Feeds:
Posts
Comments

Archive for the ‘Sedevacantism’ Category

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 »

Not all pseudo-traditionalists hold to all of the following propositions, but all pseudo-traditionalists hold some of them. You’ll even find they hold some of the same absurdities as Feeneyites.

 

1. The Catholic Church has been promulgating heresy since the Second Vatican Council and perhaps in much older councils, laws, and papal decrees.

2. The Catholic Church is one despite the fact that it’s divided in faith, such as the pope’s belief and their own.

3. The Catholic Church is holy despite its heretical teachings and practices.

4. The Catholic Church is no different from Protestantism as far as having heresy.

5. Protestant and Eastern Orthodox religions are false religions because they teach heresy, but the Catholic Church remains the true religion when it teaches heresy through an ecumenical council and other papal decrees.

6. The pope can be a public heretic. He doesn’t have to profess the Catholic faith but every other Catholic must profess it to be a member of the Church.

7. The pope can be judged as pope for heresy, but only a council of bishops can do so.

8. The pope can be resisted in doctrine. Withdrawing obedience to a true pope is not schism.

9. Heretical popes lose office only when the whole church realizes they are heretics.

10. The whole church can be heretical as long as they’re not aware they are professing heresy.

11. The pope has to be warned to establish that he is pertinacious.

12. Falling into heresy is not defection of faith.

13. Catholics can use personal judgment against papal teaching, but sedevacantists can’t use personal judgement whether the questionable pope is really the pope.

14. Heresy and heretics are occult until declared notorious by the Church.

15. The end justifies the means such as when popes break divine law to help convert non-Catholics.

16. 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.”

17. The Gates of Hell and the Gates of the Church are one and same thing.

18. The magisterium is authentic when it teaches the truth, but when the same magisterium teaches error, it’s fake.

19. The Catholic Church can’t exist without a pope despite the fact it exists when popes die.

20. Obscure theologians and canonists from hundreds of years ago are to be accepted over Doctors of the Church and post-Vatican I theologians and post-1917 code canonists.

21. Sedevacantists are spiritually blind for not seeing these absurdities as true.

Read Full Post »

In 2015, I posted The Gates of Hell and the Gates of the Church (The Best Defense for Sedevacantism)

I thought it necessarily to revisit my argument against the Recognize and Resist position. Below is a much shorter edited version.

In perhaps the greatest document ever written by a pope, Leo XIII declared in Satis Cognitum on June 29, 1896:

The words – and the gates of Hell shall not prevail against it proclaim and establish the authority of which we speak. “What is the it?” (writes Origen). “Is it the rock upon which Christ builds the Church or the Church? The expression indeed is ambiguous, as if the rock and the Church were one and the same. I indeed think that this is so, and that neither against the rock upon which Christ builds His Church nor against the Church shall the gates of Hell prevail” (Origenes, Comment. in Matt., tom. xii., n. ii). The meaning of this divine utterance is, that, notwithstanding the wiles and intrigues which they bring to bear against the Church, it can never be that the church committed to the care of Peter shall succumb or in any wise fail. “For the Church, as the edifice of Christ who has wisely built ‘His house upon a rock,’ cannot be conquered by the gates of Hell, which may prevail over any man who shall be off the rock and outside the Church, but shall be powerless against it” (Ibid.). Therefore God confided His Church to Peter so that he might safely guard it with his unconquerable power.

Pope Vigilius at the Second Council of Constantinople, in 553 called “the tongues of heretics” the “gates of hell.” Pope St. Leo IX’s, In terra pax hominibus, Sept. 2, 1053, declared to Michael Cerularius that “the gates of Hell” are the “disputations of heretics.”

Pope Leo XIII called the Roman Pontiffs “the Gates of the Church” in his 1894 encyclical letter Praeclara Gratulationis Publicae.

Therefore, Roman Pontiffs can’t be heretics or else the gates of the Church and the gates of hell would be one and the same thing implying the Church and Hell are identical.

However, many R&Rer’s have admitted that they personally think John Paul II, Ratzinger and Bergoglio have all been heretics. This means they personally think the gates of hell and the Gates of the Church are one and the same thing.

The phrase “private judgment” can have four meanings with a possible combination of the following: A personal judgment… (a) opposing official Church law or teaching, (b) not made publicly, (c) in accepting Church law and teaching, (d) made without an official declaration.

R&Rer’s meaning is the fourth. They personally believe their popes have been heretics. Until a public judgment is made by their bishops, their popes must be considered popes and not heretics until an official judgment is made by the bishops. However, before their bishops can make that public judgment against the pope, they must first make a private one. In doing so, they would believe the gates of hell and the Gates of the Church are one and the same thing, which is impossible.

Therefore, the entire scenario of needing warnings, declarations, etc. to make an official determination that a true pope is not a true pope is impossible. No one can even suspect the pope of heresy without the consequence of suspecting that the Head of the Church forms the gates of hell. There can be no doubt about the pope for as Rev. Francis X Doyle, S.J. so elegantly explained in 1927, “The Church is a visible society with a visible Ruler. If there can be any doubt about who that visible Ruler is, he is not visible…Blessed Bellarmine, S.J., says: ‘A doubtful Pope must be considered as not Pope.’”

This fact refutes every argument or proposition ever put forth by any and all theologians, canonists, etc., that a pope can be heretical or else Peter and his successors who’ve been handed the Church by God for safekeeping from the gates of hell can themselves be the gates of hell.

Only a pope can cease to be pope by himself, and every individual Catholic must recognize that fact by his personal judgment in the third sense, which is to believe and accept the laws and teachings of the Church and the Divine laws of God. A heretic is not a member of the Church.

Pope Innocent III, Eius exemplo, Dec. 18, 1208:

“By the heart we believe and by the mouth we confess the one Church, not of heretics, but the Holy Roman, Catholic, and Apostolic Church.”

Pope Eugene IV, Council of Florence, “Cantate Domino,” 1441:

“The Holy Roman Church firmly believes, professes and preaches that all those who are outside the Catholic Church, not only pagans but also Jews or heretics and schismatics…”

St. Antoninus, O.P. (1389-1459):

“In the case in which the pope would become a heretic, he would find himself, by that fact alone and without any other sentence, separated from the Church. A head separated from a body cannot, as long as it remains separated, be head of the same body from which it was cut off. ‘A pope who would be separated from the Church by heresy, therefore, would by that very fact itself cease to be head of the Church.  He could not be a heretic and remain pope, because, since he is outside of the Church, he cannot possess the keys of the Church.’”  (Summa Theologica cited in Actes de Vatican I. V. Frond pub.)

 

 

Read Full Post »

The Wise Men Guided by a Star by Gustave Doré, 1865

There are Catholic sedevacantists that have been so upset with the fact that there is no pope that they decided to join heretical sects and become their own pope. Their private interpretations, decisions, and explanations have become for them law, dogma, and the infallible truth.

Failure to make proper distinctions always appears to be the cause for people to misunderstand Catholicism. However, I find often that people are only looking for an excuse to reject the Catholic religion because of the difficulty of maintaining true Christianity.

Understanding the difference between the pope and papacy:

  1. The Roman Pontiff or pope is the person that holds the office of the papacy. The papacy concerns the system in which the pope governs the Church. Christ didn’t intend to create a papacy without ever having a pope. Indeed, there would be no papacy without ever having a pope. Christ established the papacy by making St. Peter the first pope and giving him the keys. Where Peter is, there is the Church. Therefore, he who separates from the pope separates from unity of the Church, Christianity, and from Christ Himself. When there’s no pope, he who separates from the papacy separates from the same unity of the Church and ultimately Christ.

  2. The papacy is essential. Without the papacy, there is no Catholic Church. However, the Church can exist without a pope as it does each time a pope dies. Sometimes, it has taken years for the Church to attain a pope. For example, the interregnum between St. Marcellinus and St. Marcellus I lasted from 304 to 308 AD. [1] The 13th and 14th centuries also saw long interregnums. During the time of the Great Schism of the West, the Church was unsure who the true pope was. Professor and Reverend Francis X Doyle, S.J. (1927) wrote that Suarez suggested that none of the popes during that time were true popes, which means it’s possible that the Church experienced an interregnum lasting around 50 years. [2] Opinions differ on the subject, but it proves that the opinion that the Church can exist and did exist without a pope during the Great Schism is permitted to be held by the Catholic Church. It also proves that the Church can exist without a pope with an unforeseen resolution for a very, very long time.

  3. If a pope defects, he ceases to be pope, but the papacy doesn’t defect. The papacy always remains intact. If it were possible, [but is not possible] there are only two ways for the papacy to defect: (a.) If a pope taught error from the Chair of Peter as part of the papacy. (b.) The ability to have a pope ceases, which means the Church defects. For instance, no more Catholics existed. Opinions differ on what’s the minimum requirement for the Church to exist, but even a layman can be pope since Pope Hadrian V was a layman. Another argument against the papacy is the extinction of the College of Cardinals, which elects the new pope. That argument is answered here The Catholic Bottom Line – Part IV. In scenario (a.), Christ protects the papacy by preventing the pope from teaching error for the world to adhere to. A pope can teach error outside of his office, but his error can’t be against the Catholic faith as defined by the Church. His error would have to be in the realm or doctrine of opinions where the Church or previous popes have not yet made a judgment on the issue. An example of doctrine of opinions would include things like whether the Blessed Virgin Mary died or not.  In the past, the Immaculate Conception and the validity of Holy Orders of simoniacs were in the realm or doctrine of opinions. Now they are dogmas because the Church defined them. In scenario (b.), Christ established a built-in protection for the papacy. When Christ said the gates of hell will not prevail against His Church, it was not so much a promise as an established fact. Whatever opinion that would contradict the papacy would be proven false by that fact alone. For instance, the opinion that there are no more Catholics left either in Rome, the Diocese of Rome, or in the World. Since the papacy demands that Catholics exist then Catholics exist somewhere. If they must exist in Rome or the Diocese of Rome, then they exist. We would presume that whatever is needed for the papacy or Church is present regardless of appearances because our faith in Christ’s Word demands it. Proof of its existence exists in Christ’s Declaration, the teaching of the Church, divine law, and logic. When Christ said that He is truly present in the Eucharist, we believe it, but we can’t prove it scientifically. The proof of His Real Presence exists in His Word and the teaching of the Church. We don’t have to prove that Catholics exist and it can’t be proven they don’t exist either in Rome or in the world. That being said, we can easily point to Catholics in Rome and the world. Other arguments against the papacy can be found by those who insist that Vatican 2 and our present day crisis prove the papacy defected. The problem with that argument is that it couldn’t be used prior to 1958. It only proves that those who make such an argument fail to understand either the papacy or the facts that surround Church teaching. Using a Church-permitted theological opinion against the papacy is also futile. The best that anyone could do is present how the theological opinion is false, not the papacy. If a theological opinion by a saint or theologian is found that denied the possibility of our present crisis, it would only mean that opinion by the saint or theologian is erroneous and would be scrapped. I’ve not yet seen such an opinion. All the so-called death knells to Catholicism/sedevacantism are actually proofs or evidence for the truth of Catholicism/sedevacantism. It’s just the failure to make proper distinctions on the part of the heretics.

  4. It’s dogma that Peter has perpetual successors in the papacy. [3] Perpetual succession is not lost unless the principle of perpetuity is lost (the ability to have another pope). We know that as long as there is a bishop and a few Catholics left, the principle of perpetuity remains. It may not even require that much. The Church can have a papacy vacant of a pope as long as the ability to have another pope is present. Since Christ guarantees that the gates of hell will not prevail against His Church, the papacy will not defect. As seen from the Great Schism of the West, it’s possible for the Church to not know how it will resolve a papal crisis. In our current situation, there are several possibilities in resolving the crisis. One way is for Francis or his successor to renounce his errors, be universally accepted, and assume the papacy. Another way is for all Catholics to agree that a certain bishop will be pope. Perhaps, it will take a miracle for either case. I’m of the opinion that we’re not going to get another pope not because it’s impossible but rather it seems to best fit the scenario of the final battle with Antichrist as Scripture and the Fathers foretold.

  5. The pope is the center of visible unity. When the pope dies and the Church continues without a pope even during long interregnums, the visible unity of faith doesn’t cease. It remains unified in Catholic doctrine. When a Catholic rejects Catholic doctrine publicly, he ceases to be a Catholic and member of the Body of the Church. The oneness of faith is the first article of faith. When the Church is in an interregnum state, it is in an imperfect and provisional state. Keep in mind that the Church is always perfect in law, doctrine, etc. but it can be imperfect in the sense that Catholics sin or when it’s absent of a pope. The person that represents the visible center of unity is absent but the papacy remains as the foundation for that unity.

If anything I’ve written is used against the papacy, it would only prove that I’m mistaken or the interpreter has misrepresented me, the papacy, or the facts of the matter.

 

 

Footnotes:

[1] http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/12272b.htm

[2] Rev. Francis X Doyle, S.J. explains: “The Church is a visible society with a visible Ruler. If there can be any doubt about who that visible Ruler is, he is not visible, and hence, where there is any doubt about whether a person has been legitimately elected Pope, that doubt must be removed before he can become the visible head of Christ’s Church. Blessed Bellarmine, S.J., says: ‘A doubtful Pope must be considered as not Pope’; and Suarez, S.J., says: ‘At the time of the Council of Constance there were three men claiming to be Pope…. Hence, it could have been that not one of them was the true Pope, and in that case, there was no Pope at all….” (The Defense of the Catholic Church, 1927, Fr. Francis X. Doyle, S.J.)

[3] https://stevensperay.wordpress.com/2019/07/07/sedevacantism-contradicts-the-first-vatican-council/

Read Full Post »

 

In part 1, we analyzed statements made by John Salza in a youtube interview on sedevacantism. There were two things from the interview that stood out. First was how at 3:45, John Salza claimed that he and Robert Siscoe looked into sedevacantism with an open mind. Yet, they misrepresented every pope, saint, theologian, canonist, and sedevacantist on the topic. Second was how Salza pointed to his book “True or False Pope” which had big names endorsing it, such as Rev. Brian Harrison and the late Arnaldo Xavier de Salveira. Salza’s incompetence, which I’m pointing out, is also found in his book. Did Harrison or de Salveira not actually read the book or do they not know basic theology and law? One endorser told me that he didn’t agree on the specifics in the book but only the conclusion that sedevacantism is the improper way to deal with the crisis. Perhaps, this is also the case with Harrison and de Salveira. But if sedevacantism is the improper way to deal with the crisis, is it not also improper to deal with sedevacantism with straw-man arguments, bad theology, misrepresentations, and half-truths? The hypocrisy of anti-sedevacantists is astounding.

Continuing…

Salza’s Fifth Error – A pope denying the existence of hell would be material heresy.

At 1:13:35, Salza said, “If Francis indeed said that hell doesn’t exist, he made a materially heretical statement.”

Not only is Salza’s statement false, it’s ridiculous. It shows that Salza doesn’t know what material heresy is.

Formal and material heresy is terminology used to explain the individual advancing the heresy. When an individual inculpably advances a heretical proposition by inadvertence, it is said to be material heresy. The denial of hell is inexcusable. If Francis said hell doesn’t exist, he made a formally heretical statement.

Salza’s Sixth Error – Popes in the past have engaged in public acts of apostasy and heresy.

At 4:03, Salza said there were popes in the past that engaged in public acts of apostasy and heresy and “yet, they didn’t lose their office. In fact, we can’t think of one single Catholic bishop throughout the history of the Catholic Church who lost their office for heresy.”

As noted in part 1, St. Robert Bellarmine implied that Nestorius, Patriarch of Constantinople, lost his office for heresy. He defected from the faith with his preachings. In today’s canon 188.4, Nestorius would be tacitly resigning from office without declaration. [1]

“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.” [2]

Salza wrote a critique of me in his book on my position of Nestorius. On page 252, he wrote that Nestorius was deposed by the Council of Ephesus 3 years later and I was wrong to say Nestorius lost his office ipso facto immediately for preaching heresy. What Salza seems not to understand is that before the declared deposition at Ephesus, Nestorius already lost jurisdiction, which is why his excommunications were null. He lost his office. If he still retained his office, his excommunications would have been valid.

St. Bellarmine was using Nestorius as an example, for he just finished saying, “the Holy Fathers teach unanimously not only that heretics are outside of the Church, but also that they are “ipso facto” deprived of all ecclesiastical jurisdiction and dignity. St. Cyprian (lib. 2, epist. 6) says: ‘We affirm that absolutely no heretic or schismatic has any power or right’; and he also teaches (lib. 2, epist. 1) that the heretics who return to the Church must be received as laymen, even though they have been formerly priests or bishops in the Church. St. Optatus (lib. 1 cont. Parmen.) teaches that heretics and schismatics cannot have the keys of the kingdom of heaven, nor bind nor loose. St. Ambrose (lib. 1 de poenit., ca. 2), St. Augustine (in Enchir., cap 65), St. Jerome (lib. cont. Lucifer.) teach the same.”

As for claiming that popes in the past have engaged in public acts of apostasy and heresy, this is misleading, because Salza’s trying to say there’s historic precedent for his Vatican 2 popes.

The only so-called pope in history that might (and that’s a big might) be said to have voluntarily engaged in public acts of apostasy was John XII and he was deposed by Emperor Otto for apostasy. No warnings were given to John XII and he was finally murdered. He definitely lost his office the hard way, if he actually had the office to lose. Obviously, popes lose office when they die. It appears to be the common opinion that he was a true pope. If he were a public apostate, he would have lost his office. It’s that simple. However, no pope in history voluntarily engaged in a public act of heresy. Perhaps Pope St. Marcellinus was a pope Salza had in mind because at 38:08, he said Pope Marcellinus offering incense to the god Jupiter. If true, it was under duress and the pope succumbed to human weakness, later recovering and dying heroically as a martyr. St. Augustine didn’t believe the pope ever caved to apostasy. It doesn’t matter, because Pope St. Marcellinus can’t be compared to the Vatican 2 popes who have freely chosen to engage in their acts of apostasy and heresy over and over again, which Salza admitted from 7:40 to 7:50. He also admitted the Vatican 2 popes have attacked the First Commandment and Francis participated in false worship [of his own free will].

Salza’s Seventh Error – Sedevacantism produces bitter fruit and loss of charity.

At 48:48, Salza attributes sedevacantism of having bitter fruits and loss of charity.

I suppose Salza is applying to sedevacantism the teaching of Jesus in Matthew 7: 16-20, by their fruits you shall know them. [3]

This is odd coming from a man who spent much time talking about the bad fruit found in his own church. Surely, he wouldn’t accuse the Catholic Church of producing bitter fruit and loss of charity. So what is the cause? Jesus told us that it’s not a what but who in verse 15:

“Beware of false prophets, who come to you in the clothing of sheep, but inwardly they are ravening wolves.” (Matt. 7:15)

It’s not the Church or the position of sedevacantism. It’s people who choose not to follow the Catholic Faith. Haydock wrote in his bible commentary: “Beware of false prophets, or heretics. They are far more dangerous than the Jews, who being rejected by the apostles, are also avoided by Christians, but these having the appearance of Christianity, having churches, sacraments, &c. &c. deceive many. These are the rapacious wolves, of whom S. Paul speaks, Acts xx. Chry. hom. xix. Origen styles them, the gates of death, and the path to hell. Com. in Job. lib. i. Tom. 2.” [4]

Cornelius a Lapide wrote in his bible commentary that false prophets in Matt 7 refer to “false teachers, whether they be heretics, or Gentiles and Pagans.” He wrote about the bad fruit as 1. Of false doctrine; 2. Of bad morals and wickedness. Luther and Calvin have given examples in this age.” [5]

“Pope” Francis and the Vatican 2 popes have clearly produced bitter fruit and loss of charity. They are the wolves in sheep’s clothing because they are false teachers bringing in false doctrine and bad morals and wickedness. Salza tells us we are duty bound to resist his popes when they bring false doctrine and bad morals and wickedness. Salza is indirectly calling his Vatican 2 popes wolves in sheep’s clothing.

The pope is a shepherd, not a wolf. Therefore, the Vatican 2 popes are not popes because they are not shepherds. They are wolves!

Jesus is the Good Shepherd and He wouldn’t leave a wolf to be the head shepherd of His flock, but that’s exactly what Salza implies. It’s utter blasphemy!

Salza may have inadvertently directed us to the best argument for sedevacantism yet. I used this argument in 2010 [6] but have forgotten it. It’s time to start using it again.

Salza’s Eight Error – If it’s not infallible, it can be heretical.

At 1:06:30, Salza claims that sedevacantists believe that everything the pope teaches must be infallible.

No, sedevacantists understand that Non-infallible Church Teaching Can’t Be Heretical.

Salza’s Ninth Error – Sedevacantists use their own private rule of faith.

At 1:03:33, Salza said we sedes “are no longer Catholic because you choose to follow another rule, your own rule, or the rule of private judgment. You don’t follow the ecclesiastical magisterium.”

The very next question…

At 1:04:19, when Salza was asked, is it permissible to submit completely to the Magisterium of Francis? He answered, “No, we have a duty to recognize and resist him, to the extent he teaches what the church teaches, of course we follow it. But if he deviates from that, we have to resist it. I mean we have to know our faith. That’s different than what the sedevacantists do. The sedevacantists don’t recognize and resist. They simply don’t recognize. They don’t recognize that this is the Holy Father and that there is a magisterium…We submit to the magisterium unto the Holy Father and if he deviates, then we resist. It’s as simple as that. This is what’s been going on for 2000 years. This isn’t the first pope who’s deviated from the faith.”

The rule of faith for Salza is Salza’s private judgment. He submits or resists the magisterium when he determines the magisterium is teaching or deviating from the faith. However, when sedevacantists don’t recognize the magisterium that Salza resists (rejects), we use the rule of private judgment and aren’t Catholic. If Catholics are to judge the magisterium’s teaching on whether it’s faithful or deviating from the faith, what’s the point of the magisterium?

It’s true that we don’t follow the ecclesiastical magisterium of Salza’s church, but neither does Salza. He says he follows it, but he no more follows his magisterium than the liberals in the pews of his church.

 

 

 

Footnotes:

[1] Canon 188.4, 1917 Code of Canon Law: “There are certain causes which effect the tacit (silent) resignation of an office, which resignation is accepted in advance by operation of the law, and hence is effective without any declaration. These causes are… (4) publicly defects from the Catholic faith.”

[2] (On the Roman Pontiff, 30)

[3] By their fruits you shall know them. Do men gather grapes of thorns, or figs of thistles? Even so every good tree bringeth forth good fruit, and the evil tree bringeth forth evil fruit. A good tree cannot bring forth evil fruit, neither can an evil tree bring forth good fruit. Every tree that bringeth not forth good fruit, shall be cut down, and shall be cast into the fire. Wherefore by their fruits you shall know them. (Matt. 7:16-20)

[4] The Haydock Bible. Matthew 7:15.

[5] THE GREAT BIBLICAL COMMENTARY OF CORNELIUS À LAPIDE

[6] https://stevensperay.wordpress.com/2010/03/15/countering-the-anti-sedevacantist-position/

 

 

 

 

Read Full Post »

Older Posts »