“That the Primacy is to be perpetuated in the successors of Peter is, indeed, not expressly stated in the words of the promise and conferring of the Primacy by our Lord, but it flows as an inference from the nature and purpose of the Primacy itself. As the function of the Primacy is to preserve the unity and solidarity of the Church; and as the Church, according to the will of her Divine Founder, is to continue substantially unchanged until the end of time for the perpetuation of the work of salvation, the Primacy also must be perpetuated. But Peter, like every other human being, was subject to death, consequently, his office must be transmitted to others. The structure of the Church cannot continue without the foundation which supports it: Christ’s flock cannot exist without shepherds.” (Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma, pg. 282)
This is a continuation of the response from a sedevacantist to my post "The False Principles of Sedevacantism". At the rate I'm going I might see one a week, depending on my time. As before I'm in black and Lasker, sedevacantist whino (see bottom) extraordinaire is in good ol' commie red.
Cases #4 & 5: Popes Honorius I and John XXII "Honorious I permitted a cousin heresy of monyphysitism, monothelytism (that our Lord had only one divine will and not a human will also) to be taught. He wrote so in a document and was condemned by a future Pope, Pope St. Agatho and an ecumenical council. No one said that Honorious lost his office, and neither that he ceased to be Pope after writing his infamous letter. He did not meet the conditions for infallibility. Likewise with Pope John XXII, who professed a heresy that particular judgment of the soul was delayed until final judgment. Scholastic theologians did not say that John XXII lost his office. The latter submitted his position to a commission of theologians who said that he taught error. No one said that John XXII had lost his office, not even Cardinal Orsini who was a true schismatic and supported an anti-Pope. His claim was that John XXII was invalidly elected, not that by heresy he lost his office." You proceed here with still more lies, corruption of facts, and corruption of history itself. But the truth will be revealed here. (A) Unsavory Company: Citing these cases puts you in some very unsavory company:
Opponents of papal authority — protestants, eastern schismatics, Conciliarists, Gallicans, the anti-infallibilists at Vatican I, etc. — routinely pointed to John XXII and Honorius to shore up attacks against Catholic teaching. (C) Missing Elements: Your citings of these cases fail on several points, because in both, one or several of the elements required for a heretical pope to lose office were missing.
On the contrary, the facts of the case bear this out and separate me completely from those you mention. I said Honorius allowed monophysitism to be taught. I did not say he taught it. Protestants and the Orthodox claim that he actually taught it. Secondly, as I noted these did not meet the conditions for infallibility. Protestants and Conciliarists claim it did. The letters were not known about until after Honorius' death. The former claim that they were acts teaching the Church. What they do prove is that the assertion of certain sedevacantists, namely the Dimond Bros, that if a Pope fails to condemn error as the last 5 loses his office, is false since when Pope Agatho condemned Honorius for accepting a conciliatory condition, he mentioned nothing of the Pope losing his office for allowing a heresy to be taught in his private capacity. The argument is not dependent on who knows, but on what a Pope actually does.
(1) John XXII (1316-1334) preached a series of sermons in Avignon, France in which he taught that the souls of the blessed departed do not see God until after the Last Judgement. But this case fails because: (a) The doctrine on the Beatific Vision had not yet been defined, so a denial of it would not constitute heresy. (b) The pope, who had been a theologian before his election, proposed his teaching only as a “private doctor who expressed an opinion, hanc opinionem, and who, while seeking to prove it, recognized that it was open to debate.“ (Le Bachlet, “Benoit XII,” in Dictionnaire de Théologie Catholique, 2:662.) In the pope’s second sermon, moreover, he said the following: “I say with Augustine that, if I am deceived on this point, let someone who knows better correct me. For me it does not seem otherwise, unless the Church would so declare with a contrary statement [nisi ostenderetur determinatio ecclesie contraria] or unless authorities on sacred scripture would express it more clearly than what I have said above.” (Le Bachelet, DTC 2:262.) Such statements excluded the element of “pertinacity” proper to heresy. Furthermore, how convenient that you failed to mention point (a) in your article... (2) Honorius I (625-638) wrote several letters relating to the Monothelite heresy (=Christ had only one will, the divine), for which he was later accused, variously, of being a heretic himself or being soft on heresy. The ins and outs of this complex case need not detain us, except to mention the following fact: The disputed formulas came to light only after Honorius died. According to the theologian Hurter, it is certain that “the letters of Honorius were unknown [ignotae] until the death of the Pontiff and [the Patriarch] Sergius.” (Medulla Theologiae Dogmaticae, 360.) Hence, even if heretical, Honorius’ statements could not have constituted the “public” heresy required for a pope to lose office.
We've already dealt with that. Pope Agatho with the 2nd Council of Constantinople condemned Honorius as a heretic. That means he was formally declared to be a heretic, which is the Church’s judgment of his pontificate. Nowhere did his worst detractors teach that he lost his office or that his acts had to be annulled. I never mentioned the fact that the letters to Sergius only surfaced after the death of Honorius because they are irrelevant to the question. The issue is that Honorius was perceived as a heretic on account of it, but no one claimed that his ecclesiastical office was void from the time he had apparently lapsed into heresy.
Second with John XXII, it should be obvious from the quote of St. Francis de Sales I provided in the original posting, that I am well aware that John XXII was not obstinate. However the doctrine of the beatific vision is attested to in the tradition, if it were not the case John XXII would not have received the correction which he did, nor the rebuke of the Parisian theologians. The doctrine of the beatific vision was always and everywhere believed, and John XXII’s teaching was a novelty. Moreover it was widely believed on account of this that he was a heretic (often as a pretense to resisting this Pope in general), and if it was the case that a Pope ipso facto lost his office for a mere heresy in his private opinion (as sedevacantists hold with the last 5 Popes) then his enemies surely would have declared John XXII to have completely lost his office. This did not happen.
(D) Failed Analogies: To sum up, your attempt to refute sedevacantism with FALSE facts about these 2 popes and with an analogy to the cases of both these same Popes fails because these popes were not public and manifest heretics, which is a requirement for loss of papal office. Furthermore, what you write about both these cases is completely false, if anyone wants to know the real facts about these cases, just read the Catholic Encyclopedia. Your reasoning in both these cases is thoroughly dishonest, and you are either: A): Ignorant of the real facts of these cases; or B): Concealed the true facts on purpose, which is even worse. [Oh? How do you know that? This is more private judgment, now of another individual rather than the magisterium. I haven’t concealed anything, I only omitted things which you think were important but in fact were not] Whichever it was, they prove nothing against sedevacantism. Additionally, are you completely oblivious to the fact that every Saint, theologian, Canonist, Pope, etc. that dealt with the matter of a heretical Pope losing office (and answered in the affirmative, should such a case happen [by your own admission in our e-mails this is false]) said that it would happen for a Pope as a private person? Why are you talking about papal infalllibilty? The case of a heretical Pope losing his office has nothing to do at all with Papal infallibility, nor if what he said met the requirements for it, nor anything of the sort whatsoever. You are confused in this issue, and are inventing false conditions for a Pope to lose office.
On the contrary, it has everything to do with papal infallibility, because it is intrinsically connected with the promise of Christ to protect his Church. Infallibility as defined by Vatican I protects the Church from a Pope proposing error, and gives us a clear sign of how to navigate the current crisis in the Church. By denying the conditions for infallibility (along with so many innumerable teachings and hermeneutics of Catholic interpretation of doctrine) you are setting up the condition for your false teaching which is leading Catholics out of the true Church.
After giving all those false examples, you confidently state: "What we gain from this consideration is that Vatican I , studying all of this, saw the demonstration of the principles which they later laid down, and was able to safely decree there would be a valid succession of Popes forever. Every generation." Hahaha. Yeah. Sure. "Every generation" eh? Where did Vatican I assert such? As I proved above, you are mistaken on Vatican I's definition. Next, you say: "By laying down the principles by which the Pope can is infallible, Vatican I by extension is admitting when he is not infallible, and in those instances he can say something heretical. It doesn't matter what saint has theorized about the loss of papal office. The Church teaches us infallibly that there will be a valid succession of Popes for every period until the end of time." Such a statement is completely false. Answer the following: -Where did Vatican I state, in it's definition of Papal Infallibilty, that, in his fallible capacity, a Pope can say something heretical (true) and remain Pope??? -It doesn't matter what Saint has "theorized" about the loss of papal office eh? Did you know that even 2 Popes taught this? (Popes Paul IV and Innocent III) Did you know that St. Robert Bellarmine said that the teaching of immediate and ipso facto loss of office for public and manifest heretics, be it a Pope, Bishop or anyone, is the teaching of all the Ancient Fathers??? (De Romano Pontifice). -You (and every other anti-sedevacantist) show again your hypocrisy for completely dismissing what Saints and Doctors have said about this matter, when it doesn't benefit you, but when it does benefit you, you don't hesitate to present the Saints as infallible teachers.
Saints and doctors do not have authority by themselves, Councils in union with the Pope do. I have never produced the witness of a saint or doctor of the Church for anything other than to demonstrate a tradition behind Papal teaching. I have never presented a saint or doctor of the Church as an infallible teacher, because there is only one, the Pope speaking ex cathedra.
Secondly, by asserting that the Pope is only infallible when speaking ex cathedra, Vatican I is also asserting the negative, that outside of that condition the Pope can err.
Thirdly, Innocent III’s quote proves nothing, and Paul IV’s teaching was juridical in nature and superseded by the 1917 code of Canon Law (see below). No Pope has taught that the magisterium will survive when for 51 years there is no true Pope and the whole Church defects to honor anti-Popes as Popes, and all the Bishops defect to an “anti-Church”.
Fourthly, by saying “successors”, Vatican I is asserting that there will be a valid succession of physical men who will occupy the Papal office. If a man does not occupy that office, the powers of the papacy are useless since they can be wielded by none other than the successor of St. Peter. If they are not in use, they are not handing down the dogmas of the faith to every successive generation. If a generation of Catholics come and go with no Pope, there is a break in the succession and consequently the succession is no longer perpetual.
-And again, you quote once more your misunderstood and false definition of Vatican I.
Answered above. The only one who doesn’t understand Vatican I is you. Although, there is a certain humor in the fact that by you saying Vatican I, you are necessarily admitting that there was a Vatican II. Continue doing so and you may yet find yourself on your way back into the Church.
DIFFERENCES OF PAPAL TEACHING
Your statement that "If it was possible for the Pope to lose his office through some form of heresy, Vatican I would have indicated that this could happen." is irrelevant, because Vatican I was not touching on those matters, which you and everyone else have misunderstood, and besides, the Church has already taught that it is possible for a Pope to lose his Office through heresy. This teaching is rooted in the Dogma that heretics are not part of the Church, nor can they hold any office whatsoever. Theologians, Saints, Popes, etc. have merely explained how this happens in the case of a Pope, to avoid confusion; they didn't say it couldn't happen.
Sed Contra, that some theologians have taught that the Pope would lose his office were he a manifest heretic does not constitute that the Church teaches that, especially when it can be shown that several theologians do not agree with this proposition. We also come to the problem again of a heretic vs. someone who has lapsed into heresy with no obstinacy in the will (at least that can be proved).Only the public authority of the Church can determine if someone is a heretic.
You then say: "The fact is that in history Popes have taught error, but Vatican I never declares that these Popes lost their office." And we saw that all your "examples" of this were completely false and untrue. What history has taught is that the ones who appeared to have been heretics (Honorius) was later condemned as a heretic, and the one who appeared to be a heretic (Liberius) was deposed and considered to have fallen from office.
As I showed last time my historical examples were on point, and the claim that Liberius was lawfully deposed and replaced by another Pope is unique to Bellarmine, completely false since it contradicts all historical evidence, and no Historian since the event has ever maintained that and the official list of Popes throughout the centuries has always accounted Felix II as an anti-Pope, not to mention that he was consecrated by Arian bishops. Moreover, at Felix’s ascension as an anti-pope, Liberius had not yet submitted to sign the first creed of Sirmium, hence he could not have been counted as a heretic. And we also have a problem. If Honorius was condemned as a heretic, (by a public act of the Church, an ecumenical council and decree of a Pope) how can he have been maintained to have kept his office if in fact he was no longer a member of the Church? The Council anathematized him while he was Pope, which means he was a heretic while he was Pope. No one claimed his pontifical acts were invalid. All historical lists of Popes never mentioned Honorius having been declared to have lost his office and become an anti-Pope, and his pontifical acts null and void. There is no history of re-ordination, and there is neither a history that the Church responded the way Sedevacantist teaching claims she would have to if the Pope was a heretic.
Further, your completely mistaken and inadequate example, if I understood it correctly, of Pope Pius XII teaching "heresy" in his Encyclical Sacramentum Ordinis, for changing (not declaring incorrect) the form of the Council of Florence for Holy Orders, reveals once again that you do not know what you are talking about, at all. (i’ve deleted the rest because it will be shown to be redundant in a moment)
Actually, this turns the other way since you did not understand my argument, which is typical of what happens when you run out of material on Sedevacantist websites to plagiarize. NOWHERE did I teach that Pius XII taught a heresy (I would never say anything about such a great and holy Pope without a very large smoking gun anyway). What I said was:
A perfect example of this is a declaration of the Council of Florence, approved by the Pope that the form of Holy Orders is the handing of the chalice and patten to the new priest. Pope Pius XII, utilizing historical research, taught in his encyclical Sacramentum Ordinis that this teaching was incorrect and promulgated the correct teaching
I never said Pius XII taught Heresy. You probably don’t have any clue what I’m talking about and didn’t bother to look into it before going on copying stuff off of websites.
For a refresher, and a fuller explanation of what I wrote in the original, the Council of Florence taught that the essential matter of the sacrament of order in conferring priestly orders was “the matter of which is that through whose transmission the order is conferred: just as the priesthood is transmitted through the offering of the chalice and with wine and of the paten with bread” (Denz 701)
However this was historically not the matter and Pius XII corrected this teaching. The ordinary magisterial teaching of Florence was in fact mistaken. This however should not bother us in the least because the ordinary magisterium is not infallible and irreformable in and of itself, it may be if it is passing on what the Church has always and everywhere believed.
What this demonstrates for us, is that a pastoral council such as Vatican II, or the past 5 Popes may in fact make mistakes, even in the ordinary magisterium, but at the same time not become formal heretics.
So this example you gave, far from proving anything for your position, proves one more thing for the sedevacantists: the Church does not have, nor any Pope, the power to change the substance of the Sacrament which Our Lord instituted, like the Eucharist, but this is exactly what they did with the form of the Consecration for the New "mass", when they were creating it: in the vernacular, they altered the form of the Sacrament from "for you and for many", which were Our Lord's words, to "for you and for all". This sacrilege ran rampant in every single Novus Ordo "mass" said in the vernacular, up until 2006, supposedly, but some still say it, but that doesn't matter, because the point is that they did change it, when they couldn't, but they really didn't change anything because they had no authority at all.
This teaching is inane and worthless, as I’ve already shown here. However we may revisit certain elements of it. The altering of “for you and for many” to “for you and for all” in the vernacular does not and can not invalidate the Mass because it is not apart of the essential form. This is an opinion held long before the Council. .
But there is still more.
Don’t leave us in suspense, please...
CUM EX APOSTOLATUS AND THE LOSS OF OFFICE
You really sell yourself out here.
[yawn]
Since you give a little background about this Bull, I will give some background as well:
***
In particular, Pope Paul IV wished to bar from the papacy in the next conclave Giovanni Cardinal Morone (1509-1580), whom he suspected of being a secret Protestant heretic, and whom he even imprisoned in the Castel’ Sant’ Angelo. It was for planning to sell out to the Lutherans on the doctrine of justification that Paul IV barred Morone from papal office as a heretic and threw him in jail. (See Francesco Ricossa, “L’heresie aux Sommets de l’Eglise,” 50-1.)
***
You begin by saying, again, to your own benefit, that "one of the principles of canon law is that when a legal document is restricting a law it is read restrictively, and whenever it is permitting something it is read in the widest possible sense", when that doesn't really matter and is irrelevant.
It absolutely matters, as we will see.
You then say that "Once the Pope is elected, he is judged by no man as he has no earthly superior, and therefore could not be removed except by God or condemned by a future Pope", when that is false and in the very Bull Paul IV says otherwise.
Where in the bull does it say otherwise? Where does it say that a sitting Pope may be judged by the Church and removed? It only says that a Pope invalidly elected is not a true Pope. That is restrictive, and thus is not applicable beyond those enumerated.
It is simply ironic that you say this, while also speaking of the Bull, because, look at what the very own Bull says:
1. "Whereas We consider such a matter [i.e. error in respect of the Faith] to be so grave and fraught with peril that the Roman Pontiff, who is Vicar of God and of Jesus Christ on earth, holds fullness of power over peoples and kingdoms, and judges all, but can be judged by none in this world - (even he) may be corrected if he is apprehended straying from the Faith."
Apparently you missed this part of the Bull eh? How appropiate!
How appropriate that you should highlight my point for me. Thanks! Saves me the trouble.
That he is caught and corrected only re-enforces my point, that the Pope is not listed in this Bull as losing his office to heresy.
The very own Bull says that "the Roman Pontiff, who is Vicar of God and of Jesus Christ on earth, holds fullness of power over peoples and kingdoms, and judges all, but can be judged by none in this world" may be apprehended if he was merely "caught" deviating from the Faith!
The verb in the Latin phrase si deprehendatur a fide devius connotes not just a pope who is “found” to have deviated from the faith, but one who is “caught” — as in “caught red-handed” in a crime.
Again, caught? Caught does not equal deposed, caught does not equal ipso facto loss of office in spite of what anyone else thinks, caught does not mean that if the Pope should say something heretical he will have lost his office. Caught means that the Pope maintains his office and the Church can rebuke him, as St. Paul rebuked St. Peter for failing to enforce his own ruling at the Council of Jerusalem.
If anything this proves the example of the Avignon Pope John XXII (supra) who was caught red handed introducing a heresy into the Church, and he was rebuked by theologians, to the point where he constituted a commission and submitted to their judgment. If Paul IV intended to say that a sitting Roman Pontiff lost his office due to being a manifest heretic, he would have included the Roman Pontiff in the list of those whose offices are deprived. However he does NOT, which suggests what? Paragraph 1 says nothing of the loss of office. Therefore why should it be relevant to paragraph 5? IT ISN’T. This is a case of you not having any material on your sedevacantist websites to use, so you tried to wing it on your own, and failed miserably. If you can tell me how the Church rebuking a sitting Pope for erring as a private individual is equivalent to the Pope losing his office, Bishop Williamson must be a Jew since that conclusion is impossible.
Then there is the verb redargui —rebuke. What “rebuke” did Paul IV envision for a pope caught this way? Not, as you or anyone of the likes of Chris Ferrara might have us think, forty years of open letters/we-contradict-you-to-your-face articles written by laymen for some Counter-Reformation equivalent of The Angelus, Fatima Crusader or Catholic Family News.
Rather, Paul IV promulgated the Bull to automatically deprive or bar from office those who had defected from the faith, whether secretly or openly.
Then you say that "In that list, the Roman Pontiff does not appear once. Hence we must restrict those who lose their office for heresy to these categories, namely everyone below the Pope, because they all have earthly superiors.", did you not read paragraph 1 in the Bull?
This is a non sequitur, you’re drawing conclusions not supported by your premise. Why is the sentence: “The Roman Pontiff shall be deprived of his office if he is a manifest heretic” not present any where in this bull? Redargui and Deponere are entirely different concepts. This is one of the more fallacious arguments you have presented so far.
The Bull can be applied to any of the last 5 antipopes in any case, because it can be proven that either of them held to heresies before their "election", but that's a separate debate and issue which is not even necessary to get into to prove sedevacantism. But if you want, we could apply the Bull only to Albino Luciani or to Wojtyla, for some "traditionalists" have the impression that Paul VI didn't held to any heresies before his "election".
You are conflating terms, and if you can prove it then I urge you to prove it. Even if it can be proven that they “held to heresies” how does that amount to being formal heretics? Without a judgment of the Church, a public judgment according to canon law, it is impossible to know if these figures are formal heretics. Moreover, no one at the time of the election of Bl. John XXIII or Pope Paul VI said they were heretics. If it was so manifest someone would have said so. For 4 years after the election of Pope Paul VI not one theologian or cleric maintained anywhere in the world that the election was invalid. Why did the original sedevacantists drop the ball for so many years? As for John Paul I, I don’t know why he is even an issue as he was dead after 30 days. Let’s skip straight to Pope John Paul II. What heresies did he hold prior to his election? Can you prove that he was a formal heretic? Did he receive correction at any time by the Magisterium to which he was obstinate in rejecting? Did he express an actual will to disregard the regula fidei proposed to us by the Magisterium? Of course all of it is irrelevant anyway as we shall see in the abrogation of Cum Ex Apostalatus Officio and the teaching of Cardinal Billot, echoed by many other theologians about the nature of an uncontested Papal election.
Then you say: "Even those, are canonical sanctions which can be undone by future Popes, and in fact they were. Pope Pius XII declared, that for the purposes of papal election Cardinals otherwise interdicted could or be elected". Here, again, like in the previous example of Pope Pius XII, you and every other "traditionalist" have managed to once again get this wrong as well, and got the notion that a heretic could be the Pope.
No, I have shown that the canons of this are no longer in force. The question of whether a Pope can be a heretic is by no means settled doctrine, having no magisterial teaching as its backing. My quoting Pius XII on this subject was to show that the provisions of Cum Ex Apostalutus could in fact be overturned. Thus a discussion of major and minor excommunication was not necessary, especially given that Pius XII fails to distinguish which offenses one who is interdicted from may vote under. He does not distinguish between major and minor excommunication.
As I have already shown, it’s a dogma that 1) heretics are not members of the Church; and 2) that a pope is the head of the Church. It is a dogmatic fact, therefore, that a heretic cannot be the head of the Church, since he is not a member of it.
You still can not prove that the Popes are heretics. It is mere private judgment on your part. No one in the world thought that John XXIII and Paul VI were heretics at the time of their election, not even the original sedevacantists. No one in authority condemned or corrected the writings of John Paul II and the current Pope, moreover they write in the style of modern theology which does not have the exactitude of scholastic exposition which means there are many possible interpretations of their writings. The burden of proof is on you to show that the heresy is so manifest that no one can deny it, and frankly, many do deny it. Within the whole magisterium of Paul VI no one said this Wojtyla guy is a problem.
What, then, does Pope Pius XII mean in Vacantis Apostolicae Sedis? First off, one needs to understand that excommunication can be incurred for many things. Historically, excommunications were distinguished by the terms major and minor. Major excommunications were incurred for heresy and schism (sins against the faith) and certain other major sins. Those who received major excommunication for heresy were not members of the Church. Minor excommunication, however, did not remove one from the Church, but forbade one to participate in the Church's sacramental life. Pope Benedict XIV made note of the distinction.
The rest of your section attempting to “educate me” on something I already know very well (namely minor and major excommunication) will be deleted because Pius XII makes no mention of minor and major excommunication. He declared in the document:
"None of the cardinals may in any way, or by pretext or reason of any excommunication, suspension, or interdict whatsoever, or of any other ecclesiastical impediment, be excluded from the active and passive election of the supreme pontiff. We hereby suspend such censures solely for the purposes of the said election; at other times they are to remain in vigor" (VAS 34).
Thus you have Pius XII, whom you would assume understands dogmatic theology, and again, whom one would assume understood Cum Ex Apostolatus Officio, teaching us that an excommunicated person can be elected Roman Pontiff. To read into this document distinctions which Pius XII did not put in is to essentially redefine the law contrary to the intentions of the law giver.
Notice, heretics are not excluded from the Papacy by merely ecclesiastical impediments, but impediments flowing from the divine law. Pius XII’s legislation doesn’t apply to heresy because he was speaking about ecclesiastical impediments: “…or any other ecclesiastical impediment…” Thus, his legislation does not show that heretics can be elected and remain popes, which is why he didn’t mention heretics. Pope Pius XII was referring to Catholic cardinals who may have been under excommunication.
But that assumes the prescriptions of Cum ex are of Divine Law, whereas in reality they are not. This bull was abrogated by the 1917 Code of Canon Law which incorporated these penalties but never for a Pope prior to his election (let alone after). It only says:
Ob tacitam renuntiationem ab ipso jure admissam quaelibet officia vacant ipso facto et sine ulla declaratione, si clericus A fide Catholica publice defecerit.
(Can. 188.4)
And:
Omnes a christiana fide apostatae et omnes et singuli haeretici aut schismatici incurrunt ipso facto excommunicationem. (Can. 2314 1.1)
Again, none of these address what to do about the Roman Pontiff. If Cum Ex was still in force the Code of Canon Law would have taken note of it. The editors of the 1917 Code did not put it in because of the problematic nature of actually enforcing Cum Ex. No dogmatic theology textbook references it, and not one work of Ecclesiology from any of the authors you site (Dorsch, etc.) or other recent authors such as Billot, Franzelin, Van Noort, Palmieri or Berry. As the sedevacantist journal Sodalitum frankly admits:
“This task (proving an election invalid by the precepts of Cum Ex] however in the current state of affairs, shows itself doubly arduous. To begin with, it is necessary to prove the formal and notorious heresy of the errant one. Failing a (hypothetical) admission of the guilty party, an intervention of the Church and its Magisterium then takes place, in accordance with the words of St. Paul to Titus: “A man that is a heretic, after the first and second admonition, avoid.” What Paul IV perhaps did not foresee-like all the classical writers on the question of the “heretical pope”- was that no authority would arise in such a case to make the admonitions required by scripture and canons.
The second difficulty consists in the current juridical value of the Constitution of Paul VI. The sixth canon of the Code of Canon Law prescribes that what is not taken up again in the 1917 Code should be considered as abrogated, unless the law is evidently by divine right. Now the prescriptions of Paul IV are only partially resumed by the Code (Can. 188.4 and 2314.1) without any mention of the case of the supreme pontiff. Doubt therefore remains about the character of Paul IV’s proclomation-whether it belongs to divine law, and thus is always valid, or to ecclesiastical law. (Sodalitium, no. 14 pp.9-10)
Why would the major Sedevacantist journal in Europe not consider it obvious that the bull of Paul IV still applies if it was so evident that it is of divine right and still in force? For the simple reason that it does not.
There is still one more point to consider. What does the 1917 Code of Canon Law say about the loss of office?
“Actus jurisdictionis tam fori externi quam fori interni positus ab excommunicato est illicitus; et, si lata fuerit sententia condemnatoria vel declaratoria etiam invalidus, salvo praescripto can. 2261.3 secus est validus.”
-Canon 2264
“An act of jurisdiction carried out by an excommunicated person, whether in the internal or external forum is illicit; and if a condemnatory or declaratory sentence has been pronounced, it is also invalid, without prejudice to Canon 2261.3; otherwise it is valid.”
You assert that a heretic can not conduct his office is a dogmatic fact, yet the Church’s law tells us something entirely different, where the Church has failed to makes someone a formal heretic, the powers and uses of his office are still considered valid though illicit. Thus, if a Pope had lapsed into heresy, and he received no correction from the Church (rebuke), but following this theory through, that he had in fact lapsed into heresy, his acts would continue to be valid but gravely illicit. Only once the Church had made a judgment of some kind, or better a rebuke (as in the case of John XXII) could we consider the Pope a formal heretic. Even then however, there is the question of the right to judge. Either way this is not the case of the last five Popes. This is because you refuse (or else are entirely ignorant of canonical distinctions) to admit the difference between a formal heretic, one who has been condemned by the Church and is obstinate, and someone who has not been officially condemned by the Church. If you are going to maintain that ipso facto a heretic is unable to exercise his office, you are going to have to square with the fact that the 1917 Code of Canon law does the opposite. Unless you want to adopt the line from the guy I referenced in part 1 of this refutation whom denies that Benedict XV was a true Pope which would allow you to deny the 1917 Code.
Lastly, the Code of Canon Law grants jurisdiction to excommunicated of all classes (vitandi and tolerati) in order to hear confessions if the penitent is in danger of death (Can. 2261). Thus it is inherently possible for the Church to grant jurisdiction to the excommunicated, which means again, it is by no means certain beyond a reasonable doubt that a material heretic could not remain Pope, or even a formal one.
To further prove the point, let’s assume for the sake of argument that Pope Pius XII’s legislation did mean that a heretical cardinal could be elected pope. Notice what Pius XII says:
“We hereby suspend such censures solely for the purposes of the said election; at other times they are to remain in vigor.”
Pius XII says that the excommunication is suspended only for the time of the election; at other times it remains in vigor. This would mean that the excommunication for heresy would fall back into force immediately after the election and then the heretic who had been elected pope would lose his office! Thus, no matter what way you look at it, a heretic could not be validly elected and remain pope.
As we saw above, he could indeed continue in the office illicitly according to the 1917 Code of Canon Law.
Thus, I can only echo the great honesty of the Sodalitium article, which noted that all proponents of the hypothesis of a heretical Pope could not foresee what the Church could do in such a situation.
Moving on, you quote the rest of St. Francis de Sales's quote, which proves that a heretical Pope loses his office ipso facto, like if it proves that a heretical Pope doesn't lose his office! A few comment on this:
1-St. Francis de Sales, after declaring that an explicitly heretical Pope loses his office ipso facto (immediately, without any declaration), says that "the Church must either deprive him or, as some say, declare him deprived, of his Apostolic See, and must say as S. Peter did: Let another take his bishopric."
Now, I ask you: what does this quote say, other than that when an explicitly heretical Pope loses his office ipso facto, the Church should formally remove him and elect a new Pope? Does this quote in any way, shape or form says that the explicitly heretical Pope, who just lost his office ipso facto, is still the Pope, until the Church formally removes him? Do you really believe that?
The Code of Canon Law says that the office is still exercised validly but illicitly (supra). Since it mentions nowhere the Roman Pontiff falling into heresy ANYWHERE, it can only be assumed that the Canon is applicable in such a case.
Moreover you are perverting the quote from St. Francis De Sales, he said nothing of the kind. This is why I said there is too much in Sedevacantist teaching a denial of Vatican I. St. Francis’ teaching only applies to a Pope who teaches heresy ex cathedra, unless you have a quote besides the one in “The Catholic Controversy”.
2-Does the fact that the Church, or the Roman Clergy or whatever you prefer, does the formal deposing and declaring of his vacant office, in any way means that the said explicitly heretical Pope remains the Pope until the Church does the deposing? What if all the Clergy or what would-declare the Pope deposed follows him into his heresies? Does he remain the Pope? Are we supposed to wait until some "formal deposing", and still regard him as the valid Pope? Any honest and good-willed person will see the falsity and absurdity of such a position.
Every single writer on the heretical Pope which you have sited thus far has said that it is impossible but if this could happen God would provide. If all the clergy followed him into heresy, what then is there to conclude but that God did NOT provide? That would be blasphemous.
Then you proceed to corrupt and twist St. Francis's own words by saying: "Therefore, if we break this down, in light of Vatican I's clarification, St. Francis is saying virtually the same thing. Not that for merely believing something heretical does the Pope lose his office, but for obstinately teaching the whole Church in an erroneous manner. At that time it would be clear, and the whole Church could then depose such a man, according to St. Francis. St. Francis is not saying that a Pope who may believe this or that which is ambiguous, which taken in a strict sense would be heretical will lose his office, and that the Popes for an entire generation would lose their office! And even if he did, a saint's opinion does not matter in comparison with Vatican I's teaching."
Did St. Fancis say that a Pope would lose his office "for merely believing something heretical" or "for obstinately teaching the whole Church in an erroneous manner"? No! He said a Pope who is "explicitly a heretic" and nothing else. Your added conditions are false and irrelevant.
On the contrary they are completely relevant. But as usual your argument is weakest when you have no material on sedevacantist websites to use. Read the quote from St. Francis again, which is so falsely exploited by you and Trailer Park monastery:
“Under the ancient law the High Priest did not wear the Rational except when he was vested in the pontifical robes and was entering before the Lord. Thus we do not say that the Pope cannot err in his private opinions, as did John XXII; or be altogether a heretic, as perhaps Honorius was. Now when he is explicitly a heretic, he falls ipso facto from his dignity and out of the Church, and the Church must either deprive him, or, as some say, declare him deprived, of his Apostolic See, and must say as St. Peter did: Let another take his bishopric. When he errs in his private opinion he must be instructed, advised, convinced; as happened with John XXII, who was so far from dying obstinate or from determining anything during his life concerning his opinion, that he died whilst he was making the examination which is necessary for determining in a matter of faith, as his successor declared in the Extravagantes which begins Benedictus Deus. But when he is clothed with the pontifical garments, I mean when teaches the whole Church as shepherd, in general matters of faith and morals, then there is nothing but doctrine and truth.” (The Catholic Controversy, pg. 305-306)
Take serious note of how you are distorting the passage. St. Francis de Sales is saying that one must be an explicit (formal) heretic, and moreover, that one must be obstinate. That means that while John XXII did not lose his office because he was “far from obstinate”, were he obstinate he would have lost his office.
Thus if you will pull your head out of Trailer Park Monastery with its fake brothers peddling a bunch of nonsense to swindle people out of their money (how else do they make a living?) and actually read the whole reference, one will see that it is only an obstinate heretic here who is under consideration. Obstinacy is in the will, how can you or I or the lamppost be certain that the last 5 Popes are heretics? Particularly when smarter people than you or I who lived with some of those Popes, such as Cardinal Ottaviani, saw no heresy in either John XXIII or Paul VI we would have to question how we could know he was obstinately denying some element of Catholic doctrine. Moreover, how can you say that Pope John Paul II, or that Pope Benedict did not merely err as private individuals, most especially when they were never corrected by the Church? We do not and cannot know if they were obstinate (that is assuming their works are completely heretical with no possibility of being read in an orthodox manner), since that is apart of the internal forum.
LOSS OF THE MARKS OF THE CHURCH
It is again simply ironic that you mention the loss of the Marks of the Church in an attempt to disprove Sedevacantism, because it is easily proven that the Novus Ordo, Vatican II, and that last 5 antipopes, deny several of the Marks of the Church which are an article of the Creed: "I believe in ONE Church...", that the Church is Apostolic, they deny Her Catholicity, Her Universality, Her Visibility, etc. This is just another area out of the many that one could get into to prove the sedevacantist position.
If you want, we could get into a debate specifically about this issue, but you're not a qualified person, so you would immediately perish in such a debate, and it would be a loss of time for me, but if you do want, we could do it.
Please, by all means bring it. Based on what we’ve seen thus far you would be easily vanquished, and the fact that you don’t even venture to try shows this is nothing more than a drive by comment. That debate would easily be won if the arguments you would advance would be as lame and full of logical fallicies and half truths as what you’ve presented so far. You don’t even understand what the Church’s Apostolicity is, or else you would not be a sedevacantist. However this is just a cute way to avoid serious discussion of the points in the original, because there is no material on sede sites for you to plagiarize.
Let us however make a slight segue here, since you are so confident that the last 5 POPES were heretics. In one of your e-mails you said:.
If that's the case, salvation for so-called "invincibly ignorants" is heretical. Even St. Thomas rejected it. Do you even know the Athanasian Creed?
"Whoever wishes to be saved, needs above all to hold the Catholic faith; unless each one preserves this whole and inviolate, he will without a doubt perish in eternity." - Athanasian Creed
You also obviously believe in Salvation outside the Church and for non-Catholics, you are thus a bold heretic who is not even inside the Church.
Why do you "quote" what Pope Boniface VIII declared in Unam Sanctam? Know you not that that Bull is dogmatic? Do you even know that that there is no salvation outside the Church, for non-Catholics, or for anyone at all without exceptions, is a dogma???
Lastly, Pope Pius IX did not teach salvation for "invincibly ignorants"; that's a separate issue that we could get into, but we're not talking about that.
However, Bl. Pope Pius IX said the following:
"It is likewise certain that those who are in ignorance of the true religion are not accountable for any guilt in the matter before God if the ignorance be invincible.” (DZ 1647). [And again], “It is known to us and to you that those who are in invincible ignorance concerning our most holy religion can attain eternal life by the power of divine light and grace.” (Quanto Conficiamus Moerore, DZ1677)
If what you wrote, and what Trailer Park monastery maintains is true, that the teaching of Boniface VIII can be understood in no other sense but that each man must have water baptism to be saved, then Bl. Pope Pius IX was a heretic, and by your same teaching lost his office, since by being a heretic he could not be the head of the Church. Do you accept Bl. Pius IX as a true and valid Pope? If so then you must admit that your teaching on salvation is private judgment, if not then why do you accept Vatican I since it would have been promulgated by an anti-Pope?
Just more examples of why you are obviously not even Catholic, and have no grasp of the Church's teaching on grace, or even membership. If one is saved extra-sacramentally they will be in the communion of saints as a Catholic, which means that they will be "within the Church".
But anyways, in closing this the "Part I" of your article, you again contradict Vatican I's definition and even your very own position!
During the entire course of you article, you said:
"Without a visible head, the principle of unity would in fact be lost." "Perpetuity is purposely emphasized because its meaning is obvious. Forever. Both Trent and Vatican I are clearly teaching that the Popes will reign perpetually." "What happens if that principle of Unity is removed? There can be no true visible head, which is contrary to all of Catholic teaching." "The Church teaches us infallibly at Vatican I there will be a continual succession of Popes, Peter's reign is perpetual." But then at the end you proceed to contradict all this and prove the sedevacantist position! "Thus during a Papal inter-regnum (when a sede vacante is possible) ordinary jurisdiction continues through the Church herself. The longest Papal interregnum in history is 2 and 1/2 years." Huh? Didn't you say that we woud have a Pope sitting in St. Peter's Chair "forever"?; Didn't you say that there would always be a Pope reigning "perpetually"? Didn't you say that without a visible head the unity would in fact be "lost"? Didn't you say that if the principle of unity would be removed that there would be no true visible head, which is contrary to all Catholic teaching? Doesn't an interregnum (a period without a Pope) contradict Vatican I's "perpetual" decree? Wouldn't a 3 1/2 year interregnum contradict this decree? The obvious answer, which I have already shown, is that you "traditionalists" have got it all wrong and that Vatican I didn't teach what you say it did.
I’ve already completely rebutted that, as we saw last time. The Potestas docendi and the Potestas regendi reside in both the Church and the Pope, thus in between the election of Popes the Church maintains these powers. There is no contradiction. The primacy goes to Peter alone. I have already clarified many times the distinction between an inter-regnum and 51 years with no valid Pope and every diocese in the world not having a lawful occupant and a loss of Jurisdiction. THAT IS NOT AN INTER-REGNUM. That is the end of the Church. Get that through your skull. If the scenario you propose is correct, both Church and Pope have defected from the Catholic faith. Where then is the Church? Where then is jurisdiction? Where then is the teaching Church? Hint it is not in Cincinnati, and it is not in Trailer Park Monastery.
Here's a question for you: has the Church ever said how long a papal interregnum should last? Has the Church ever said how much a Papal interregnum should last, before it is considered to violate the "perpetuity" decree? The theologians Salaverri and Dorsch further shed more light on this issue and refute all of these errouneous assertions: Instead of being a “primary foundation…without which the Church could not exist,” the pope is a “secondary foundation,” “ministerial,” who exercises his power as someone else’s (Christ’s) representative. (See De Ecclesia 1:448) “The Church therefore is a society that is essentially monarchical. But this does not prevent the Church, for a short time after the death of a pope, or even for many years, from remaining deprived of her head. [vel etiam per plures annos capite suo destituta manet]. Her monarchical form also remains intact in this state.…
“Thus the Church is then indeed a headless body.… Her monarchical form of government remains, though then in a different way — that is, it remains incomplete and to be completed. The ordering of the whole to submission to her Primate is present, even though actual submission is not…
“For this reason, the See of Rome is rightly said to remain after the person sitting in it has died — for the See of Rome consists essentially in the rights of the Primate.
“These rights are an essential and necessary element of the Church. With them, moreover, the Primacy then continues, at least morally. The perennial physical presence of the person of the head, however, [perennitas autem physica personis principis] is not so strictly necessary.” (de Ecclesia 2:196–7)
Again, this simply doesn’t cut it. You are applying the teaching of two theologians on the powers of the Church’s Potestas Regendi to the question of the complete loss of Ordinary Jurisdiction. Not only did these theologians not foresee the present situation, they make now account of the full body of Bishops, and the sensus fidelium all falling into complete heresy. If the complete body of the Church remained without a Pope crystalized as it were in 1958, then one could argue that the magisterium was sufficiently in tact to elect a valid Pope. None of these writers considered a situation where the whole Church accepts five anti-Popes as true Popes and gives them submission when they had no right to it, and gave submission to men in all the sees of the world that had no right to them. They never foresaw a situation where the Church’s tradition had no magisterium to hand it on to the faithful. With 51 years of no Pope, no Bishops, no teaching Church you have a break in the tradition. If that is the case then the reign of Peter’s successors is not perpetual, and the perpetual principle of unity would have failed, contrary to Vatican I’s teaching. The only way around this is to claim that sedevacantist bishops are now the magisterium which is equally problematic for the same reason (among many others which I will treat in a future installment, namely that there is no right to consecrate the said Bishops). Bishop Thuc did not consecrate the first Sedevacantist Bishop until 1976. Until then he himself had waxed and waned in his opinions, even reconciling with Rome at one point. He did not even declare a Sedevacantist position until 1982. That means from 1958-1976 there was not one Bishop not in submission to the alleged “anti-Popes”. This means, after what you call the defections of the Bishops of the world from the Catholic faith, there was not one Bishop present to carry on the teaching of the Apostles. That means again for nearly 20 years there was NO MAGISTERIUM.
It was not for three years after the Council that a single priest had declared sedevacantism. This means all Masses said in the world “una cum”, that is in union with Pope John XXIII were in fact displeasing to God, and for 10 years no Masses on the planet were at all pleasing. This is completely contrary to what the saints tell us, in the oft repeated statement: “The Earth could survive better without the sun than without the Mass.”
Sedevacantism is a false teaching which not only leads to the vacant seat of Peter, but to an empty Church whose marks have been lost and hose visible link of unity, both in terms of the Perpetual principle of Unity and the link to it through the local Bishop, have been lost to the faithful. That means that Christ’s promise was completely false, which we know is blasphemous.
Contrary to this, we learn from Van Noort:
“Apostolicity of government- or mission, or authority- means the Church is always ruled by pastors who form one same juridical person with the apostles. In other words it is always ruled by pastors who are the apostles legitimate successors. It has already been proved that Christ Himself founded a living organization, a visible Church. Granted that fact, it should be obvious that an essential part of that Church’s structure is apostolicity of government. For on no one but the Apostolic College, under the headship of Peter, did Christ confer the power of teaching, sanctifying, and ruling the faithful until the end of the world. This triple power, therefore necessarily belongs, and can only belong, to those who form one moral person with the apostles: their legitimate successors.”
“How can we know that a Bishops is indeed a successor to the apostles?.... The second method is quite brief. First one locates the legitimate successor of the man whom Christ Himself established as the head and leader of the entire apostolic college. Once that has been done we can find out whether the particular bishop under scrutiny is united to Peter’s successor and is acknowledged by him as a genuine successor in the apostolic office. It is easy enough to investigate these two points; it is also a perfectly satisfactory method of procedure.
“It is certainly not a backbreaking job to find the legitimate successor of St. Peter. First it is a fact beyond question that the Church can never fail to have a successor to Peter... Any man, then, who boasts of apostolic succession but is not united to the Roman pontiff, may indeed actually possess the power of orders; he may even by purely physical succession occupy a chair formerly occupied by an apostle-at least he could do so- but he would not be a genuine successor of the apostles in their pastoral office. He would be a usurper.” (Christ’s Church, pg. 151-153)
That concludes this installment. There will be more responses to other objections raised to last week’s response, but those will be done in the future when time allows.
Although with rants like this, I'm not sure how much more I'm willing to bother:
I'm done talking with you moronic, blind, brute, schismatic, heretical, modernist, neanderthal false "traditionalists", so if you want don't even post my reply, because this is the last email that I send to you. Don't even bother in responding to this email. I won't keep wasting my time with neanderthals like you.
Music to my ears. It is probably worth noting that he wasn't really done, I got 5 more after that to about the same effect. By their fruits you shall know them.
Congressman Bart Stupak (D-MI), author of the amendment to the House health care bill that prohibited funding for policies that cover abortion.
