- "[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... But he cannot err when he is in cathedra, that is, when he
intends to make an instruction and decree for the guidance of the whole
Church, when he means to confirm his brethren as supreme pastor, and to
conduct them into the pastures of the faith."
(The Catholic Controversy, by St. Francis de Sales, Pages 305-306, 307 and https://wherepeteris.com/st-francis-de-sales-on-the-pope-as-the-guarantor-of-orthodoxy-and-unity-in-the-church/)
- [Francis's] Fratelli
Tutti is a bizarre doc, e.g., "We clearly state" is not a papal
definition. "Tutti", Amoris Laetitia, Abu Dhabi, etc., will be burned by
a future pope/council. I hope Pell's return might put some steel in the
spines of Burke, Schneider, et al. Call an imperfect council! - Steven O'Reilly [https://www.thecatholicmonitor.com/2020/10/bizarre-francis-fratelli-tutti-steven.html and https://twitter.com/S_OReilly_USA]
- Lewis is a Mottramist. He has repeatedly explained that if the current Pope says not-A, while all previous popes have said A, then the current pope is right. And those who say he is wrong are haters. - Fr. VF [https://www.thecatholicmonitor.com/2019/07/vatican-i-expert-fr-rippinger-proximate.html]
This year, Where Peter Is Mike Lewis and his so-called "conservative" Catholic Francis collaborators have continued in their campaign for COVID totalitarian tyranny and in calling Archbishop Carlo Maria Viganò a "dissident cleric" which is an approximate term for a "heretic." [https://wherepeteris.com/catholic-media-and-critical-thinking/]
Might Fratelli Tutti and Amoris Laetitia promoter Lewis be a "dissident" heretic or at least "proximate to heresy"?
Lewis appears to believe that Francis's Amoris Laetitia teaching allowing Communion for adulterers is infallible.
Moreover, Lewis who is a Pachamama worship apologist apparently thinks Francis
cannot fall into heresy because he is definitely the pope and "ALL" his
"statements... are infallible."
Here is what Vatican I expert Fr. Chad Ripperger, PhD, in his book
"Magisterial Authority" says to Lewis who it appears is "proximate to
heresy":
"[T]reat[ing] ALL papal statements as if they are infallible... is
proximate to heresy because it rejects the precise formulation of the
conditions of infallibility as laid out in by Vatican I... by
essentially saying that the pope is infallible regardless of
conditions."
"... Worse still, those who were to follow a pope who was in error in a
non-infallible teaching which is taught contrary to something that is
infallible is not, therefore, excused."
(Magisterial Authority, Pages 5-14)
Is it possible that so-called "conservative" Catholic Francis collaborators could be a heretics and "not, therefore, excused"?
Next question, can popes be heretics?
Here is a short summary of the question from Catholic scholar Michael Davies:
The problem which would face the Church if a legitimately reigning pope became an heretic has been discussed in numerous standard works of reference. The solution is provided in the 1913 edition of The Catholic Encyclopedia: "The Pope himself, if notoriously guilty of heresy, would cease to be pope because he would cease to be a member of the Church."(2) Many theologians have discussed the possibility of a pope falling into heresy, and the consensus of their opinion concurs with that of The Catholic Encyclopedia. The Pope must evidently be a Catholic, and if he ceased to be a Catholic he could hardly remain the Vicar of Christ, the head of the Mystical Body. St. Robert Bellarmine taught: "The manifestly heretical pope ceases per se to be pope and head as he ceases per se to be a Christian and member of the Church, and therefore he can be judged and punished by the Church. This is the teaching of all the early Fathers."(3) Saint Robert was, of course, discussing a theoretical possibility, and believed that a pope could not become an heretic and thus could not be deposed, but he also acknowledged that the more common opinion was that the pope could become an heretic, and he was thus willing to discuss what would need to be done if, per impossible, this should happen: "This opinion (that the Pope could not become an heretic) is probable and easily defended . . . Nonetheless, in view of the fact that this is not certain, and that the common opinion is the opposite one, it is useful to examine the solution to this question, within the hypothesis that the Pope can be an heretic."(4)
The great Jesuit theologian, Francisco de Suarez (1548-1617) was also sure that God’s "sweet providence" would never allow the one who could not teach error to fall into error, and that this was guaranteed by the promise Ego autem rogavi pro te . . . (Luke 22: 32). But, like Bellarmine, Suarez was willing to consider the possibility of an heretical pope as an hypothesis, particularly in view of the fact, he claimed, that several "general councils had admitted the hypothesis in question".(5) Saint Alphonsus Liguori (1696-1787) did not believe that God would ever permit a Roman Pontiff to become a public or an occult heretic, even as a private person: "We ought rightly to presume as Cardinal Bellarmine declares, that God will never let it happen that a Roman Pontiff, even as a private person, becomes a public heretic or an occult heretic."(6)
If, per impossible, a pope became a formal heretic through pertinaciously denying a de fide doctrine, how would the faithful know that he had forfeited his office as he had ceased to be a Catholic? It must be remembered that no one in the Church, including a General Council, has the authority to judge the Popes. Reputable authorities teach that if a pope did pertinaciously deny a truth which must be believed by divine and Catholic faith, after this had been brought to his attention by responsible members of the hierarchy (just as St. Paul reproved St. Peter to his face), a General Council could announce to the Church that the Pope, as a notorious heretic, had ceased to be a Catholic and hence had ceased to be Pope. It is important to note that the Council would neither be judging nor deposing the Pope, since it would not possess the authority for such an act. It would simply be making a declaratory sentence, i.e. declaring to the Church what had already become manifest from the Pope’s own actions. This is the view taken in the classic manual on Canon Law by Father F.X. Wernz, Rector of the Gregorian University and Jesuit General from 1906 to 1914. This work was revised by Father P. Vidal and was last republished in 1952. It states clearly that an heretical Pope is not deposed in virtue of the sentence of the Council, but "the General Council declares the fact of the crime by which the heretical pope has separated himself from the Church and deprived himself of his dignity."(7) Other authorities believe that such a declaration could come from the College of Cardinals or from a representative group of bishop, while others maintain that such a declaration would not be necessary. What all those who accept the hypothesis of an heretical pope are agreed upon is that for such a pope to forfeit the papacy his heresy would have to be "manifest", as Saint Robert Bellarmine expressed it, that is notorious and public (notorium et palam divulgata).(8) A notorious offence can be defined as one for which the evidence is so certain that it can in no way be either hidden or excused.(9) A pope who, while not being guilty of formal heresy in the strict sense, has allowed heresy to undermine the Church through compromise, weakness, ambiguous or even gravely imprudent teaching remains Pope, but can be judged by his successors, and condemned as was the case with Honorius I. [https://www.olrl.org/misc/sedevacant_md.shtml]
Now, a longer summary:Here is the answer from a POPE to so-called "conservative" Catholic Francis collaborators and all the Francis apologists who claim that a heretical pope can't be judged by the Church:
Pope Innocent III (1198-1216) in "Si Papa":
"'Let no mortal being have the audacity to reprimand a Pope on account
of faults, for he whose duty it is to judge all men cannot be judged by
anybody, unless he should be called to the task of having deviated from
the faith. (Si Papa)'"
"Pope Innocent III: 'For me the faith is so necessary that, whereas for
other sins my only judge is God, for the slightest sin in the matter of
the faith I could be judged by the Church.' (propter solum peccatum quod
in fide commititur possem ab Ecclesia judican)"
(The Remnant, "Answering a Sedevacantist Critic," March 18, 2015)
Moreover, the important theologian Dominique Bouix in, Tractatus de papa, ubi et de concilio oecumenico, vol. II , pars IIIa, cap. iii, p. 653ff, responded to the so-called "conservative" Catholic Francis collaborators' opinion:
The second part, in which we hold that those excommunicated by perfect excommunication, which the Supreme Pontiff can determine, are separated from the body of the Church, is taught as Catholic doctrine by Pius XII in the encyclical Mystici corporis: AAS 35 (1943) 202ff.
1057. This whole thesis of ours is clearly taught by Pius XII and the Catechism of the Council of Trent.[16]
Pius XII writes: “But in truth, only those are to be numbered amongst the members of the Church who have received the laver of regeneration and profess the true faith, who have not miserably separated themselves from the community of the Church or through most grave crimes been separated by the legitimate authority…For this reason, those who are divided from one another in faith or government are unable to live in the one Body of this sort and in its divine Spirit…Nor should it be thought that the Body of the Church, because it is insigned with the name of Christ, consists, even in this time of terrestrial pilgrimage, only of members outstanding in sanctity, or that it is constituted only of the company of those who are predestined by God to sempiternal felicity…Indeed not every crime, even if a grave wickedness, is of such kind that of its very nature it separates man from the Body of the Church—as do schism, heresy, or apostasy.”
In the Catechism of the Council of Trent we read:
“Only three sorts of men are excluded from the Church: firstly, infidels, then heretics and schismatics, and finally excommunicates: pagans indeed, because they have never been in the Church, nor ever known it, nor been made partakers of any Sacrament in the society of the Christian people; heretics and schismatics, because they have revolted from the Church, for they no more pertain to the Church, than do deserters to the army from which they have defected: yet it must not be denied that they are in the power of the Church, as ones who may be called to judgment by her, punished, and condemned by anathema. Finally also excommunicates, because by the judgment of the Church have they been excluded from her, and do not belong to her communion until they come to their senses. But concerning other men, though they be wicked and criminal, it is not to be doubted that they yet persevere in the Church.”
1058. Dogmatic value. The first part, concerning heretics, apostates, and schismatics, is implicitly defined, particularly in the Council of Florence: D 714. The second part, on excommunicates by perfect excommunication, is Catholic doctrine, especially from the words of the encyclical of Pius XII, Mystici corporis Christi, recently cited by us above.
1059. The first part is proved. Heretics, apostates, and schismatics are not members of the Church...
1060. The same doctrine is confirmed by the authority of testimonies of the holy Fathers.
a) On heretics. Tertullian: “If they are heretics, they cannot be
Christians” (R 298). St. Hilary: “I am a Catholic; I do not wish to be a
heretic. I am a Christian, not an Arian.” St. Jerome: “Heretics pass
judgment upon themselves, receding from the Church of their own will.”
St. Augustine: “Sever yourselves from the members of the Church, sever
yourselves from its Body. But what still might I say, in order that they
might segregate themselves from the Church, since they have already
done this? For they are heretics; they are already without.” The
controversy on the rebaptizing of heretics, which was agitated thence
from the middle of the third century, supposed as recognized by all that
heretics are outside of the Church.[17]
b) On schismatics. Cyprian: “But what pertains to the person of
Novatian…you know that we in the first place ought not to be inquisitive
of what he taught, since he taught from without. Whosoever he is and of
whatever condition, he is not a Christian who is not in the Church of
Christ…he who neither held fast to fraternal charity nor ecclesiastical
unity, has lost even that which he was previously.” St. Jerome: “Between
heresy and schism, we think there to be this difference, that heresy
imports perverse dogma; schism, on account of episcopal dissension,
separates from the Church…moreover, no schism does not fabricate for
itself a heresy, so that it might seem to have receded from the Church
rightly.” St. Augustine: “Heretics and schismatics call their
congregations churches. But heretics, thinking falsely about God,
violate the faith itself; but schismatics burst free of fraternal
charity through hostile divisions, although they believe those things
which we believe. For this reason, heretics do not belong to the
Catholic Church, because she loves God, nor schismatics, because she
loves the neighbor” (R 1562). St. Fulgentius: “Most firmly hold and
doubt not at all, that every one baptized outside of the Catholic Church
is unable to become a partaker of eternal life, if before the end of
this life he has not returned and been incorporated to the Catholic
Church. Most steadily and in no way doubt, that not only all pagans, but
also all Jews and all heretics and schismatics, who finish this present
life outside of the Catholic Church, are to enter into the eternal
fire” (R 2274-5). Pelagius I: “Pollute not a mind ever Catholic by any
communion of schismatics. It is clear that the Body of Christ is one,
the Church is one…our Savior taught: a vine separated from the grapevine
cannot be good for anything, but fire for burning…Do not think that
they either are or can be called the Church. And indeed since, as we
have said, the Church is one…it is clear that there is no other but that
which is founded in the apostolic root.”[18]
[https://lumenscholasticum.wordpress.com/2016/12/05/fr-salaverri-on-whether-heretics-apostates-schismatics-and-excommunicates-are-members-of-the-church/]
Lastly, 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 Ratzinger (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 support of [immoral] homosex civil unions, admitting that he has always stood up for them. This is true." [https://www.gloria.tv/post/J4jp2BJtWgpv3s8DiS2ThH2dk]
If Francis is a heretic, what should canonically happen to him?
If it is true that Francis is an explicit heretic then the teaching of St. Francis de Sales comes into play.
Doctor
of the Church St. Francis de Sales totally confirmed beyond any doubt
the possibility of a heretical pope and what must be done by the Church
in such a situation:
"[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)
Saint Robert Bellarmine, also, said "the Pope heretic is not deposed ipso facto, but must be declared deposed by the Church."
[https://archive.org/stream/SilveiraImplicationsOfNewMissaeAndHereticPopes/Silveira%20Implications%20of%20New%20Missae%20and%20Heretic%20Popes_djvu.txt]
The renowned scholar Arnaldo Xavier de Silveira
who was one of the top experts in modern times of the subjects of papal
validity and heretical popes gave a brief overview of his authority on
this matters:
"In the 1970 Brazilian edition of my study of the heretical Pope, in the French edition of 1975 and in the Italian in 2016, I stated that on the grounds of the intrinsic theological reasons underpinning the Fifth Opinion I considered it not merely probable but certain. I chose not to insist on the qualification 'theologically certain' for an extrinsic reason, namely, that certain authors of weight do not adopt it.43 This was also the opinion of the then Bishop of Campos, Bishop Antonio de Castro Mayer, as expressed in a letter of 25th January 1974, when he sent my work to Paul VI, asking him to point out any possible errors (which never took place), expressly stating that he referred to the study 'written by lawyer Arnaldo Vidigal Xavier da Silveira, with the contents of which I associate myself .'”
[https://www.scribd.com/document/374434852/Arnaldo-Vidigal-Xavier-Da-Silveira-Replies-to-Fr-Gleize-on-Heretical-Pope]
Here is what de Silveira says in his book "Implications Of New Missae And Heretic Popes (Page 176)" on the subject of heretical popes:
"Conclusion
"Resuming: We believe that a careful examination of the question of a Pope heretic, with the
theological elements of which we dispose today, permits one to
conclude that an eventual Pope heretic would lose his charge in the
moment in which his heresy became 'notorious and publicly divulged'."
"And we think that this sentence is not only intrinsically probable , but certain , since the reasons
allegeable in its defense appear to us as absolutely cogent. Besides, in the works which we have
consulted, we have not found any argument which persuaded us of the opposite. "
"(1 ) The second opinion referred by Saint Robert Bellarmine - See pp. 1 56 ft.
(2) The first subdivision proposed by us to the fifth opinion referred by Saint Robert Bellarmine - See p. 170.
(3) The second subdivision which we proposed to the fifth opinion - See p. 170.
(4) The third subdivision which we proposed on the fifth opinion. - See p. 1 70.
(5) The fourth opinion referred by Saint Robert Bellarmine . - See pp. 161 ff.
(6) We transcribe that long argumentation on pp. 1 64 ff. - See also note 2 of p. 1 64.
(7)
One ought not to see shades of conciliarism in the principle that
ecclesiastical organisms, as the Council, can omit a pronouncement
declaring the eventual cessation of functions of a Pope heretic, as long
as these organisms do not claim for themselves any right other than
that enjoyed by any one of the faithful. For motives of mere convenience
or courtesy, it could behoove these organisms to make such a
declaration, in the first place; but this priority would not constitute
for them a right of their own, or even less exclusive."[https://archive.org/stream/SilveiraImplicationsOfNewMissaeAndHereticPopes/Silveira%20Implications%20of%20New%20Missae%20and%20Heretic%20Popes_djvu.txt]
Dr.
John R. T. Lamont, philosopher and theologian, explains the procedures
of how Francis's papacy could cease if he is declared a heretical pope
by the Church:
"Some... argue that the dubia and other criticisms of Amoris Laetitia
that have been made already suffice as warnings to Pope Francis, and
hence that he can now be judged to be guilty of the canonical crime of
heresy..."
But
for juridical purposes – especially for the very serious purpose of
judging a Pope to be a heretic – they do not suffice. The evidence
needed for a juridical judgment of such gravity has to take a form that
is entirely clear and beyond dispute. A formal warning from a number of
members of the College of Cardinals that is then disregarded by the Pope
would constitute such evidence."
"The possibility of a Pope being canonically guilty of heresy has long been admitted in the Church. It is acknowledged in the Decretals of Gratian There
is no dispute among Catholic theologians on this point – even among
theologians like Bellarmine who do not think that a Pope is in fact
capable of being a heretic..."
"It
is to be hoped that the correction of Pope Francis does not have to
proceed this far, and that he will either reject the heresies he has
announced or resign his office..."
"Removing
him from office against his will would require the election of a new
Pope, and would probably leave the Church with Francis as an anti-Pope
contesting the authority of the new Pope. If Francis refuses to renounce
either his heresy or his office, however, this situation will just have
to be faced."
To read the whole article click below:
[http://rorate-caeli.blogspot.com/2016/12/article-considerations-on-dubia-of-four.html?m=1]
Finally, unambiguously, Cardinal Burke, in an interview with the World Catholic Report, said that if a pope "formally profess heresy... he would cease...to be the Pope":
Cardinal Burke: If a Pope would formally profess heresy he would cease, by that act, to be the Pope. It’s automatic. And so, that could happen.
CWR: That could happen.
Cardinal Burke: Yes.
CWR: That’s a scary thought.
Cardinal Burke: It is a scary thought, and I hope we won’t be witnessing that at any time soon.
CWR: In hindsight, with all of the controversy that has surrounded this, should you have kept these concerns to yourself and just waited for His Holiness to answer your dubia?
Cardinal Burke: No, not at all, because the faithful and priests and bishops have the right to have these questions answered. It was our duty as cardinals, when the Pope made it clear that he would not respond to them, to make them public so that the priests and the lay faithful who had these same doubts might know that their doubts are legitimate and that they deserve a response.
CWR: Some consider you to be an enemy of Pope Francis. How do you see yourself in relation to him?
Cardinal Burke: I am a Cardinal of the Church, and one of the Pope’s principal co-workers. I have absolute respect for the Petrine office. If I didn’t care about him and his exercise of the Petrine office, I would just remain silent and let everything go as it is. But because in conscience I believe he has an obligation to clarify these matters for the Church, I made it known to him, not just on this occasion, but on other occasions. The publication of the dubia was done with complete respect for his office. I am not the enemy of the Pope.
CWR: Back to this question about the Pope committing heresy. What happens then, if the Pope commits heresy and is no longer Pope? Is there a new conclave? Who’s in charge of the Church? Or do we just not even want to go there to start figuring that stuff out?
Cardinal Burke: There is already in place the discipline to be followed when the Pope ceases from his office, even as happened when Pope Benedict XVI abdicated his office. The Church continued to be governed in the interim between the effective date of his abdication and the inauguration of the papal ministry of Pope Francis.
CWR: Who is competent to declare him to be in heresy?
Cardinal Burke: It would have to be members of the College of Cardinals.[https://www.catholicworldreport.com/2016/12/19/cardinal-burke-no-i-am-not-saying-that-pope-francis-is-in-heresy/]
Francis Notes:
- Doctor
of the Church St. Francis de Sales totally confirmed beyond any doubt
the possibility of a heretical pope and what must be done by the Church
in such a situation:
"[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)
Saint Robert Bellarmine, also, said "the Pope heretic is not deposed ipso facto, but must be declared deposed by the Church."
[https://archive.org/stream/SilveiraImplicationsOfNewMissaeAndHereticPopes/Silveira%20Implications%20of%20New%20Missae%20and%20Heretic%20Popes_djvu.txt]
- "If Francis is a Heretic, What should Canonically happen to him?": http://www.thecatholicmonitor.com/2020/12/if-francis-is-heretic-what-should.html
- "Could Francis be a Antipope even though the Majority of Cardinals claim he is Pope?": http://www.thecatholicmonitor.com/2019/03/could-francis-be-antipope-even-though.html
- LifeSiteNews, "Confusion explodes as Pope Francis throws magisterial
weight behind communion for adulterers," December 4, 2017:
The AAS guidelines explicitly allows "sexually active adulterous couples
facing 'complex circumstances' to 'access the sacraments of
Reconciliation and the Eucharist.'"
- On February 2018, in Rorate Caeli, Catholic theologian Dr. John Lamont:
"The AAS statement... establishes that Pope Francis in Amoris Laetitia
has affirmed propositions that are heretical in the strict sense."
- On December 2, 2017, Bishop Rene Gracida:
"Francis' heterodoxy is now official. He has published his letter to the
Argentina bishops in Acta Apostlica Series making those letters
magisterial documents."
Pray an Our Father now for the restoration of the Church by the bishops by the grace of God.
Election Notes:
- Intel Cryptanalyst-Mathematician on Biden Steal: "212Million Registered Voters & 66.2% Voting,140.344 M Voted...Trump got 74 M, that leaves only 66.344 M for Biden" [http://catholicmonitor.blogspot.com/2020/12/intel-cryptanalyst-mathematician-on.html?m=1]
- Will US be Venezuela?: Ex-CIA Official told Epoch Times "Chávez started to Focus on [Smartmatic] Voting Machines to Ensure Victory as early as 2003": http://catholicmonitor.blogspot.com/2020/12/will-us-be-venezuela-ex-cia-official.html
http://www.thecatholicmonitor.com/2021/01/a-hour-which-will-live-in-infamy-1001pm.html?m=1
http://catholicmonitor.blogspot.com/2021/01/epoch-times-show-crossroads-on-capital.html?m=1]