Are Francis & his Collaborator Bishops to be Obeyed if they "Deviated from the Faith" according to Popes, Doctors of the Church & Saints?
"St. Nicholas (aka Santa Claus) is caught mid-mosaic about to slap [punch] Arius in the chops for his 'wicked theology'.'" He "sided with... Saint Athanasius and they condemned Arius as a heretic." [https://uncyclopedia.ca/wiki/Arianism and https://taylormarshall.com/2011/12/saint-nicholas-allegedly-punched-this.html]
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.- Pope Innocent III (1198-1216) in "Si Papa"
In fact, the First Vatican Council did not in any way define that the Pope was an absolute monarch! Au contraire, the first Vatican Council sketched his role as that of a guarantee for the obedience to the Revealed Word. The papal authority is limited by the Holy Tradition of the Faith, and that regards also the Liturgy. - Pope Benedict VXI before becoming pope (Spirit of the Liturgy, 2000 AD)
Remember when Francis, his bishops and media collaborators cry "DISOBEDIENCE" or "SCHISM" it means they are AFRAID!
What are they afraid of?
They are AFRAID that it will finally get through the cowardly and apparently not too bright heads of the few faithful cardinals and bishops that:
Zero valid popes in the history of the Catholic Church have committed the sacrilege of instituting as the Vatican's official teaching that unrepentant adulterous couples can profane the Holy of Holy Jesus Christ who is true God by having unrepentant sinners receive Him in the Most Holy Eucharist.
Nor have any of ALL the valid popes in history even come close to ambiguously teaching such a blasphemy which could be taken in either a orthodox or heretical way (for all the conservative and traditionalist Francis apologists).
Maybe these cowardly and apparently not too bright cardinals and bishops might, finally, realize:
Francis is in "DISOBEDIENCE" and "SCHISM" from ALL valid popes in the history of the Catholic Church.
Maybe they will, finally, join Bishop René Gracida and investigate if the Francis conclave was invalid which even Cardinal Raymond Burke says is a valid possibly or if Pope Benedict XVI's resignation was invalid.
Or, maybe because it is their infallible belief that there can never be a invalid pope or anti-pope then they will do what Doctor of the Church St. Francis de Sales said:
"The Pope... when he is explicitly a heretic... 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)
Here is the answer from a POPE to Francis, his bishops and media collaborators who cry "DISOBEDIENCE" or "SCHISM":
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, said:
John Henry Newman said Athanasius ordained priests against the
authority of the Arian heretical bishops who were validly appointed
In fact, scholar Joseph Bingham on page 98 in "The Antiquities of the Christian Church" said:
"Athanasius... made no scruples to ordain... [Bishop] Euesebius of Samosata... ordained bishops also in Syria and Cilicia."
Moreover, Newman in his "The Development of Christian Doctrine" denied that Bishop Athanasius's "interference" in the dioceses of the heretical Arian bishops was schism:
"If interference is a sin, division which is the cause of it is a greater; but where division is a duty, there can be no sin interference."
(Gutenberg.org, "An Essay on the Development of Christian Doctrine," Sixth Edition)
Was Doctor of the Church St. Athanasius a schismatic?
Moreover, serious scholars are claiming Francis is a material heretic. The 19 Scholar's Open Letter say that Francis is a material heretic which also brings into play the Bellarmine and Francis de Sales option of declaring an explicit heretical pope self-deposed.
Bishop Rene Gracida's Open Letter to the Cardinals analysing and quoting Pope John Paul II's Universi Dominici gregis questions the validity of the Francis conclave calling for an cardinal investigation into the validity of the Francis conclave.
Latin language expert Br. Alexis Bugnolo's in-depth thesis "Munus and Ministerium: A Textual Study of their Usage in the Code of Canon Law of 1983" using exhaustive quotations from canon law showing why canon law explicitly states that ministerium and munus cannot be synonyms that mean the exact same thing or nearly the same thing thus denying the validity of Pope Benedict XVI's resignation.
Also, some are saying Archbishop Jan Lenga who was the Apostlic Administrator of Kazakhstan, and the country of Turkmenistan is in schism for saying Francis is an anti-pope because Pope Benedict XVI's resignation was invalid.
It must be remembered in history that St. Bernard of Clairvaux claimed the supposed
pope in Rome was an anti-pope as Lenga is doing and was declared correct
by an imperfect council which he headed.
Author Msgr. Leon Cristiani wrote:
"King Louis convoked a Council at Etampes, to consider the question of the double pontifical election... Bernard was received at Etampes as God's envoy."
(St. Bernard of Clairvaux, Pages 70-71)
Was Doctor of the Church St. Bernard in schism?
Francis might amend Summorum Pontificum? The future of the TLM is in jeopardy? What if, what if my bishop takes away the Latin Mass for us speaking out too much in the church parking lot?
So be it. As St. Athanasius said, they can take away our churches, but they cannot take away our Faith. And, he said those faithful to Tradition are the true Church.
When they are in material schism from the historic Church, us refusing to be a part of that does not place us in any kind of schism. It would then be better to operate outside the diocesan structure--under those conditions--because that would then be more faithful to the Church. In my opinion.
Those who followed St. Athanasius and his priests outside the city walls to worship in the wilderness, apart from their Arian or Semi-Arian bishops, did so because said bishops were placing their apostolic sees in a crisis of separation from Tradition.
The motu proprio is on its own a good thing. Priests supporting the work of restoring Tradition is a good thing. But if Trads are persecuted in their own local Church, by their own bishop, so be it, that makes them friends of the apostles and prophets who were persecuted...
... I'm not a sedevacantist, so I recognize the local Ordinary here and obey him where he is not leading me into sin, but the man is objectively a modernist. As are almost all bishops today. And Modernism is no better than Arianism...
... So they want to suppress the Traditionalist movement? So be it. That would be nothing new. Yet, Christ will continue to be our consolation, as we are in unity with all the Popes and Bishops of 2000 years, in public opposition to their modernism. [http://okietraditionalist.blogspot.com/2021/06/faithful-catholics-are-in-wilderness.html]
Moreover, the Catholic Apologetic Info website answered the Francis collaborators cry of "DISOBEDIENCE" or "SCHISM":
As the great St. Athanasius put it "Even if Catholics faithful to tradition are reduced to a handful, they are the ones who are the true Church of Jesus Christ.” - Coll. Selecta SS. Eccl. Patrum. Caillu and Guillou, Vol. 32, pp 411-412
As Fr. William Jurgens points out: “At one point in the Church’s history, only a few years before Gregory’s [Nazianz] present preaching (+380 A.D.), perhaps the number of Catholic bishops in possession
of sees, as opposed to Arian bishops in possession of sees, was no greater than something between 1% and 3% of the total. Had doctrine been determined by popularity, today we should all be deniers of Christ and opponents of the Spirit. …In the time of the Emperor Valens (4th century), Basil was virtually the only orthodox Bishop in all the East who succeeded in retaining charge of his see… If it has no other importance for modern man, knowledge of the history of Arianism should demonstrate at least that the Catholic Church takes no account of popularity and numbers in shaping and maintaining doctrine: else, we should long since have had to abandon Basil and Hilary and Athanasius and Liberius and Ossius and call ourselves after Arius.” - William Jurgens, The Faith of the Early Fathers, Collegeville, MN: The Liturgical Press, Vol. 2, p. 39.
Again in dealing with this issue of the Arian crisis, Michael Davies well noted: "During a time of apostasy, those who remain true to the Faith may have to worship outside the official churches, in order not to compromise that Faith... they may have to look for truly Catholic teaching not from the bishops of their country... not even to the Roman Pontiff... but to one heroic confessor whom the other bishops and even the Roman Pontiff may have repudiated or excommunicated."
St. Augustine well noted long ago that "Divine providence often allows even good men to be expelled from the Christian community.... By their patient endurance of such injury and disgrace for the peace of the Church..., they will give man a lesson in true affliction, in the really genuine charity, which God's service calls for. The object of such men is to return when the gale has blown itself out; but if this is not possible because the storm continues, or is more likely to break out more furiously than ever if they go back, they cling to their determination... and are prepared... to defend to the death the faith which they know is preached in the Catholic Church, and to support it by their loyal testimony. The Father sees these men in secret, and rewards them in secret." - De Vera Religione, sec. 6
When a similar problem came about during the Arian heresy, what Cardinal Newman said of it can be justly applied here: : “There was a the temporary suspense of the function of Ecclesia Docens [teaching Church] as about 80 percent of the bishops fell into heresy. The body of bishops failed in their confession of the faith.... The Catholic people, in the length and breadth of Christendom, were the obstinate champions of Catholic truth, and the bishops were not. Of course, there were great and illustrious exceptions; first, Athanasius, Hilary, the Latin Eusebius, and Phoebadius; and after them, Basil, the two Gregories, and Ambrose;... This is a very remarkable fact; but there is a moral in it.
Perhaps it was permitted in order to impress upon the Church at that very time passing out of her state of persecution to her long temporal ascendancy, the greatest evangelical lesson, that, not the wise and powerful, but the obscure, the unlearned, and the weak constitute her (the Church) real strength. It was mainly by the faithful people that Paganism was overthrown; it was by the faithful people, under the lead of Athanasius and the Egyptian bishops, and in some places supported by their Bishops or priests, that the worst of heresies was withstood and stamped out of the sacred territory.”
Even Pope Benedict VXI didn't hesitate this point prior to his taken the papacy; "In fact, the First Vatican Council did not in any way define that the Pope was an absolute monarch! Au contraire, the first Vatican Council sketched his role as that of a guarantee for the obedience to the Revealed Word. The papal authority is limited by the Holy Tradition of the Faith, and that regards also the Liturgy.' - (Spirit of the Liturgy, 2000 AD) .
For this reason the well-known Jesuit theologian Suarez, did not hesitate to affirm :"If [the pope] gives an order contrary to right customs, he should not be obeyed; if he attempts to do something manifestly opposed to justice and the common good, it will be lawful to resist him’ -(De Fide, Disp. X, Sec. VI, N. 16)
Again the Dominican theologian Cajetan points out that;
‘Peter is (must be) subject to the duties of the Office; otherwise, "neither is the Church in him, nor is he in the Church." - (Apud St. Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologica, IIa IIae, Q. 39, Art. 1, ad 6). Elsewhere for the same reason he doesn’t hesitate to affirm that “It is imperative to resist a pope who is openly destroying the Church.” (De Comparata Auctoritate Papae et Concilio)
Fr. Adrian Fortescue sums up this point well saying that ‘ The Pope is not, in the absolute sense, head of the Church; the head of the Church is Jesus Christ our Lord.... The Pope is the vicar of that head, and therefore visible head of the Church on earth, having authority delegate from Christ over the Church on Earth only.... If the Pope is a monarch, he is a very constitutional monarch indeed, bound on all sides by the constitution of the Church, as this has been given to her by Christ." (The Early Papacy to the Synod of Chalcedon in 451, pp. 27-28)
The same objection could be levied against St. John of Ark, and numerous other saints who followed the will of God despite the compounded opposition, even from lawful superiors, who they resisted. Not everything a superior commands is the will God, nor is it to always and in every case to be seen as such. St. Hughes of Grenoble and Guy of Vienne (who later became Pope Calixtus II ) wrote to Pope Pascal II who was wavering concerning "the investitures": "If, what we absolutely do not believe, you would choose another way and would - God forbid - refuse to confirm the decisions of our paternity , you would force us away from obeying you." (Bouix, Tract, de Papa, T. II, p. 650).
Thomas Aquinas deals with this issue when covering the issue of Fraternal Correction and states thus:
"Some say that fraternal correction does not extend to the prelates either because man should not raise his voice against heaven, or because the prelates are easily scandalized if corrected by their subjects. However, this does not happen, since when they sin, the prelates do not represent heaven, and, therefore, must be corrected. And those who correct them charitably do not raise their voices against them, but in their favor, since the admonishment is for their own sake.... For this reason, according to other [authors], the precept of fraternal correction extends also to the prelates, so that they may be corrected by their subjects." (IV Sententiarum, D. 19, Q. 2, A. 2) [http://www.catholicapologetics.info/apologetics/defense/conciliar_religion.htm]
Stop for a moment of silence, ask Jesus Christ what He want you to do now and next. In this silence remember God, Father, Son and Holy Ghost - Three Divine Persons yet One God, has an ordered universe where you can know truth and falsehood as well as never forget that He wants you to have eternal happiness with Him as his son or daughter by grace. Make this a practice. By doing this you are doing more good than reading anything here or anywhere else on the Internet.
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."
- "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.
- 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