realize Sanborn is a heretic or schismatic and must be avoided and surely not promoted from your blog.
SPERAY REPLIES: I’ve read Cum ex so many times, I can almost recite it by heart. It’s all over my blog. Even if Sanborn believed differently than Cum ex, it wouldn’t make him a heretic. Where did you get your training again? It appears that you don’t even know what a heretic is.
My comment was not asinine. It was authentic Catholicism.
SPERAY REPLIES: Yes, it was asinine to confuse unity of faith and the doctrine of opinions. Also, not all sedes are Catholic and therefore, disunity among sedes doesn’t mean disunity of the Catholic Church.
But I am use to so-called fellow Catholics abusing me whenever I boldly speak the truth.
SPERAY REPLIES: You don’t boldly speak truth and you’re not used to being countered. Stop acting like a child. It’s annoying.
If you care about truth as you taut that you do, tell me how you can reconcile the material-formal thesis with Paul IV’s decree, in the pertinent parts of 6.i-vi. It is your burden, since you claim it is mere opinion and not heresy or schism.
SPERAY REPLIES: Wrong! The burden is on you to explain how disagreeing with Cum ex with the thesis makes one a heretic or schismatic. I don’t think you understand the thesis but you’re willing to label one a heretic. Do even know the authority of the legislation?
But isn’t this a case in point?
SPERAY REPLIES: NOT AT ALL! NOT EVEN CLOSE!
You are a sedevacantist. I am a sedevacantist. But we disagree on whether someone in our “communion” is or isn’t a heretic, entertains an opinion on the state of the papacy, or holds a heretical or schismatic proposition. My point proves itself. We have no unity. Don’t point your finger at the Novus Ordoites.
SPERAY REPLIES: YOU HAVE JUST PROVED THAT YOU HAVE NO IDEA WHAT YOU’RE TALKING ABOUT. An opinion about who’s a heretic is still an opinion, it’s not part of the faith. An opinon on the state of the papacy, whether sedev or sedep is still an opinion and not part of the faith as defined by the Church. One who holds to heretical or schismatic proposition out of clear ignorance is not a disunity of faith. Catholics err all the time out of ignorance. Actual heretics and/or schismatics who call themselves sedes are not Catholics. Therefore, your “case in point” is complete ASININE! Go take your asinine opinions elsewhere. I’m not going to listen to anymore of your “training.”
Did unity disappear just before vcii, during or did it take its time during the aftermath of the council? This unity expressed by Christ, was it wishful thinking on His part or even a guarantee?
The Church never lost its unity of faith. Christ prayed that His Church would be one in faith.
A church without a pope is unified? With the shepherd gone wouldn’t that suggest the sheep are lost and astray?
The oneness in faith is an everlasting mark of the Church. It exists when there is no pope or else the Church of Christ would cease to exist everytime a pope dies. The sheep will not be lost or astray as long as they are unified to the office of Peter.
The office of Peter without Peter?
SPERAY REPLIES: It happens everytime a pope dies. There have been times when when the office was vacant for years. During the Great Western Schism, it was suggested by Suarez that none occupied the chair the whole time. All were antipopes. Depending on your calculation, it was vacant for 51 years at that time.
What would be the point having an office never occupied?
SPERAY REPLIES: The office is able to be filled. The point of the office is unity and when it’s empty, we obey the teachings of that office until it is filled.
The problem exists when no one has officially declared the chair empty.
SPERAY REPLIES: Not a problem at all. We don’t need an official declaration, which would come from whom exactly?
To suggest the chair is empty would suggest the fathers of the church chose a heretic to occupy the seat of Peter, thus nullifying the church and its fathers based upon their decision(s).
SPERAY REPLIES: Pope Paul IV already told us that if all the cardinals elected a heretic as pope, he would not be pope even if accepted by the whole world. It would not nullify the church.
IF you’re going to use the church and her faith as the pillar of unity then you’re going to have to accept the church and her faith for not declaring the chair empty.
SPERAY REPLIES: Not exactly. The Church has already taught that heretics are not members of the Church. I follow that teaching of the Church. To be in unity with the Church, you must hold to that teaching or else, you’re outside of the Church. Catholics don’t get to pick and choose what they will believe and accept. That’s the problem with R&R crowd. They don’t accept the teaching of the Church, which is why they accept Bergoglio or some other heretic as pope.
Can’t have it both ways. If the protestant community are considered individuals by the church then those electing to believe the chair is empty , not declared by the church, your premise for opting for this belief are no different than individual protestants.
SPERAY REPLIES: Protestants don’t believe in Catholic dogmas, which is why they are Protestants. If you need a declaration that the Chair of Peter is vacant, you’ve already had it by many bishops and priests. When you say official declaration, who gives that official declaration and where does the Church say that so and so must give that declaration. You’re making things up when you say the Church must officially declare the Chair of Peter vacant before it is vacant.
“In order that the whole host of the faithful may remain in unity of faith and communion, He (Christ) placed St. Peter over the other Apostles and instituted in him both a perpetual principle of unity and a visible foundation”
SPERAY REPLIES: We already know that. That’s why we’ve had popes for 2000 years. We are in an extended interregnum right now as we’ve had in the past. We just haven’t had one extended to this degree.
Leo I : “The solidity of that faith which was commended in the prince of the Apostles is perpetual; and as what Peter believed in Christ is permanent, so what Christ instituted in Peter is permanent…blessed Peter, continuing in his acquired firmness of “the rock,” has not abandoned the entrusted helms of the Church…whose dignity fails not even in his unworthy heir…”
SPERAY REPLIES: Precisely why we have an office despite the fact it’s empty up to this point. Read the First Vatican Council’s Cardinal Franzelin (translated by James Larrabee) on VACANCY OF THE APOSTOLIC SEE
15. “Hence the distinction arises between the seat [sedes, See] and the one sitting in it [sedens], by reason of perpetuity. The seat, that is the perpetual right of the primacy, never ceases, on the part of God in His unchangeable law and supernatural providence, and on the part of the Church in her right and duty of forever keeping as a deposit the power divinely instituted on behalf of the individual successors of Peter, and of securing their succession by a fixed law; but the individual heirs or those sitting [sedentes] in the Apostolic seat are mortal men; and therefore the seat can never fail, but it can be *vacant* and often is vacant. Then indeed the divine law and institution of perpetuity remains, and by the same reason the right and duty in the Church of procuring the succession according to the established law; there remain also the participations in the powers [of the papacy] to the extent they are communicable to others [e.g. to the Cardinals or bishops], and have been communicated by the successor of Peter while still alive, or have been lawfully established and not abrogated [thus the jurisdiction of bishops, granted by the Pope, does not cease when he dies]; but the highest power itself, together with its rights and prerogatives, which can in no way exist except in the one individual heir of Peter, now actually belong to no one while the See is vacant.
“From this can be understood the distinction in the condition of the Church herself in the time of the *vacancy of the See* and the time of the *occupation of the See* [sedis plenae], namely that in the former time, a successor of Peter, the visible rock and visible head of the Church, *is owed* to the vacant Apostolic See by divine right or law but *does not yet exist*; in the time of the occupation of the See he now *actually sits* by divine right. It is most important to consider the very root of the whole life of the Church, by which I mean the indefectibility and infallible custody of the deposit of the faith. Certainly there remains in the Church not only indefectibility *in believing* (called passive infallibility) but also infallibility *in proclaiming* the truth already revealed and already sufficiently proposed for Catholic belief, even while she is for a time bereaved of her visible head, so that neither the whole body of the Church in its belief, nor the whole Episcopate in its teaching, can depart from the faith handed down and fall into heresy, because this permanence of the Spirit of truth in the Church, the kingdom and spouse and body of Christ, is included in the very promise and institution of the indefectibility of the Church *for all days* even to the consummation of the world. The same is to be said, by the same reasoning, for the unity of communion against a universal schism, as for the truth of the faith against heresy. For the divine law and promise of perpetual succession in the See of Peter, as the root and center of Catholic unity, remains; and to this law and promise correspond, on the part of the Church, not only the right and duty of, but also indefectibility in, legitimately procuring and receiving the succession and in keeping the unity of communion with the Petrine See even when vacant, in view of the successor who is awaited and will indefectibly come … “ (Franzelin, op. cit., p. 221-223)
SPERAY REPLIES: The office is able to be filled. The point of the office is unity and when it’s empty, we obey the teachings of that office until it is filled. The problem exists when no one has officially declared the chair empty.
SPERAY REPLIES: Not a problem at all. We don’t need an official declaration, which would come from whom exactly?
I agree , but only it is empty. The church has spoken on this when a pope is elected. The official declaration has already been done. You simply choose to ignore it. You nor anyone else has been given authority to decide otherwise.
SPERAY REPLIES: All Catholics have been given authority by Christ not to recognize heretics. No one has the authority to say a heretic is pope, nor does anyone have the authority to say a heretic is not a heretic.
The church has spoken when John 23 was elected. To say the cardinals votes were deemed null and void, neither you nor anyone else has that authority either. Certainly no one made that decision after J23 election.
SPERAY REPLIES: Pope Paul IV already told us that a heretic is not pope EVEN IF elected by all the cardinals. That’s divine law. No one has the authority to say a heretic is pope, not even the whole Church.
————————-
To suggest the chair is empty would suggest the fathers of the church chose a heretic to occupy the seat of Peter, thus nullifying the church and its fathers based upon their decision(s).
SPERAY REPLIES: Pope Paul IV already told us that if all the cardinals elected a heretic as pope, he would not be pope even if accepted by the whole world. It would not nullify the church.
Paul IV did say this and no other pope has followed him up on this ??
SPERAY REPLIES: Yes, it’s in canon law that heretics tacitly resign office by public heresy without the need for declaration. See https://stevensperay.wordpress.com/2016/03/17/canon-188-4-and-defection-of-faith-why-john-salza-and-robert-siscoe-get-it-wrong-part-iii/
Hard to fathom that no one pope singled this problem out , the church has never made this declaration since his statement. How come? Does his statement carry the weight of infallibility? I don’t think so.
SPERAY REPLIES: IT ABSOLUTELY IS INFALLIBLE!!! You have no authority to say otherwise and no pope has ever attempted.
————————————–
IF you’re going to use the church and her faith as the pillar of unity then you’re going to have to accept the church and her faith for not declaring the chair empty.
SPERAY REPLIES: Not exactly.
Yes, exactly Steven. Heretics are in the church BUT no pope has ever been declared guilty of heresy.
SPERAY REPLIES: You left out the rest. I stated: The Church has already taught that heretics are not members of the Church. I follow that teaching of the Church. To be in unity with the Church, you must hold to that teaching or else, you’re outside of the Church. Catholics don’t get to pick and choose what they will believe and accept. That’s the problem with R&R crowd. They don’t accept the teaching of the Church, which is why they accept Bergoglio or some other heretic as pope.
You are not following the teaching of the Church!
———————–
Catholics don’t get to pick and choose what they will believe and accept. That’s the problem with R&R crowd. They don’t accept the teaching of the Church, which is why they accept Bergoglio or some other heretic as pope.
Steven , you nor anyone else has the authority to declare a pope a heretic.
SPERAY REPLIES: I agree. That’s not what’s happening. The Vat2 popes were never popes.
You nor anyone else has been given any kind charism to determine just who was a heretic PRIOR to their election. You have overstepped your authority, even by employing Paul 4th statement.
SPERAY REPLIES: WRONG!!!! No special kind of charism is needed to recognize heretics. When Jesus told you to beware of false teachers, you would tell Our Lord that you don’t have a special charism to do so. That’s the gist of your argument. It’s absurd! Every Catholic has a right and a duty to reject a heretic as pope. It’s that simple!
—————-
Can’t have it both ways. If the protestant community are considered individuals by the church then those electing to believe the chair is empty , not declared by the church, your premise for opting for this belief are no different than individual protestants.
SPERAY REPLIES: Protestants don’t believe in Catholic dogmas, which is why they are Protestants. If you need a declaration that the Chair of Peter is vacant, you’ve already had it by many bishops and priests. When you say official declaration, who gives that official declaration and where does the Church say that so and so must give that declaration. You’re making things up when you say the Church must officially declare the Chair of Peter vacant before it is vacant.
You have decided to choose who is pope steven.
SPERAY REPLIES: NOPE! I have followed my informed Catholic conscience and obeyed Our Lord by rejecting a false teacher as a false teacher. POpes are not false teachers. See https://stevensperay.wordpress.com/2021/01/20/the-catholic-bottom-line-part-ix/
Who will decide when a future one is truly elected a pope?? All the cardinals are dead since the council began. This cafeteria style makes you a protestant.
SPERAY REPLIES: WRONG!!! Your argument actually condemns St. Vincent Ferrer and many other saints. If you believe Bergoglio is pope then you are a Protestant since the Vatican praises and endorses Protestantism. Your popes even side with Luther over Pope Leo X on religous liberty. Lastly, what authority do you have to say I’m a Protestant? You just argued that you don’t have authority to judge a heretic as a heretic and yet you just did the very thing you said you can’t do. Do you not see your hypocrisy?
SPERAY REPLIES: I agree. That’s not what’s happening. The Vat2 popes were never popes.”
Says you Steven. Certainly the church hasn’t stated this.
SPERAY REPLIES: Yes, the Church has defined it by stating by law what makes a heretic and how he holds no office.
That is solely your opinion,
SPERAY REPLIES: Nope! This is a fact, which you are not free to reject.
using Paul 4’a non infallible statement a model ,
SPERAY REPLIES: Pope Paul IV’s teaching is infallible for it is the divine law of the Church.
isn’t reflected by the church.
SPERAY REPLIES: Yes it is in Can. 188.4.
Remember , the church aren’t individuals such as yourself and other likeminded believers. It is the whole church, as in all the cardinals choosing a man to succeed Pius 12.
SPERAY REPLIES: Nope! The cardinals are not the whole church and if they are heretics, they aren’t in the Church themselves as in the case today.
Was John 23 a heretic before or after being chosen pope? If before, show evidence. Show he was literally a formal heretic.
SPERAY REPLIES: https://stevensperay.wordpress.com/2017/10/08/pope-st-john-xxiii-or-antipope-john-xxiii/
Was he freely chosen by church cardinals or not?
SPERAY REPLIES: I don’t know, but it doesn’t matter. It doesn’t look like he was freely chosen.
Did the cardinals all believe he was a heretic and chose him anyway?
SPERAY REPLIES: I don’t know. I don’t think he was freely chosen but it’s irrelevant as Pope Paul IV already told us.
If after, did the church wrongly chose?
SPERAY REPLIES: That’s possible of course as Pope Paul IV told us.
If they did know, then ALL the cardinals gravely sinned.
SPERAY REPLIES: I already believe that anyway for not taking a stand.
Still, NOT a one has ever come forward with this accusation.
SPERAY REPLIES: Cowardice, stupidity, and apostasy would explain it.
Would the cardinals declare they made a mistake in choosing John23?
SPERAY REPLIES: Who knows. Who cares. It’s a done deal and J23 was no pope. That’s all we need to know.
You say John was a heretic yet the church has not spoken on this, only individuals.
SPERAY REPLIES: Where has your church stated that Biden and Pelosi are heretics? We know that they are but where has your church declared it?
To say Paul 4’s ‘infallible’ statement was valid then why NONE of the cardinals after voting J23 in ever denounced him a heretic…
SPERAY REPLIES: Again, cowardice, stupidity, and apostasy would explain it. The farther the novus ordo religion strays with heresy and apostasy, the more proof we have that the Vat2 popes are not popes. It’s that simple.
Don’t waste your time with this Robert Robbins.
On another website he told me that he wasn’t sure if he himself was a Catholic but that he had “desire” of it based on who he was baptized by.
He couldn’t name one bishop/priest in the world who was a Catholic but yet he was certain that anybody who follows sedevacantist bishops or priests were not Catholic based on his application of the law.
He dodged questions and gave answers that had nothing to do with the questions. For example: I asked him what if the earth was hit by an asteroid under normal circumstances and it wiped out the pope, all the cardinals, and left us with few remaining bishops in the world how would it ever be able maintain its power to rule again if it lost its main needed resource to give it power to rule? His lame answer was if we were hit by an asteroid we would all be dead. Great answer right? NOT
He attacked this one person for using an anonymous name because as he said “What is the point. You don’t want your boss knowing whether you are a sedevacantist or something. Your parents gave you a name, so use it” because he “just hated talking to “nameless, sexless, entitiy.” The hilarious thing was he changed his name to CatholicEclipsed not too long afterwards, making him a nameless, sexless, entity ashamed to use the name his parents gave him. Hypocrite.
I once called him an armchair theologian and edited my comment to be polite but now that he keeps bragging about his “training” in this and that, he is just proving that he is full of himself. It’s cringe worthy.
Good replies Lee and moderator. There are more than a few of these ‘trained’ experts roaming around….the apple of their eye. Hopefully, sincere readers appreciate these fake, irresponsible self-trained experts are just that…This site and NovusOrdoWatch are great resources and guidance sites for those searching for the truth and wanting to follow the Traditional Catholic Church.
Thank you.
SPERAY REPLIES: WRONG!!!! No special kind of charism is needed to recognize heretics. When Jesus told you to beware of false teachers, you would tell Our Lord that you don’t have a special charism to do so. That’s the gist of your argument. It’s absurd! Every Catholic has a right and a duty to reject a heretic as pope. It’s that simple!
Christ was speaking to His apostles, as clergy , not to joe doe individual.
SPERAY REPLIES: WRONG AGAIN. He was speaking to all Catholics for then to now. If you read the Catholic commentaries, you’ll see that the false teachers are those claiming to be bishops. Therefore, those words are more for us than the Apostles.
Not everyone is a theologian capable of discernment.
SPERAY REPLIES: It doesn’t take a theologian to know what is heresy. There was a time when children knew if they studied their catechism.
So no , what you think heresy is is not necessarily accurate nor true.
SPERAY REPLIES: I know precisely what is heresy and so do you for the most part. Let me give you one example. Bergoglio said that God willed the diversy if all religion and sex. When asked to clarify, he stated permissively willed. Therefore, Bergoglio has clarified that God permissively willed the diversity of sex. IS THAT HERESY?
Every catholic has a right to know BUT not every Catholic has an ability to understand.
SPERAY REPLIES: That is irrelevant. Does that mean that those who went along with Henry VIII are exempt just because they couldn’t understand?
So it’s not absurd to think otherwise.
SPERAY REPLIES: Yes, it’s absurd because you misrepresented Our Lord’s words and misrepresented the Catholic faith.
And just like every protestant convinces himself they have the goods on truth, likewise sedes think they know what’s what.
SPERAY REPLIES: Protestants have gone against the Church and we are following the Church. That’s why I gave you can. 188.4. and if you read my website, you’ll see papal teaching telling you what I’m telling you.
Sedes cannot and do not possess any authority to make such determinations.
SPERAY REPLIES: TOTAL ABSUDITY!!! WE ARE COMMANDED BY CHRIST TO MAKE THOSE DETERMINATIONS WHEN WE CAN. Fr. Jeaquin Y Arriaga held 3 doctorates (theology, canon law, philosophy) and layed out the case in his book in 1970. See https://stevensperay.wordpress.com/2020/02/06/fr-joaquin-saenz-y-arriaga-catholic-champion-of-the-late-20th-century/ ARE YOU SAYING THAT A PRIEST WITH THESE DOCTORATES DIDN’T UNDERSTAND AND HAD NO AUTHORITY? REALLY???? What authority do you have to say a heretic is not a heretic or that heresy is not heresy? NONE and no one else does either. What authority do you have to say a heretic is pope? NONE and no one else does either! What authority do you have to say we are Protestants? NONE! You didn’t answer my question about where your church has officially declared Biden and Pelosi heretics and/or excommunicated them?
SPERAY REPLIES: TOTAL ABSUDITY!!! WE ARE COMMANDED BY CHRIST TO MAKE THOSE DETERMINATIONS WHEN WE CAN.
You just made my case. Most catholics don’t have the ability nor the authority to determine heresy.
SPERAY REPLIES: You didn’t answer my question. Most Catholics do have the ability and all have the authority to stay away from heretics.
That is strictly for authorized clergy not unauthorized laymen.
SPERAY REPLIES: Where does the Church teach that only authorized clergy are to judge what is and who is heretical?
You can make the claim but it lacks in authority to make it stick.
SPERAY REPLIES: Stick to what? One is either in or out of the Church. The law of the Church says otherwise and so does POpe Pius XII teaching that the sin of heresy severs one from the Body of the Church BY ITS NATURE. You argue against Pope Pius XII and says it’s by declaration.
Did Jeaquin’s degrees decide a church commission following an heretic pope??
SPERAY REPLIES: There’s no such thing as a heretic pope. Where does the Church teach that a church commission is needed for what you think? Where are you getting this from?
If the Pope had already been a public heretic, the accusation of heresy must also have been extended to the College of Cardinals who elected him.
SPERAY REPLIES: Says who?
Then Paul iv Bull should have provided an ecclesiastical body to judge and depose the Pope , which should have more power than the validly elected Pope and the College of Cardinals who elected him.
SPERAY REPLIES: NO ONE CAN JUDGE AND DEPOSE A POPE!!!!!
Such an organ to depose a Pope does not exist , does it, never mentioned by Paul IV nor by any other Pope, right? .
SPERAY REPLIES: OF COURSE NOT, SINCE THE NO ONE CAN JUDGE AND DEPOSE A POPE.
Further, should such an organ exist, it would be doctrinally prevented from deposing a validly elected Pontiff.
SPERAY REPLIES: A VALIDLY ELECTED PONTIFF IS JUDGED BY NO ONE EVER!!!!! PERIOD!!!! Heretics can’t be validly elected, which is the whole point. Caesar Baldii [1921]: “c) The law now in force for the election of the Roman Pontiff is reduced to these points:
“Barred as incapable of being validly elected are the following: women, children who have not reached the age of reason, those suffering from habitual insanity, the unbaptized, heretics and schismatics…” (Institutiones luris Canonici)
Marato [1921]: “Heretics and schismatics are barred from the Supreme Pontificate by the Divine Law itself, because, although by divine law they are not considered incapable of participating in a certain type of ecclesiastical jurisdiction, nevertheless, they must certainly be regarded as excluded from occupying the throne of the Apostolic See, which is the infallible teacher of the truth of the faith and the center of ecclesiastical unity.” (Institutiones luris Canonici)
Matthaeus Conte a Coronata (1950): “III. Appointment to the office of the Primacy [i.e. papacy]. 1 ° What is required by divine law for this appointment: (a) The person appointed must be a man who possesses the use of reason, due to the ordination the Primate must receive to possess the power of Holy Orders. This is required for the validity of the appointment.
“Also required for validity is that the man appointed be member of the Church. Heretics and apostates (at least public ones) are therefore excluded.”
“2 ° Loss of office of the Roman Pontiff. This can occur in various ways:
c) Notorious heresy. Certain authors deny the supposition that the Roman Pontiff can become a heretic.
“It cannot be proven however that the Roman Pontiff, as a private teacher, cannot become a heretic – if, for example, he would contumaciously deny a previously defined dogma. Such impeccability was never promised by God. Indeed, Pope Innocent III expressly admits such a case is possible.
“If indeed such a situation would happen, he [the Roman Pontiff] would, by divine law, fall from office without any sentence, indeed, without even a declaratory one. He who openly professes heresy places himself outside the Church, and it is not likely that Christ would preserve the Primacy of His Church in one so unworthy. Wherefore, if the Roman Pontiff were to profess heresy, before any condemnatory sentence (which would be impossible anyway) he would lose his authority.” (Institutiones Iuris Canonici. Rome: Marietti 1950. 1:312, 316. My emphasis)
If the Bull of Paul IV were to be applied to Cardinal Ferratti never could have been Pius ix; he was a complete liberal and possibly masonic, his election should be annulled and all the juridical and sacramental acts of his pontificate invalidated.
SPERAY REPLIES: A total lie! Where are you getting your info and why are you not answering my questions?
Was Pius validly elected? Not according to you Steven.
SPERAY REPLIES: He was validly elected and was not those things you accused him of.
Same applies to Cardinal Pecci, Leo XIII, and the modernist Cardinal della Chiesa, the future Benedict XV, must also be declared null.
SPERAY REPLIES: THEY WERE NOT MODERNISTS!! LEO XIII WAS GREAT!!!!!
So despite your consternations , J23 et al were validly elected and no previous pope or statements can declare a future election invalid.
SPERAY REPLIES: I already proved J23 was no good in my piece. You lie about the previous popes. AND YOU DON’T ANSWER MY QUESTIONS, WHICH IS PAR FOR THE COURSE FOR THOSE WHO CAN’T DEFEND THEIR POSITION.
Pope Adrian VI († 1523) stated that it is beyond question that a pope can err in matters touching the Faith, he can teach heresy in decrees. He also stated many Roman Pontiffs were heretics:
“If by the Roman Church you mean its head or pontiff, it is beyond question that he can err even in matters touching the faith. He does this when he teaches heresy by his own judgment or decree. In truth, many Roman pontiffs were heretics. The last of them was Pope John XXII († 1334).”
(Quaest. in IV Sent.; from Papal Infallibility and the Syllabus, 1908 by Viollet).
Was Adrian heretical for making this statement??
SPERAY REPLIES: I don’t believe a pope wrote it. However, it is true that popes can err. The fathers of hte First Vatican Council found 40 papal errors in history. I write about some of them on this blog, but none of those errors were against the faith as it was defined at that time and none of those errors were taught by law or decree. John XXII was not a heretic. But for the sake of the argument, if Adrian did, in fact, write the above statement, he would not be a heretic since in his day you probably were permitted to believe it. In his day, many erroneous opinions were held by Catholics. For instance, councils had power over popes, which is now considered heresy. For Pope Adrian to be a heretic, you must show where he went against the Faith in his day. At one time, Catholic were permitted to believe Our Lady was a sinner, but not now. Today it’s heretical, but not a thousand years ago. Pope Adrian was no heretic and no pope was a heretic. It’s that simple!
You apparently only wish to believe this way as to fit your agenda.
SPERAY REPLIES: NOPE! You only wish you could use those lies to fit your agenda..
You don’t have proof that any of the post conciliar popes were heretical before or after their election,
SPERAY REPLIES: LOL. There’s plenty of proof. I even provided one with you on Bergoglio saying God permissively willed the diversity of sex. You didn’t answer the question and now we see why. You don’t like it but it’s outright blasphemous heresy, without a doubt.
which is something you could not properly address,
SPERAY REPLIES: I have shown over and over Bergoglio’s heresies. Fr. Saenz Y Arriaga did so 50 years ago with Paul VI. You don’t want to listen because it doesn’t fit your agenda.
NOR the prelates that elected them were ALL considered heretics (there is no such church mechanism available to determine this) even to the point of abusing Paul iv bull.
SPERAY REPLIES: You are the one rejecting the Bull, plain and simple.
You have no authority to issue such opinion (you’re JUST a layman),
SPERAY REPLIES: Total BS. I have a duty to tell people the truth when fake popes tell lies about the Catholic Faith.
especially considering your authoritative act and website having the possibility of misleading others towards damnation.
SPERAY REPLIES: All of a sudden you have the authority to make judgments about what’s heretical? LOL. Funny how you can apply your judgments to those who you disagree with.
These are confusing times, no doubt , but an individual such as yourself have no authority or right to confuse others , having them stray from the church.
SPERAY REPLIES: That’s what you’re doing, not me!
It is not your purview Steven to make such determinations. You are just one man. It’s funny, how you outright dismiss Pope Adrian’s statement with the “i don’t believe’ line…
SPERAY REPLIES: I don’t believe it because there’s no historical proof he said it. And even if he did say it, it wouldn’t make him a heretic as I explained. You lose on both points.
Was it a TOTAL lie when i posted the possibility that Cardinal Ferratti was a liberal and/or mason?
SPERAY REPLIES: YES!
You can look it up yourself to see , some consider it rumor , others for real. I don’t know. But it’s out there Steven.
SPERAY REPLIES: I know all about those lies.
Even ‘novusordowatch’ site makes the claim Bergolio is a valid pope.
SPERAY REPLIES: WHAT? It makes no such claim. The author of that site is one of my best friends. The site is total sedevacantist.
All this time i thought they were sedes. Hmmm.
SPERAY REPLIES: They always have been and still are today.
See, the thing is steven, that sedes are all over the map when considering their own little turf in this and you’re all disagreeing in one fashion or another, just like the protestants…
SPERAY REPLIES: Your religion is all over the map disagreeing with one another AND YOU HAVE A POPE! LOL! Fake president Biden who belongs to your church believes in all kinds of heresy, including abortion. Where has your pope declared him heretical or excommunicated?
https://traditioninaction.org/ProgressivistDoc/A_180_Mastai.html
SPERAY REPLIES: Pope Pius IX dispelled those myths with his documents and condemnations of Freemasonry! https://www.ewtn.com/catholicism/library/papal-condemnations-of-the-lodge-11317
READ IT FOR YOURSELF
SPERAY REPLIES: Read below and see how you condemned yourself.
https://novusordowatch.org/2016/11/pius9-freemasonry-second-rebuttal-tia/
On November 3, 2016, we published a hard-hitting response to a post by Tradition in Action that sought to implicate Pope Pius IX in Freemasonry. Under the cover of offering a “contribution to the historical-theological-canonical debate”, Tradition in Action (TIA) published as “evidence” the claims of Freemasons (!) that before ascending to the Papacy, Giovanni Maria Mastai-Ferretti (the future Pius IX) had been a member of the Lodge. We rebutted the outrageous accusation here:
• Tradition in Action uses Masonic Source to implicate Pope Pius IX in Freemasonry
This calumny against Pope Pius IX is not new and apparently only emerged, as our refutation shows, as an act of simple revenge against the Pope after he had issued a blistering condemnation of Masonry in September of 1865. More on that further below.
————————————————-
There is little doubt that this false accusation against Pius IX will gain in popularity in the coming months because it will come in handy for all those who are looking for a reason to say that although it is clear that Jorge Bergoglio (“Pope Francis”) is a public heretic, he is nevertheless A VALID POPE of the Catholic Church.
SPERAY REPLIES: You just proved that you can’t comprehend what you’re reading. NovusOrdoWatch is saying (ALL THOSE LOOKING FOR REASON) are the ones saying Bergoglio is a valid pope. In other words, NovusOrdoWatch is referring to you SAM. You’re doing precisely what NovusOrdoWatch is saying people like you will do. You’re looking for a reason to say Bergoglio is a valid pope.
—————————————————-
You fail here and MISS the point steven:
SPERAY REPLIES: Pope Pius IX dispelled those myths with his documents and condemnations of Freemasonry! https://www.ewtn.com/catholicism/library/papal-condemnations-of-the-lodge-11317
I didn’t bring up that as pope he condemned freemasonry but that PRIOR to his election there was some evidence he WAS a mason. He was ELECTED even with this on his head BY VALID ELECTOR CARDINALS>
SPERAY REPLIES: There is no evidence he was a Mason. Lies are not evidence, Sam. And you misrpresented NovusOrdoWatch by saying that they said Bergoglio is a valid pope, when they did not and would not. The whole point of their article was to show that Bergoglio is not a valid pope.
You seem to dismiss what you don’t wish to believe steven.
SPERAY REPLIES: NOPE! I dismiss lies and hearsay.
There is no evidence that post vcii popes are all heretics nor the electorate cardinals.
SPERAY REPLIES: I gave you one example but you refuse to answer the question.
It’s your word against everyone else’s.
SPERAY REPLIES: Nope! We have proved our point and people like you don’t answer questions because you know we’re right.
You love to misrepresent what you cannot prove true which is why you’re promoting a false narrative. I keep illustrating that your little layman opinion means very , very little in that no matter how much so called ‘evidence’ you claim to find has no bearing on anything, nor the validity or possess any authoritative pronouncement.
SPERAY REPLIES: That’s your very little opinion and you can’t even comprehend what you read as you proved with your misrepresention of novusordowatch.
Sedevacantism is not based in Tradition.
SPERAY REPLIES: Ha! I provide historic precedence.
Bellarmine for one have examined the possibility of a heretical pope, but no one prior to the vcii ever devised such a theory.
SPERAY REPLIES: WHAT? There’s lots of teachings that tell us that a pope who becomes a heretic loses his office and many theologians have taught that heretics can’t be popes. You’re speaking nonsense!
The main difficulty is how the Church can continue to be visible, if the pope, the cardinals, the bishops, etc., are deprived of their “form,” then no visible Church hierarchy is left.
SPERAY REPLIES: I’ve already dealt with that problem but you can’t explain how your religion has the 4 marks.
These are not lies steven but without any proper allocution from the church you’re left with your opinion and/or opinions from individuals with no ecclesiastic authority.
SPERAY REPLIES: I’ve provided much authority for our position.
PS. sedes will never come to an agreement regarding a future ‘pope’ because you all have your personal opinions.
SPERAY REPLIES: You’ll never come to an agreement regarding how to rid yourself of a heretical pope leading people astray.
Some sedes think they already have their own pope, living here in the states but you don’t believe them.
SPERAY REPLIES: Those aren’t sedes. You think you have your own pope who teaches that the Church is divided, that the death penalty is wrong and immoral, that God permissively willed the diversity of sex, etc., etc.
This shows just how divided you cats are.
SPERAY REPLIES: Your religion is even more divided and you have a pope. Lol.
Since ALL prelates are heretics there will never be a pope, ever.
SPERAY REPLIES: You just proved that you don’t know what you’re talking about.
(By this logic, the church ceased at the choosing of J23, and we all know that Christ’s promise of the gates of hell)
SPERAY REPLIES: Nope! But if the Vat2 popes are true that the Gates of Hell are running the Church.
. So it will have to be chosen by heaven and who’s going to decide that one, eh steven? You? Or will all you sedes assemble your own church to make that decision? You guys are on a dead end with this one.
SPERAY REPLIES: THAT’S YOUR OPINION WITH MEANS NOTHING.
https://traditioninaction.org/ProgressivistDoc/A_180_Mastai.html
Masons Consider Pius IX Had Been One of Them
Members of TIA have read from different sources that Giovanni Mastai Ferreti, the future Pius IX, had been a Freemason. Books register reports of the festivities the Masons promoted in Rome when Cardinal Mastai Ferreti was elected Pope. There has even been mention of a medal coined by Freemasonry to celebrate the ‘Masonic Pope.’ In some articles our writers have mentioned this fact in passing, not with certitude – because they had lost track of the original sources where they read the information – but rather as a hypothesis to be taken into consideration (here, here, and here).
SPERAY REPLIES: A nice scam to make Catholics doubt. The devil is very tricky but we know it’s a lie.
Since ALL prelates are heretics there will never be a pope, ever.
SPERAY REPLIES: You just proved that you don’t know what you’re talking about.
I just proved that a pope will never be elected (according to your logic) because you think there aren’t any cardinals left to elect one.
SPERAY REPLIES: WRONG! I ANSWER HERE: https://stevensperay.wordpress.com/2010/11/02/the-case-that-proves-church-laws-can%e2%80%99t-always-apply/
There isn’t a way that sedes of the world would agree much less believe it. Are you waiting for heaven to plant a viable pope steven?
SPERAY REPLIES: We are waiting for the right time since many Catholics are so lost over the apostasy of the clergy. What difference does it make to you? You have your heretical demonic pope and have had them for 60 plus years. You’re happy about your pope, right?
If you’re waiting for the right clergy, just who is going to accept and approve of these right ones?
SPERAY REPLIES: It’s the same problem as the Great Western Schism which is why we don’t want another one. Catholics need to wake up.
As Billot states: Because natural law prescribes that, in such cases, the power of a superior is passed to the immediate inferior because this is absolutely necessary for the survival of the society and to avoid the tribulations of extreme need.” De Ecclesia Christi, Billot
SPERAY REPLIES: Did you notice that it doesn’t take cardinals, which contradicts your point?
Who are these inferiors? Of course it was hypothetical IF there were no cardinals… there are Cardinals around, just not to your liking.
SPERAY REPLIES: Nope. Cardinals must profess the Catholic faith and there are none. They all profess the same heresies as the V2 popes, such as a divided Church of Christ, a God-given right to religous liberty, etc.
They ALL are heretical, right? ALL bishops are heretics too, right?
SPERAY REPLIES: I just gave you 2 examples that prove it.
So if just the sede clergy were to elect this pope, it would be only the few sedes in the world that would accept this, right?
SPERAY REPLIES: Perhaps, but we know that there are many ignorant Catholics out there unaware of the details. The devil has thrown a great big monkey-wrench in the whole thing and we’re still working it out, just like the Great Western Schism. It’s called the great falling away predicted by in Scripture and the Church. The Roman Catechism of the Council of Trent states: “The Holy Scriptures inform us that the general judgment will be preceded by these three principal signs: the preaching of the Gospel throughout the world, a falling away from the faith, and the coming of Antichrist.”
Vatican I’s Cardinal Manning wrote that Rome will apostatize and “Then the Church shall be scattered, driven into the wilderness, and shall be for a time, as it was in the beginning, invisible hidden in catacombs, in dens, in mountains, in lurking places; for a time it shall be swept, as it were from the face of the earth. Such is the universal testimony of the Fathers of the early Church.”
Theologian Fr. E. Sylverster Berry
“The Papacy will be attacked by all the powers of hell. In consequence the Church will suffer great trials and afflictions IN SECURING A SUCCESSOR upon the throne of Peter…. It is a matter of history that the most disastrous periods for the Church were times when the Papal throne was vacant, or when anti-popes contended with the legitimate head of the Church. Thus also shall it be in those evil days to come.” Fr. E. Sylvester Berry, The Apocalypse of St. John (1921), pp. 121, 124
but to answer your question, am i happy with the current pope? Absolutely not. Doesn’t mean he isn’t the pope, nor does it give me the right to proclaim he isn’t one. No one can make this claim because no one has authority.
SPERAY REPLIES: Why are you not happy with him?
the question is loaded for sure. His attack on the TLM for starters. There is more but for now i’ll leave it.
SPERAY REPLIES: Yeah, that’s bad. Did you see https://www.traditioninaction.org/religious/n195_Sc1.htm
and
https://www.traditioninaction.org/religious/n196_Sc2.htm
=======
SPERAY REPLIES: Did you notice that it doesn’t take cardinals, which contradicts your point?
Who are these inferiors? Of course it was hypothetical IF there were no cardinals… there are Cardinals around, just not to your liking.
SPERAY REPLIES: Nope. Cardinals must profess the Catholic faith and there are none. They all profess the same heresies as the V2 popes, such as a divided Church of Christ, a God-given right to religous liberty, etc.
They ALL are heretical, right? ALL bishops are heretics too, right?
SPERAY REPLIES: I just gave you 2 examples that prove it.
Thing is steven , according to you there are no legitimate clergy left , not even priests except sedes. ALL pre- vcii cardinals are gone. No doubt, all bishops and most priests of pre-vcii are too. How many sedes exist , in the world?
SPERAY REPLIES: We think between 10,000 to 100,000. This would be about the same ratio between the 8 in Noah’s ark and the world population in his day, just as prophecied in Scripture.
So despite you letting me know this, there is little this sede church can do , at this point.
SPERAY REPLIES: I agree! We must pray and do penance and remember that this is how it supposed to be according to many Catholic prophecies.
Because no one can make this determination and make it work, towards this successor to Pius12.
SPERAY REPLIES: That’s irrelevant at this point. All that’s needed according to the teaching of the Church is that the principle of pepetuity remains and it has because we have Catholics and valid bishops.
If left up to just the individual , unapproved loose group of sedes that inhabit the world’s corners, all who more or less disagree with each other, who decides the real pontiff??
SPERAY REPLIES: Well, that was precisely the problem in the late 14 to early 15 centuries with Great Western Schism. They didn’t know how to fix it for a long time and it took the great St. Vincent Ferrer to make a stand. Because he was so holy and respected, it affected others. We don’t have a St. Vincent Ferrer today. We’re in big trouble but so was Noah and his family who saw no land for many days. We’re just going to have to wait it out and see what happens. I believe there are many good Catholics who are ignorant and practicing in the novus ordo world. We need to reach them and get the info to them. We’re in an information war. That’s why I use Catholic teaching, law, Catholic prophecy, etc. to demonstrate the truth of sedevacantism. You’re right, my opinion is meaningless. Don’t take my word for it. Look at the info, see the historic precedents, study the law, get into Scripture, read papal documents, and pray, pray, pray. Wear the Brown Scapular and pray the Rosary every single day as we do as a family.
Mr Speray, a lot of the objections to sede vacante relate to other conclusions drawn beyond the issue of the papacy. When these are presented alongside the idea I have noticed that it often leads to people rejecting the position entirely because the conclusions drawn go too far or contradict other Church teachings.
What other conclusions do you draw about the Crisis that go beyond the majority opinion of theologians (including St Robert Bellarmine) that a public heretic cannot be Pope? In this you may find obstacles for those who would otherwise accept the position.