Skip to main content

Why do Cowardly Anti-Open Letter Catholics & Sedevacantists Reject the Teachings of Doctor of the Church St. Francis de Sales?

All the Conservative and Traditionalist anti-Open Letter Catholic commentators and all the Sedevacantists are united in rejecting or ignoring the teaching of Doctor of the Church St. Francis de Sales:

"[T]he Pope... 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."
(The Catholic Controversy, by St. Francis de Sales, Pages 305-306)

The Sedevacantists reject the Doctor of the Church's teaching that the Church "must... declare him [the explicit heretic Pope] deprived, of his Apostolic See" because like Neo-Protestants they, the Sedes, get to "declare him deprived, of his Apostolic See" not the Successors of the Apostles who Jesus Christ put in authority.

The Sedes love quoting that the explicitly heretical Pope "falls ipso facto from his dignity and out of the Church," but then dishonestly ignore or deliberately leave out the second part of the sentence.

The anti-Open Letter Catholics, however, are in some ways more cowardly in that they ignore St. Francis de Sales' teaching altogether.

They over and over again talk about the "speculation" of St. Robert Bellarmine while they are either ignorant or choose to ignore for the sake of their strawman arguments not the "speculation" of this Doctor of the Church, but his straight forward explicit teaching about deposing a Pope.

The favorite strawman arguments of the anti-Open Letter Catholics are the mantras of schism and recently "counciliarism" to avoid the hard discussion of the teaching of a Doctor of the Church.

Why are these anti-Open Letter commentators afraid of engaging St. Francis de Sales?

Do they honestly think they can use their strawman mantras of schism and "councilarism" against him?

Are they calling a Doctor of the Church a schismatic and a "councilarist" heretic?

Remember that the "counciliarist" heresy came about before the time of St. Francis de Sales so he would be a explicit heretic if what he taught above had anything to do with it.

Do they honestly think that the Church makes schismatics and heretics into Doctors of the Church?

Anti-Open Letter Catholics stop being ignorant or cowards.

Overcome your ignorance or fear and honestly engage St. Francis de Sales' teaching about deposing a heretical Pope.

Pray an Our Father now for the restoration of the Church.




Comments

Fr. VF said…
I think the word is "conciliarism."
Why debate the matter of whether Bergoglio is a heretic? He was never a valid pope to begin with! How can he ever be deposed as if he ever was one?
mark wauck said…
Why didn't you give Bellarmine his proper title: Doctor of the Church? Anyway, de Sales appears to agree with Bellarmine: he states quite clearly that the heretic bishop of Rome IPSO FACTO falls out of the Church. IOW, whether or not other bishops declare that this has happened is irrelevant to the fact that it HAS happened, since in de Sales' own words it happens IPSO FACTO rather than upon the declaration of other bishops. He says they "must" declare it, but if they defy their duty and fail to do so, the fact remains a fact.
Fred Martinez said…
Please read the whole sentence. It says:

"The Church must... deprive him, or... declare him deprived."

It doesn't say Sedes get to say "if they defy their duty and fail to do so" then Sedes can reject or ignore the Doctor of the Church's teaching and the Saint's word "must" and whole context of his sentence.

Nandarani said…
http://www.traditionalcatholicpriest.com/2019/05/21/ending-cognitive-dissonance/ I loved this. St. Francis de Sales with the quote is mentioned, missing its second half. Speaking as a convert like the writer Mr. Jonathan Byrd is, I think (for once and for a change I get simpler and simpler I am glad to see!): the current Church is defying its duty as Mark Wauk says in the comment to which Mr. Martinez replies.

Popular posts from this blog

If Francis is a Heretic, What should Canonically happen to him?

Did Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger (the future Pope Benedict XVI) say that Francis is a heretic ?   On June 3, 2003 the then Cardinal Ratzinge r (and future Pope Benedict) , head of the Congregation for the Faith, said that the endorsement of  " homosex civil unions" was against Catholic teaching, that is heterodoxy : "Those who would move from tolerance to the legitimatization of specific rights for cohabiting homosexual persons need to be reminded that the approval or legalization of evil is something far different from the toleration of evil... The Church teaches that respect for homosexual persons cannot lead in any way to approval of homosexual behavior or to legal recognition of homosexual unions ." (Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, "Considerations Regarding Proposals to give Legal Recognition to Unions between Homosexual Persons," June 3, 2003) Gloria.tv reported: " Francis made on October 21 his latest declaration in sup...

A Hour which will Live in Infamy: 10:01pm November 3, 2020

10:01pm November 3, 2020, a hour which will live in infamy, the United States of America presidential electoral integrity was suddenly and deliberately attacked by the forces of the Democrat Machine and some corrupt collaborators within the Republican Party. It will be recorded that "under the pretense of COVID, executive branch officials across a number of key battleground states violated election procedures passed by the legislative branches of those states in a number of ways that opened up the process to fraud on a massive scale, never before seen in the history of this country" which makes it obvious that the attack was deliberately planned many days or even weeks before. During the time before and after the attack the Democrat Machine and its corrupt collaborators in the Media have deliberately sought to deceive the United States by false statements and expressions of hope for continued peace.  The attack on United States has caused severe damage to the Ameri...

Could Francis be an Antipope even though the Majority of Cardinals claim he is Pope?

Is it possible for someone to be an antipope even though the majority of cardinals claim he is pope? The case of Antipope Anacletus II proves that it is possible for a majority of cardinals to claim a man is pope while he, in reality, is an antipope. In 1130, a majority of cardinals voted for Cardinal Peter Pierleone to be pope. He called himself Anacletus II. He was proclaimed pope and ruled Rome for eight years by vote and consent of a absolute majority of the cardinals despite the fact he was a antipope. In 1130, just prior to the election of antipope Anacletus, a small minority of cardinals elected the real pope: Pope Innocent II. How is this possible? St. Bernard said "the 'sanior pars' (the wiser portion)... declared in favor of Innocent II. By this he probably meant a majority of the cardinal-bishops." (St. Bernard of Clairvaux by Leon Christiani, Page 72) Again, how is this possible when the absolute majority of cardinals voted for A...