Feeds:
Posts
Comments

Archive for the ‘Sedevacantism’ Category

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

[3]  James Martin, SJ on Twitter: “One of the highlights of my life. I felt encouraged, consoled and inspired by the Holy Father today. And his time with me, in the middle of a busy day and a busy life, seems a clear sign of his deep pastoral care for LGBT Catholics and LGBT people worldwide. (Foto@VaticanMedia). https://t.co/1BeaiVh0Q4” / Twitter

[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)

[7] One of the Great Heresies of John Paul II in His Own Words | Speray’s Catholicism in a Nutshell (wordpress.com)

[

Read Full Post »

In 1921, Theologian Fr. E. Sylvester Berry wrote about the future of the Catholic Church using St. John’s Apocalypse. He writes about an interregnum unlike any in history:

It shall be war unto death between the Church and the powers of darkness in a final effort of Satan to destroy the Church and thus prevent the universal reign of Christ on earth…

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…

The dragon is seen in heaven which is here a symbol of the Church, the kingdom of heaven on earth. This indicates that the first troubles of those days will be inaugurated within the Church by apostate bishops, priests, and peoples,–the stars dragged down by the tail of the dragon.

The tail of the dragon represents the cunning hypocrisy with which he succeeds in deceiving a large number of people and pastors — a third part of the stars. Arianism led away many bishops, priests, and peoples. The pretended [Protestant] Reformation of the sixteenth century claimed still larger numbers but these cannot be compared to the numbers seduced by Satan in the days of Antichrist.

The dragon stands before the woman ready to devour the child that is brought forth. In other words, the powers of hell seek by all means to destroy the Pope elected in those days…

Scarcely has the newly elected Pope been enthroned when he is snatched away by martyrdom. The “mystery of iniquity” gradually developing through the centuries, cannot be fully consummated while the power of the Papacy endures, but now he that “withholdeth is taken out of the way.” During the interregnum “that wicked one shall be revealed” in his fury against the Church.

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.

The Church deprived of her chief pastor must seek sanctuary in solitude there to be guided by God Himself during those trying days. 

(Rev. E. Sylvester Berry, The Apocalypse of St. John [Columbus, OH: John W. Winterich, 1921], pp. 120-127)

Electronic version (free): The Apocalypse of St. John by Fr. E. Sylvester Berry (1921)

 

 

Read Full Post »

On August 17, 2021, the employees at the Catholic Center of the Diocese of Lexington were instructed by Bishop John Stowe to be vaccinated by Sept. 1 as a condition for employment. He announced that he’ll support his priests who implement the same policy. Stowe also requires masks to be worn as a condition of employment.

Stowe explained: “This is an urgent matter of public health and safety. There is no religious exemption for Catholics to being vaccinated, and Pope Francis has repeatedly called this a moral obligation. The health care system is now overwhelmed by a crisis caused primarily by those who refuse to protect themselves and others by getting vaccinated. This is unacceptable, and our diocese now joins those employers who have already made this basic commitment to the common good a requirement.”[1]

The implications of Bishop Stowe’s statement are:

  •  It’s morally obligatory to get vaccinated because the unvaccinated are the primary cause of the crisis.
  •  It’s immoral to refuse to be vaccinated.

Why would the rest of diocese be exempt from the requirement of getting vaccinated if the morality and the end of the crisis depend on getting vaccinated?

Perhaps Stowe can make a mandate by threatening a few jobs, which can be easily filled by others, but he can’t mandate the whole diocese without the threat of losing half the members of the diocese, thus losing half of the diocesan income. Therefore, you won’t see a diocesan wide vaccine mandate.

The bottom line here is morality and public health take a backseat to money with Bishop Stowe, who just proved it with his hypocritical mandate.

All that’s needed to stop the bishop’s tyranny is for enough members to stop giving money to their diocese.

As for claiming religious exemption, not only do Catholics have a right, but a duty to stand in their religious convictions against so-called vaccines known to be very dangerous. [2] There are other options, which are a much safer and more effective means against the sickness. Stowe is contradicting his own religion on religious liberty against his own flock. 

Bishop Stowe’s tyrannical mandate is not about morality and public health. It’s about control. Stowe is just another authoritarian on a mission to usher in antichrist against God-fearing people who love freedom.

The so-called crisis depends on the flow of money, which is the god of this world.  

Footnotes:

[1] Diocese Mandates COVID-19 Vaccination for Catholic Center Employees – cdlex

[2] See How to save the world, in three easy steps – YouTube

Dr. David Martin w/ Stew Peters: There Is No Virus. This Is Organized Crime. – Truth Comes to Light

Read Full Post »

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?

A Right to the Christian Name

‘Pope’ Francis’ Heresy on the Death Penalty

Read Full Post »

Last Saturday morning, I spoke to Jeff, a hard-core conservative in the Novus Ordo world, who told me that he was a big fan of John Paul 2 and Steubenville University. I was told he was a walking Catholic encyclopedia that could give an answer to sedevacantism. Not only had he never heard of sedevacantism, his one quote from our entire exchange was from the 3rd grade Baltimore Catechism on salvation.

After showing him all the heretical teachings from his Vatican 2 popes, he told us that religious assent must only be given to dogmas ignoring the fact that popes can’t teach heresy regardless.

When we quoted Pope Pius IX’s Quanta Cura on the pope’s plenary power and giving assent to more than just dogmas, [1] he doubled-down and told us he didn’t have to give religious assent to Pope Pius IX’s teaching. How ironic that he would deny the very document that points to a dogma he’s rejecting, condemns what he’s saying as he’s implying the Baltimore Catechism holds more theological weight than Quanta cura and Vatican I’s definition of the pope’s plenary power.

Then I told him about John Paul 2’s (his favorite pope) teaching on religious assent from his 1993 Catechism of the Catholic Church:

892 Divine assistance is also given to the successors of the apostles, teaching in communion with the successor of Peter, and, in a particular way, to the bishop of Rome, pastor of the whole Church, when, without arriving at an infallible definition and without pronouncing in a “definitive manner,” they propose in the exercise of the ordinary Magisterium a teaching that leads to better understanding of Revelation in matters of faith and morals. To this ordinary teaching the faithful “are to adhere to it with religious assent”422 which, though distinct from the assent of faith, is nonetheless an extension of it. 

Footnote 422 is reference to Lumen Gentium 25 of Vatican 2.

He was done and ready to go after that.

Yesterday, my younger brother made the same argument. He’s an anything but sedevacantist guy who told me that the pope can deviate from the faith with heresy when teaching with non-dogmatic teaching. I told him, what I told Jeff. I quoted 892 from their catechism and said, “You don’t even follow your own religion. So you become the pope’s pope to determine when your pope deviates from the faith that you may NOT give religious assent?”

My brother doubled-down and quoted Cum ex Apostolatus from Pope Paul IV:

“The Roman Pontiff, who is the representative upon earth of God and our God and Lord Jesus Christ, who holds the fulness of power over peoples and kingdoms, who may judge all and be judged by none in this world, may nonetheless be contradicted if he be found to have deviated from the Faith.”

He continued to tell me the quote means the pope doesn’t automatically lose office if he deviates from the faith.

Apparently, my brother thinks Pope Paul IV is teaching that we are to be the pope’s pope when the pope uses his mere ordinary magisterium.  

Pope Paul IV is not saying or implying that a pope can deviate from the faith in official documents whereby each person in the Church can decide when to contradict his official teaching. The context is that a pope who deviates from the faith (not in official documents) ceases to be pope, which is why he can be contradicted. [2] Bellarmine says the same thing. [3] Pope Paul IV also tells us in the document that heretics can’t become popes to begin with, which is the application of sedevacantism today.

Jeff, my brother, and all those like them go much further against Pope Pius IX’s condemnations, because they actually withhold assent to judgments and decrees of the Apostolic See that do touch upon dogmas of faith and morals. They reject the teachings from what they claim comes from an ecumenical council ratified by a pope.

They ultimately believe each Catholic is to be the pope’s pope when their pope isn’t defining a dogma. That’s their fatal flaw. They forget that Christ gave us a pope to keep the Church from deviating from Christianity, not the other way around. They should take note of what St. Robert Bellarmine rightly taught:

The Pope is the Teacher and Shepherd of the whole Church, thus, the whole Church is so bound to hear and follow him that if he would err, the whole Church would err.

Now our adversaries respond that the Church ought to hear him so long as he teaches correctly, for God must be heard more than men.

On the other hand, who will judge whether the Pope has taught rightly or not? For it is not for the sheep to judge whether the shepherd wanders off, not even and especially in those matters which are truly doubtful. Nor do Christian sheep have any greater judge or teacher to whom they might have recourse. As we showed above, from the whole Church one can appeal to the Pope yet, from him no one is able to appeal; therefore necessarily the whole Church will err if the Pontiff would err. (De Romano Pontifice, Book IV, Chapter 3; Grant translation.)

Looking at the Vatican 2 church with its heresies on religious liberty to the death penalty, its evil practices of altar girls to giving Communion to non-Catholics and those living in mortal sin, from the acceptance of homosexuality to the hideous architecture of churches, from their liberal clerics promoting abominations to their most conservative believers having to reject magisterial teaching is proof enough that the Vatican 2 religion is not Catholic. Therefore, their popes can’t be true popes. They must reject Catholicism to save their Vatican 2 religion. In rejecting their papal teachings and criticizing how awful and divided their church is, they bear witness to the truth of sedevacantism despite themselves.

 

 

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 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…Therefore, by our Apostolic authority, we reprobate, proscribe, and condemn all the singular and evil opinions and doctrines severally mentioned in this letter, and will and command that they be thoroughly held by all children of the Catholic Church as reprobated, proscribed and condemned.” (Pope Pius IX, Quanta Cura, Dec 8, 1864.)

[2] Cum ex Apostolatus Officio (strobertbellarmine.net)

 [3] 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 reasonhe can be judged and punished by the Church.

Read Full Post »

According to Pope Pius XII, only those are to be included as members of the Church… .

1. who have been baptized

2. who profess the true faith

3. who have not separated themselves from the unity of the Body

4. who have not been excluded by legitimate authority for grave faults committed [1]

Baptism is presumed to be valid if water is used over the head with the correct form and intention.

Professing the true faith means publicly acknowledging and declaring the belief that all the doctrines, disciplines, laws, and liturgies of the Catholic Church are holy and true without exception. It’s an external act.

Pope Leo XIII declared in his Encyclical, Satis Cognitum, June 29, 1896:

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… But he who dissents even in one point from divinely revealed truth absolutely rejects all faith, since he thereby refuses to honour God as the supreme truth and the formal motive of faith.

Those united to Bergoglio reject the teachings of popes  Leo XIII and Pius XII and have reduced professing the true faith to merely calling oneself Catholic and Bergoglio the pope. Outside of these two declarations, pseudo-Catholics can profess whatever heresy they want and act anyway they want. They will recognize each other as Catholics and members of the Church as long as they say and do those two things and have not been excommunicated.

I was recently told by a pseudo-traditionalist that Biden and Pelosi are Catholics and members of the Church even though they profess heresy publicly. This pseudo-Catholic thinks warnings and declarations of excommunications are needed first. Professing all the Catholic dogmas, etc. isn’t really necessary to be members of the Church for him.

Pseudo-Catholics will tell us (true Catholics) that we’re in heresy for rejecting their interpretation of visibility of the Church, apostolicity, jurisdiction, papacy, dogmatic facts, or unity of the Church. Yet, they fail to acknowledge that professing the true faith as Pope Leo XIII taught is necessary for visibility, apostolicity, jurisdiction, papacy, dogmatic facts, and unity of the Church.

They have no problem saying Biden, Pelosi, and Bergoglio are Catholics when they profess heresy but when we sedes profess (what they call) heresy, we’re done for. We see that it’s not the heresy they’re really concerned with, it’s the fact we won’t call Bergoglio pope. 

The third point from Pope Pius XII on separating oneself from the unity of the Church happens either by heresy, schism, or apostasy. Pope Pius XII tells us these three things are what sever a man from the BODY of the Church by its very nature. [2] He only reiterated what Pope Leo XIII taught in Satis Cognitum:

“For such is the nature of faith that nothing can be more absurd than to accept some things and reject others…

Jesus Christ did not, in point of fact, institute a Church to embrace several communities similar in nature, but in themselves distinct, and lacking those bonds which render the Church unique and indivisible after that manner in which in the symbol of our faith we profess: ‘I believe in one Church.’ ‘The Church in respect of its unity belongs to the category of things indivisible by nature, though heretics try to divide it into many parts… And so dispersed members, separated one from the other, cannot be united with one and the same head. ‘There is one God, and one Christ; and His Church is one and the faith is one; and one the people, joined together in the solid unity of the body in the bond of concord. This unity cannot be broken, nor the one body divided by the separation of its constituent parts’…. 5 So the Christian is a Catholic as long as he lives in the body: cut off from it he becomes a hereticthe life of the spirit follows not the amputated member… 9 There can be nothing more dangerous than those heretics who admit nearly the whole cycle of doctrine, and yet by one word, as with a drop of poison, infect the real and simple faith taught by our Lord and handed down by Apostolic tradition” (Auctor Tract. de Fide Orthodoxa contra Arianos)….

And as souls cannot be perfectly united in charity unless minds agree in faith, he wishes all to hold the same faith: “One Lord, one faith,” and this so perfectly one as to prevent all danger of error: “that henceforth we be no more children, tossed to and fro, and carried about with every wind of doctrine by the wickedness of men, by cunning craftiness, by which they lie in wait to deceive” (Eph. iv., 14): and this he teaches is to be observed, not for a time only – “but until we all meet in the unity of faith…unto the measure of the age of the fullness of Christ” (13). But, in what has Christ placed the primary principle, and the means of preserving this unity? In that – “He gave some Apostles – and other some pastors and doctors, for the perfecting of the saints, for the work of the ministry, for the edifying of the body of Christ” (11-12)…

Again, unity of faith for pseudo-Catholics is merely professing to be Catholic and calling Bergoglio pope. As long as you do that, you’re part of the Body of the Church, you’re professing the true faith, you’re one in faith. That’s the absurdity of the fake Catholics around the world. 

Lastly, the Catholic Church can excommunicate persons for grave crimes such as abortion to selling relics. Merely professing the Catholic Faith doesn’t make a person a Catholic and member of the Church, but that doesn’t matter anyway for pseudo-Catholics. Just make sure you call Bergoglio pope. That’s the bottom line for these fake Catholics.

 

 

Footnotes

[1]  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 in one spirit” says the Apostle, “were we all baptized into one Body, whether Jews or Gentiles, whether bond or free.” [17] As therefore in the true Christian community there is only one Body, one Spirit, one Lord, and one Baptism, so there can be only one faith. [18] And therefore if a man refuse to hear the Church let him be considered — so the Lord commands — as a heathen and a publican. [19] It follows that those are divided in faith or government cannot be living in the unity of such a Body, nor can they be living the life of its one Divine Spirit.

17. I Cor., XII, 13.     18. Cf. Eph., IV, 5.     19. Cf. Matth., XVIII, 17.

[2]  Pope Pius XII, Mystici Corporis Christi: “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.”

Read Full Post »

“And now I am not in the world, and these are in the world, and I come to thee. Holy Father, keep them in thy name whom thou has given me; that they may be one, as we also are….That they all may be one, as thou, Father, in me, and I in thee; that they also may be one in us; that the world may believe that thou hast sent me. And the glory which thou hast given me, I have given to them; that they may be one, as we also are one: I in them, and thou in me; that they may be made perfect in one: and the world may know that thou hast sent me, and hast loved them, as thou hast also loved me (John 17:11, 21-23).”

Pope Pius XI declared, “The Church possesses-a fact known to all-as one of its visible marks, impressed on it by God, that of a world-wide unity….  At the close of His mortal life, he impressed upon the Apostles in the strongest possible terms the supreme need of this unity. (John xvii, 11, 21, 22) In His last soul-stirring prayer he asked His Father for this unity and His prayer was heard: “He was heard for his reverence.” (Hebrews v, 7)” (Ecclesiam Dei, par. 1, 1923)

Our Lord prayed that His Church would be one in faith and in the Holy Trinity as witness to the world. The Catholic Church has reaffirmed many times that the Church is one in faith to the exclusion of heresy and schism by nature and Pope Pius XI declared that this prayer of unity by Christ was heard.

When Vatican 2 speaks about the unity of the Church, it’s not the Catholic and Biblical understanding. Rather, Vatican 2 teaches the Anglican and Methodist understanding of the mark of oneness, where all who profess to be Christian, despite all the doctrinal differences, are unified as the Church of Christ through baptism but divided in doctrine. [1]

John Paul II acknowledged in his document Ut Unum Sint – ‘On commitment to Ecumenism’ that the Church of Christ is divided and footnoting the source coming from the Decree of Ecumenism, Unitatis Redentegratio of Vatican 2:

How is it possible to remain divided, if we have been “buried” through Baptism in the Lord’s death, in the very act by which God, through the death of his Son, has broken down the walls of division? Division “openly contradicts the will of Christ, provides a stumbling block to the world, and inflicts damage on the most holy cause of proclaiming the Good News to every creature”.5

7. “The Lord of the Ages wisely and patiently follows out the plan of his grace on behalf of us sinners. In recent times he has begun to bestow more generously upon divided Christians remorse over their divisions and a longing for unity. Everywhere, large numbers have felt the impulse of this grace, and among our separated brethren also there increases from day to day a movement, fostered by the grace of the Holy Spirit, for the restoration of unity among all Christians. Taking part in this movement, which is called ecumenical, are those who invoke the Triune God and confess Jesus as Lord and Saviour. They join in not merely as individuals but also as members of the corporate groups in which they have heard the Gospel, and which each regards as his Church and, indeed, God’s. And yet almost everyone, though in different ways, longs that there may be one visible Church of God, a Church truly universal and sent forth to the whole world that the world may be converted to the Gospel and so be saved, to the glory of God”.6

The official interpretation of Vatican 2 by John Paul II is that the Church of Christ is divided, that it’s contrary to the will of Christ, and it’s longing for unity, which implies that it’s the permissive will of Christ that the Church is divided.  

After telling us how the Church of Christ is divided among the different Protestant and Eastern Orthodox professions, John Paul continued, “To believe in Christ means to desire unity; to desire unity means to desire the Church; to desire the Church means to desire the communion of grace which corresponds to the Father’s plan from all eternity. Such is the meaning of Christ’s prayer: ‘Ut unum sint. ’”

In the same document, John Paul 2 approved the Balamand statement which declared, The division between the Churches of the East and of the West has never quelled the desire for unity wished by Christ.”

We also saw in the Joint Declaration with the Lutherans, 1999, approved by John Paul 2, “44. We give thanks to the Lord for this decisive step forward on the way to overcoming the division of the church. We ask the Holy Spirit to lead us further toward that visible unity which is Christ’s will.”

For Vatican 2 and John Paul 2, Christ’s will and prayer “that they may be one, as we also are” is merely a wish for unity that has not yet been actualized. It means Our Lord’s prayer has utterly failed for 2000 years. What good is Our Lord’s intercessory prayer if nothing is actually accomplished from it except maybe getting men to work towards a goal? It would mean that Our Lord’s prayer is nothing more than a wish and inspiration. It has no real power or authority. It reminds me of the Jesus Seminar (group of 50 American heretics) saying the muliplication of loaves was Jesus getting men to share their food rather than miraculously multiplying it. It makes Christ out to be less than God Almighty, much like the Arian Jesus.

And if Our Lord’s prayer failed at the close of His mortal life when it counts most, what’s that say about our prayers? Did Christ have less faith than a mustard seed? That’s the implication of Vatican 2 and John Paul II’s butchering of Scripture, which is absolute blasphemy and a blatant rejection of Pope Pius XI’s teaching (and Heb. 5:7) that Christ’s prayer was heard and actualized in a undivided Church of Christ.

 

 

Footnote:

[1]  Vatican 2 theologian: Fr. Edward Schillebeeckx, one of the main drafters of Vatican II documents, stated: “It is difficult to say that the Catholic Church is still one, Catholic, apostolic, when one says that the others (other Christian communities) are equally one, Catholic and apostolic, albeit to a lesser degree. —- at Vatican Council II, the Roman Catholic Church officially abandoned its monopoly over the Christian religion.” story110305.pdf (novusordowatch.org)

Lumen Gentium, Ch. 2, The people of God:

15. “For several reasons the Church recognizes that it is joined to those who, though baptized and so honored with the Christian name, do not profess the faith in its entirety or do not preserve communion under the successor of St. Peter.”

Unitatis Redintegratio (Decree on Ecumenism)

1.“Yet almost all, though in different ways, long for the one visible Church of God, that truly universal Church.”

3. “significant elements and endowments which together go to build up and give life to the Church itself, can exist outside the visible boundaries of the Catholic Church: the written word of God; the life of grace…separated churches and communities as such, though we believe them to be deficient in some respects, have by no means been deprived of significance and importance in the mystery of salvation. For the Spirit of Christ has not refrained from using them as means of salvation.”

4. “Nevertheless, the divisions among Christians prevent the Church from realizing in practice the fullness of Catholicity proper to her, in those of her sons and daughters who, though attached to her by baptism, are yet separated from full communion with her.  Furthermore, the Church herself finds it more difficult to express in actual life her full Catholicity in all its bearings.”

Unitatis Redintegratio, Ch. 3, Churches and ecclesial communities separated from the Roman apostolic see:

13-15. “We now turn our attention to the two chief types of division as they affect the seamless robe of Christ. The first division occurred in the east, when the dogmatic formulas of the councils of Ephesus and Chalcedon were challenged, and later when ecclesiastical communion between the eastern patriarchates and the Roman See was dissolved… Everyone knows with what great love the Christians of the east celebrate the sacred liturgy… Hence, through the celebration of the Holy Eucharist in each of these Churches, the Church of God is built up and grows, and through concelebration their communion with one another is made manifest.”

Besides Vatican 2 and Ut Unum Sint, there’s the Balamand Statement, 1993, 7. The division between the Churches of the East and of the West has never quelled the desire for unity wished by Christ. Rather this situation, which is contrary to the nature of the Church, has often been for many the occasion to become more deeply conscious of the need to achieve this unity, so as to be faithful to the Lord’s commandment.

14. It is in this perspective that the Catholic Churches and the Orthodox Churches recognize each other as Sister Churches, responsible together for maintaining the Church of God in fidelity to the divine purpose, most especially in what concerns unity. According to the words of Pope John Paul II, the ecumenical endeavour of the Sister Churches of East and West, grounded in dialogue and prayer, is the search for perfect and total communion which is neither absorption nor fusion but a meeting in truth and love (cf. Slavorum Apostoli, n. 27).

On May 25, 1995, John Paul II, in Ut Unum Sint, n. 59, approved the Balamand declaration.

JOINT DECLARATION ON THE DOCTRINE OF JUSTIFICATION by the Lutheran World Federation and the Catholic Church, Nov. 1, 1999

44. We give thanks to the Lord for this decisive step forward on the way to overcoming the division of the church. We ask the Holy Spirit to lead us further toward that visible unity which is Christ’s will.

Here we see the document saying Lutherans are part of the Body of Christ the Church, and that the Church of Christ is not even visibly unified. John Paul II approved and blessed the Joint Declaration.

In a Jan. 22, 2013 L’Osservatore Romano article titled: The divisions among Christians disfigure the face of the Church, it was written that Benedict XVI said, One of the gravest sins ‘that disfigure the Church’s face’ is the sin ‘against her visible unity’, and, in particular, ‘the historical divisions which separated Christians and which have not yet been surmounted’”.

The two references of the “Church’s face” and “Against her visible unity” is a point blank denial of the dogma that the Church is one in faith. The unity of the Church is the visible mark of the church.

Therefore, the Vatican 2 popes teach the heresy that the Church of Christ is not one or unified in faith in the Catholic sense, but rather holds to the Protestant sense.

Read Full Post »

The First Vatican Council defined that Christ established the papacy in order that “the whole Church might be saved as one” and declared “that the episcopacy itself might be one and undivided, and that the entire multitude of the faithful through priests closely connected with one another might be preserved in the unity of faith and communion, placing Peter over the other apostles He established in him the perpetual principle and visible foundation of both unities, upon whose strength the eternal temple might be erected, and the sublimity of the Church might rise in the firmness of this faith.”

Pope Leo XIII reaffirms Vatican I in Satis Cognitum that Christ established the papacy as the foundation of unity in faith of the Church in order to achieve salvation. [1]

Vatican I theologian Cardinal Franzelin taught:

“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, translated by James Larrabee)

In case you missed it, that unity is in true doctrine against heresy and schism and this unity remains even when the papal office is vacant.

The Vatican 2 episcopacy is not unified in faith. They are divided over doctrine. The semi-trads reject Vatican 2 on religious liberty and other papal teachings such as the death penalty (just one of many examples). The liberals reject the teachings on artificial contraception, abortion, etc. These faith and moral doctrines/heresies are proof that the Vatican 2 religion is not united under their pope, whose very purpose is to establish unity of faith.  

We Catholics, who without a pope, are unified in faith because we are unified to the papal office and all the teachings thereof, but the Vatican 2 religion is divided WITH A POPE, which proves that we are right and the Vatican 2 religion of the fake pope Bergoglio is not the Catholic Church.  

Footnote:

[1] Satis Cognitum (June 29, 1896) | LEO XIII (vatican.va)

Read Full Post »

Karl Benzinger – 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.

 

Read Full Post »

 

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)

 

 

Read Full Post »

Older Posts »