The Catholic Church has always been abundantly clear about what it takes to be a member of its Church and to lose membership. In his Encyclical, Mystici Corporis Christi, June 29, 1943, Pope Pius XII declared:
“Actually only those are to be included as members of the Church who have been baptized and profess the true faith, and who have not been so unfortunate as to separate themselves from the unity of the Body, or been excluded by legitimate authority for grave faults committed….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.”
Pope Leo XIII declared in his Encyclical, Satis Cognitum, June 29, 1896:
“5 So the Christian is a Catholic as long as he lives in the body: cut off from it he becomes a heretic – the life of the spirit follows not the amputated member…The practice of the Church has always been the same, as is shown by the unanimous teaching of the Fathers, who were wont to hold as outside Catholic communion, and alien to the Church, whoever would recede in the least degree from any point of doctrine proposed by her authoritative Magisterium….St. Augustine notes that other heresies may spring up, to a single one of which, should any one give his assent, he is by the very fact cut off from Catholic unity. “No one who merely disbelieves in all (these heresies) can for that reason regard himself as a Catholic or call himself one. For there may be or may arise some other heresies, which are not set out in this work of ours, and, if any one holds to one single one of these he is not a Catholic” (S. Augustinus, De Haeresibus, n. 88)…In this wise, all cause for doubting being removed, can it be lawful for anyone to reject any one of those truths without by the very fact falling into heresy? without separating himself from the Church? – without repudiating in one sweeping act the whole of Christian teaching? For such is the nature of faith that nothing can be more absurd than to accept some things and reject others…”
Pope Pius IX emphasizes the dogma of the plenary power of the pope on giving 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 rights and discipline, even those that don’t touch upon dogmas of faith or morals. [1]
Anything else is a loss of the Catholic profession of faith.
The first mark of the Church, which identifies the true religion of Jesus Christ, is the dogma that the Church is one in faith. As Pope Leo XIII declared, “For such is the nature of faith that nothing can be more absurd than to accept some things and reject others.”
Not only do all the members of the Vatican 2 religion of Bergoglio not profess the same faith, many of the staunchest defenders of Bergoglio being a true pope don’t even claim that it’s necessary to be a member. They prove it each time they recognize as members those who knowingly reject Catholic dogma. They actually hold and DEFEND the very absurdity Pope Leo XIII speaks of.
Bergoglio praises liberals like Joe Biden and Nancy Pelosi who openly say abortion is a good and an intrinsic right of the human person. [2] You’ll find liberals openly reject the Real Presence, Purgatory, and many other dogmas. The religion that recognizes Bergoglio as pope has bishops and priests such as “Bp” John Stowe of Lexington, KY, and “Fr.” James Martin who promote the LGBTQ lifestyle. Bergoglio appoints and praises them, too. [3] The same religion also has members on the conservative side that reject and condemn Vatican 2, papal encyclicals, apostolic exhortations, etc, and think their pope is a manifest heretic, but pope nonetheless.
In 2017, the question was posed to John Salza and Robert Siscoe whether Bergoglio professes the Catholic Faith. Their response was, “YES, Pope Francis “professes the faith” sufficiently enough to retain his membership in the Church.” [4]
Salza and Siscoe’s response implies there’s a percentage of Catholicism that must be professed to retain membership in the Church. In other words, you don’t have to profess everything the Church professes. However, they know very well their pope doesn’t profess the Catholic faith. They admit (as private individuals) that he’s a heretic, which they can’t do if they also say he professes the Catholic faith. [5]
If you press Salza and Siscoe further, they would be forced to tell you that no Catholic teaching is required for membership as long as you claim to be Catholic and recognize Bergoglio as pope. They insist that warnings and declarations of excommunication, etc. are needed before one loses membership in the Church. This is how they avoid sedevacantism.
When I asked Robert Siscoe whether Joe Biden and Nancy Pelosi are Catholics and members of the Church, he said yes. They have not been declared excommunicated. Michael Voris of Church Militant calls Biden and Pelosi fake Catholics for not professing the faith, but won’t apply the same logic to his pope.
It’s a believe-whatever-you-want religion. As long as you’re not excommunicated, you may believe whatever you want and this especially includes their pope (if you’re with Church Militant). I used Salza and Siscoe as examples, but you’ll find the same thing with anyone who argues against the position of sedevacantism.
Over a decade ago, I asked my anything-but-sedevacantist brother, “if Rev. Richard McBrien were elected pope, would you accept him as pope?” The late McBrien was head of the theological department of Notre Dame and publicly denied the existence of the devil in 1991 on the ABC TV program “Nightline” with Ted Koppel. Not to mention, McBrien publicly promoted birth control.
My brother answered, “No. Because he pertinaciously denies the Catholic faith. But, I don’t believe we’ve had a man anything close to him elected to office.” When he realized his answer clearly proved sedevacantism was right in principle, he later changed his response to, “If he were like Fr. McBrian, I would question his orthodoxy and papal election. But, would still prefer to have someone with authority call a council so that the whole world would question it, and, make it know publicly, even if that weren’t necessary. Still, I couldn’t depose him. God Himself would have to. Not a sedevacantist.”
My brother is ultimately saying that a pope doesn’t have to believe in the existence of the devil, because if no council is held or nothing at all is done about it, a dogma denying individual like McBrien could legitimately hold the Chair of Peter. Yet, that’s precisely what’s happened for the past 60 plus years with the Vatican 2 popes, who’ve openly professed heresy. All of them profess the heresy of religious liberty [6], John Paul II denied the dogma of Christ’s literal descent into hell [7], and the list goes on.
How much worse can it get for the Vatican 2 religion when their pope now is teaching that the death penalty attacks the inviolability and the dignity of the person, God permissively willed the diversity of the human sex, appoints openly pro-LGBTQ bishops and priests, and recently requested the world’s leaders and media to censor anyone who questions the covid scamdemic and dangers of the vaccines?
As I’ve said in the past, if Bergoglio has fulfilled the First Vatican Council’s definition of pope, why would a council need to be called to depose him? After all, these so-called Catholics must believe “Pope” Francis has 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.
But when you’re in a believe-whatever-you-want religion, it doesn’t matter what the First Vatican Council has taught, what Pope Leo XIII taught, what Pope Pius XII taught, what canon law teaches, or what God has told us in Scripture. You may believe-whatever-you-want in the religion of Bergoglio to be a member.
To prove my point once again, anti-sedevacantists always use arguments from authorities from the past such as John of St. Thomas against sedevacantism. Yet, these same anti-sedes don’t even follow their own pope or Vatican 2 council on issues. How do they think John of St. Thomas’ opinion carries more theological weight than a pope or council? For them, citing an authority about something authoritative is a self-refuting way of arguing, but that’s what you get with someone in a believe-whatever-you-want religion.
Sometimes, they’ll even try to accuse past popes of heresy as an example to prove popes can be heretical. Problem is that’s another self-condemning argument, because it’s an argument on behalf of the Eastern Orthodox and Protestants. The Church is one in faith. If a pope professes heresy and remains pope, the Church ceases to be one in faith. Again, Pope Leo XIII declared, “For such is the nature of faith that nothing can be more absurd than to accept some things and reject others…”
The religion of Bergoglio is a prime of example of the absurdity, which Pope Leo speaks about. Despite themselves, the members of this believe-whatever-you-want religion are witnessing against their own religion when they argue against sedevacantism.
Footnotes:
[1] 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 rights 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.
In such great perversity of evil opinions, therefore, We, truly mindful of Our Apostolic duty, and especially solicitous about our most holy religion, about sound doctrine and the salvation of souls divinely entrusted to Us, and about the good of human society itself, have decided to lift Our Apostolic voice again. And so all and each evil opinion and doctrine individually mentioned in this letter, by Our Apostolic authority We reject, proscribe, and condemn; and We wish and command that they be considered as absolutely rejected, proscribed, and condemned by all the sons of the Catholic Church. (Pope Pius IX, Quanta Cura, Dec 8, 1864.)
[2] Francis gives Warm Welcome to Nancy Pelosi at Vatican – Novus Ordo Watch
[4] April 29, 2017 at 7:36 AM, True or False Pope: More Lunacy From Steve Speray.
[5] Professing the faith and professing heresy are mutually exclusive. Profession means your mind must be in inconformity with the mind of the Church. A Catholic willing to submit to whatever the Church teaches even though the individual Catholic is mistaken about something, still professes the Faith. That’s why we can’t write off everyone as non-Catholic if they mistakenly think Bergoglio is pope. See also
The Gates of Hell and the Gates of the Church Revisited
[6] The council further declares that the right to religious freedom has its foundation in the very dignity of the human person as this dignity is known through the revealed word of God and by reason itself. (2) This right of the human person to religious freedom is to be recognized in the constitutional law whereby society is governed and thus it is to become a civil right. Dignitatis humanae (vatican.va)
[
Speray's Catholicism in a Nutshell 