Is it Crystal Clear that if Francis is a Heretic that he cannot be the Pope? & Is Doctor of the Church St. Francis de Sales not a "Sedevacantist"?
799: Francis is a Heretic, Part 2: from ...
Yeah, exactly. And then besides ourselves and Archbishop Vigano another prominent clergyman, Monsignor Nicola Bux gave an interview in October of 2018, in which he said, speaking of the troubles and Francesco’s [Francis's] church, he said it would be easier to examine and study more accurately the question concerning the juridical validity of Pope Benedict XVI’s renunciation. And you know, he is not a light weight. Monsignor Bux has taught at the theological faculty of Puglia. He was ordained 50 years ago. He is a priest of the archdiocese of Bari. He was a consultant to one of the dicasteries of the Holy See. I think it’s for the causes of the saints. - Dr. Edmund Mazza [https://www.thecatholicmonitor.com/2021/10/exclusive-transcription-is-benedict-xvi.html]
St. Robert Bellarmine brings yet more crystal clarity, speaking DIRECTLY to us in this moment: Bergoglio the drooling Freemason heretic is not and never was the Pope
“The power of Peter’s keys does not extend to the point that the Supreme Pontiff can declare ‘not sin’ what is sin, or ‘sin’ that which is not sin. In fact, this would be to call evil good, and good evil, something that always has been and will be very far from the one who is the Head of the Church, the pillar and foundation of truth.”
(see Robert Bellarmine, De Romano Pontifice, lib IV chapter VI) - Ann Barnhardt [https://www.barnhardt.biz/2022/05/13/st-robert-bellarmine-brings-yet-more-crystal-clarity-speaking-directly-to-us-in-this-moment/]
In the case of Amoris laetitia, there are those who have shown that the document is cumbersome and contradictory in many points, and the quotations of St. Thomas are affixed to propositions that support things contrary to his thought. One understands, therefore, what Joseph Ratzinger wrote: “On the contrary, it will be possible and necessary to criticize papal pronouncements, insofar as they lack support in Scripture and in the Creed, in the faith of the universal Church. Where there is neither the unanimity of the universal Church nor a clear testimony of the sources, a binding decision is not possible; if a decision if made formally, the indispensable conditions would be lacking and the problem of its legitimacy should therefore be raised”(Joseph Ratzinger, Faith, Reason, Truth and Love, Lindau, 2009, p. 400).
short, if the Pope does not guard the doctrine, he cannot demand
discipline; if he then should lose the Catholic faith, he would fall
from the Apostolic See. “The power of Peter’s keys does not extend to
the point that the Supreme Pontiff can declare ‘not sin’ what is sin, or
‘sin’ that which is not sin. In fact, this would be to call evil good,
and good evil, something that always has been and will be very far from
the one who is the Head of the Church, the pillar and foundation of
truth” (see Robert Bellarmine, De Romano Pontifice, lib IV chapter VI, page 214, and also Lumen gentium, 25). - Former consulter to the Congregation for the Doctrine the Faith Msgr. Nicola Bux [https://insidethevatican.com/news/newsflash/letter-76-the-brux-interview/]
In 2005, Pope Benedict XVI reiterated Catholic teaching countering Francis and other heretical dissenters moves to give Communion sacrilegiously to adulterous couples:
In a speech to priests of the diocese in which he is vacationing, Pope Benedict XVI reiterated Catholic teaching that members of the flock who have been divorced and remarried are in an irregular situation regarding the sacraments and may not receive Communion.
The Catholic Church still holds that remarriage after divorce, though extremely common, is the moral equivalent of adultery, and so bars a person in such circumstances from receiving Communion...
... “I would say that a particularly painful situation is that of those who were married in the church, but were not really believers and did so just for tradition, and then finding themselves in a new, nonvalid marriage, convert, find the faith and feel excluded from the sacrament,” he said.
Protecting the feelings of people in such situations, however, is not
held as sufficient reason to admit them to Communion. Calling modern
marriage a sacrament that is frequently “celebrated without faith,” the
Pope reiterated that for a priest to give Communion under such
circumstances would only serve to further undermine the integrity of
The following post shows that Francis's teaching on Communion for adulterous couples is heresy and that Doctor of the Church St. Francis de Sales is not a "sedevacantist":
In responding to Donnelly's statement, anti-Open Letter Taylor Marshall,
apparently, is implicitly calling Doctor of the Church St. Francis de
Sales a "sedevacantist":
"I agree w Bishop Schneider. If you condemn Francis as “heretical pope” one must break communion with him. This is why I called the doc “practically sedevacantist”. It’s not formally sede but the natural conclusion is."
Doctor of the Church St. Francis de Sales wrote:
"Thus we do not say that the Pope cannot err in his private opinion, as did John XXIL.; 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 S. Peter did: 'Let another take his bishopric.'"
(The Catholic Controversy by St. Francis de Sales, Pages 305-306)
Marshall appears to be saying by inference that the Doctor of the Church is a "sede" by "natural conclusion" when he wrote:
"[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."
Do Marshall and Schneider think they are greater theologians than St. Francis de Sales?
Do Marshall and Schneider think that the Church can't depose a pope contradicting a Doctor of the Church or possibly that magically the Church doesn't have to "condemn Francis as [a] 'heretical pope'" before it "either deprive him, or, as some say, declare him deprived, of his Apostolic See"?
According to Donnelly, Bishop Athanasius Schneider said "the signatories were wrong to accuse Francis of heresy because he hasn't made a formal, universal declaration of heresy." Marshall agreed with this statement.
Are Schneider and Marshall waiting for "a formal, universal declaration of heresy" such as this:
Not privately, but Francis officially acting as the pope explicitly contradicted traditional Catholic teaching on divorce and remarriage when he in a "official act as the pope" placed the Argentine letter in the the Acts of the Apostolic See (AAS) in which he said of the Buenos Aires region episcopal guidelines:
"There is no other interpretations."
In a article on OnePeterFive, specialist in Magisterial authority Dr. John Joy said "It means that it is an official act of the pope."
Moreover, the article said:
It is not just a private contradiction of traditional Catholic teaching.
"(1) Adulterous sexual acts are in some special circumstances morally permissible... these propositions flatly contradict irreformable Catholic teaching. Proposition (1) contradicts not only the perennial moral teaching of the Church, but the teaching of scripture itself."
How's that for an understatement?
Marshall and Schneider might of heard that God commanded in one of the Ten Commandments:
"Thou shalt not commit adultery."
But, just in case they never heard of the Ten Commandments, Dubia Cardinal Walter Brandmuller said:
"Whoever thinks that persistent adultery and reception of Holy Communion are compatible is a heretic and promotes schism."
(LifeSiteNews, "Dubia Cardinal: Anyone who Opens Communion to Adulterers a Heretic and Promotes Schism," December 23, 2016)
Does this mean because Cardinal Brandmuller said that if a pope "open[ed] Communion to adulterers" he is "a heretic and promotes schism" that according to Marshall by inference he is a "sede" by "natural conclusion"?
"But if we restrict ourselves to uses of the word infallibility itself, (and with direct reference to the pope), one notable historical use comes from a Doctor of the Church, St. Francis de Sales, and his book, The Catholic Controversy, completed in 1596. Note how remarkably it anticipates the later fully developed dogma of papal infallibility, as pronounced at the First Vatican Council in 1870 (274 years before it):
Also, it appears that Schneider and Marshall, although good men, appear cowardly when compared to St. Athanasius.
Athanasius demanded the Arian semi-heretical and heretical Church leaders of his time be deposed unless they repented.
Schneider and Marshall are directly contradicting the traditional teaching of Doctor of the Church St. Francis de Sales in saying the Church can't depose a heretical pope.
And in saying there is no formal Church definition saying the Church can depose a heretical pope so let's sit in our hands they are showing they are very unlike Athanasius.
Again, Athanasius shows Schneider and Marshall to be a bit cowardly as compared to him by his defense of the as yet not formally defined traditional teaching that Jesus is God and demanding a Church formal definition that Jesus is God.
We need to act like Athanasius did, and not act like Schneider and Marshall, in demanding that the traditional teaching that a heretical pope can be deposed be formally defined by the Church.
Sadly, the sincere Schneider and Marshall are apparently like many good men in the Church in our time and I hope they prove me wrong. They speak well of the truths of the Church, but are afraid to act on those truths.
There is only one bishop in our time acting with the bravery of St. Athanasius. That is Bishop Rene Gracida.
All good, but fearful Catholics needs to hear the following:
- Bishop Fulton Sheen:
"Cowards go to Hell. Never forget that. No matter what happens in your life never forget that basic truth."
(CatholicMilitant.com, "Saints and Popes Quotes")
- Pope Pius IX (1792-1878)
"If a future pope teaches anything contrary to the Catholic Faith, do not follow him. (Letter to Bishop Brizen)"
- Francisco Suarez S. J. (1548-1617)
"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; if he attacks by force, by force he can be repelled, with a moderation appropriate to a just defence. (De Fide, Disp. X, Sec. VI, N. 16)"
- St. Robert Bellarmine, S. J. (1542-1621)
"Just as it is lawful to resist the pope that attacks the body, it is also lawful to resist the one who attacks souls or who disturbs civil order, or, above all, who attempts to destroy the Church. I say that it is lawful to resist him by not doing what he orders and preventing his will from being executed. (De Romano Pontifice, Lib. II, Ch. 29)"
Pray an Our Father now for the restoration of the Church.
|Pray an Our Father now for reparation for the sins committed because of Francis's Amoris Laetitia. |