The “Recognize and Resist” crowd—which includes Burke, the SSPX,
Kwasniewski, 1P5, The Remnant, Catholic Family News, Lifesite, The
Fatima Center…—is busily redefining the papacy. They absolutely refuse
to acknowledge that, as a pertinacious and manifest heretic, Francis
cannot possibly be an actual pope since actual popes must be actually
Catholic.
Further, they refuse to see that it takes no legal
authority whatsoever to recognize this factual reality, any more than
one must be a coroner to recognize a dead body. The coroner merely has
the authority to later officially pronounce the body dead. But the body
was already factually dead, though not yet legally dead. Further, one
need not like the fact that the body is dead; yet it remains dead,
regardless of any legal declaration and regardless of one’s feelings.
For more on “R & R” madness, see these posts on the superb Novus Ordo Watch site:
“Rethinking” the Papacy? A New Narrative for the Semi-Trads
No Jekyll-and-Hyde Magisterium: Against the Theological Sophistry of Peter Kwasniewski
Anything but Sedevacantism! Analysis of a curious Phenomenon
Also see the following, and more, on my Jeremiah Alphonsus channel on Youtube:
The Mad Absurdity of the “Recognize & Resist” Position
A Catholic Monitor Comment Section discussion on Sedevacantism: "A False Solution to a Real Problem":
Fred Martinez said… Debbie said... I don't see how all the post conciliar popes are not heretics.
Debbie,
That was me (Fred) who posted the above
I know you and I don't like Ferrara, but nor does Woods who co-authored the book and I still say:
"The
Great Facade" is still where I think you should start on your question
above and other questions with pages 12n, 39, 57, 58, etc.
Page
59 says sedes and neo-conservatives embrace the "same error.The
Magisterium embraces whatever the Pope says." Unlike Francis the other
Vatican II popes didn't do:
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.'"
Also, "the Church MUST either
deprive him, or, as some say, declare him deprived, of his Apostolic
See." or we become Protestant-like:
"[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)
- 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."
I, too, have a good friend who is a Sede, but I won't join him,for the above reasons , others and the infallible Vatican I:
Are you prepared to deny Vatican I?
Vatican I clearly teaches that popes will reign perpetually:
"[T]he
true doctrine concerning the establishment, the perpetuity, and the
nature of the apostolic primacy. In this primacy, all the efficacy and
all the strength of the Church are placed. (Vatican I, Pastor Aeternus,
chapter 1)" (UnamSanctumCatholicm.com, "False Principles of Sedevantism
(Part 1)).
I hope that is helpful. 7:53 PM Fred Martinez said… There are no more cardinals alive who were made so by Pope Pius XII which means no more popes will reign perpetually.
9:56 AM
Anonymous said...
You don't need Cardinals to elect a Pope in an extreme situation...Bishops, archbishops could..
The renowned Catholic historian Carroll explicitly wrote:
"Papal
election procedures are governed by the prescription of the last Pope
who provided for them (that is, any Pope can change them, but they
remain in effect until they are changed by a duly elected Pope)."
"During
the first thousand years of the history of the Papacy the electors were
the clergy of Rome (priests and deacons); during the second thousand
years we have had the College of Cardinals."
"But each Pope,
having unlimited sovereign power as head of the Church, can prescribe
any method for the election of his successor(s) that he chooses. These
methods must then be followed in the next election after the death of
the Pope who prescribed it, and thereafter until they are changed. A
Papal claimant not following these methods is also an Antipope."
Nothing is true belief if it is not an infallible definition.
Encyclicals,
apostolic exhortations, synod documents council documents, apostolic
constitutions - nothing - nothing at all is necessarily true becuase
they are not infallible defined.
Bergoglio has never spoked to make a single ex cathedra defintion - so you can disagree with anything.
"The Great Facade" is still where I think you should start on
your question above and other questions with pages 12n, 39, 57, 58, etc.
Page
59 says sedes and neo-conservatives embrace the "same error.The
Magisterium embraces whatever the Pope says." Unlike Francis the other
Vatican II popes didn't do:
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.'"
Also, "the Church MUST either
deprive him, or, as some say, declare him deprived, of his Apostolic
See." or we become Protestant-like:
"[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)
"Hopefully
this will finally lay to rest the false notions that 1) a pope cannot
be a heretic, 2) a layperson commits sin in calling a pope a heretic, 3)
popes are always owed obedience and cannot ever be criticized, and 4)
anyone critical of a pope is guilty of "attack," "hatred," etc., or is
liable to damnation":
More official Church teaching:
It shall be lawful for each and all of the cardinals,...as well as
for all the clergy and the Roman people,... to withdraw without penalty
and at any time from obedience and loyalty to the person so elected even
if he has been enthroned (while they themselves, notwithstanding this,
remain fully committed to the faith of the Roman church and to obedience
towards a future Roman pontiff entering office in accordance with the
canons) and to avoid him as a magician, a heathen, a publican and a
heresiarch." Pope Julius II, Council of Lateran V. 1513
"Now when [the Pope] 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." St. Francis de Sales, "The Catholic Controversy"
"...a pope who is a manifest heretic by that fact ceases to be pope
and head, just as he by that fact ceases to be a Christian and a member
of the body of the Church; wherefore he can be judged and punished by
the Church. This is the judgment of all the early fathers, who teach
that manifest heretics immediately lose all jurisdiction." St. Robert Bellarmine, "On the Roman Pontiff"
"If God permitted a pope to be notoriously heretical and
contumacious, he would then cease to be pope, and the Apostolic Chair
would be vacant." St. Alphonsus de Liguori, "The Truths of the Faith"
"An heretical pope necessarily ceases to be head of the Church, for
by his heresy he is no longer a member thereof: in the event of his
still claiming the Roman see a general council, improperly so-called
because without the pope, could remove him. But this is not deposition,
since by his own act he is no longer pope." A Catholic Dictionary, 1951. Deposition
"The councils of Constance and Basle, and Gallican theologians, hold
that a council may depose a pope...(2) /ob fidem/ (on account of his
faith or rather want of faith, i.e. heresy). In point of fact however,
heresy is the only legitimate ground. For a heretical pope has ceased to
be a member of the Church, and cannot, therefore, be its head." Catholic Encyclopedia, 1913. [Vol. IV p.435] Councils
In addition, [by this Our Constitution, which is to remain valid in
perpetuity We enact, determine, decree and define] that if ever at any
time it shall appear that any Bishop, even if he be acting as an
Archbishop, Patriarch or Primate; or any Cardinal of the aforesaid Roman
Church, or, as has already been mentioned, any legate, or even the
Roman Pontiff, prior to his promotion or his elevation as Cardinal or
Roman Pontiff, has deviated from the Catholic Faith or fallen into some
heresy: (i) the promotion or elevation, even if it shall have been
uncontested and by the unanimous assent of all the Cardinals, shall be
null, void and worthless... "Cum ex Apostolatus Officio" Apostolic
Constitution of Pope Paul IV, 1559
Hopefully this will finally
lay to rest the false notions that 1) a pope cannot be a heretic, 2) a
layperson commits sin in calling a pope a heretic, 3) popes are always
owed obedience and cannot ever be criticized, and 4) anyone critical of a
pope is guilty of "attack," "hatred," etc., or is liable to damnation.
There
is a difference between "material" heresy and "formal" heresy. A Pope
can be a "material" heretic -- i.e. he can actually hold personal
heretical views (as did John XXII) since a Pope is only infallible when
making Ex Cathedra statements to the Universal Church on matters of
faith and morals.
HOWEVER, a Pope cannot be considered a formal
heretic until/unless a duly formed juridical body within the Church
examines his alleged "heresies" and requests a retraction or repudiation
of any of his positions which are actually found to be contrary to
Church doctrine, and only -- if then -- such a Pope refuses to repudiate
and/or correct his personally held beliefs.
If such a Pope were to recant his errors and repent of them in such a circumstance, he is not a formal heretic.
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."
Pray an Our Father now for reparation for the sins committed because of Francis's Amoris Laetitia.
The “Recognize and Resist” crowd—which includes Burke, the SSPX, Kwasniewski, 1P5, The Remnant, Catholic Family News, Lifesite, The Fatima Center…—is busily redefining the papacy. They absolutely refuse to acknowledge that, as a pertinacious and manifest heretic, Francis cannot possibly be an actual pope since actual popes must be actually Catholic.
Further, they refuse to see that it takes no legal authority whatsoever to recognize this factual reality, any more than one must be a coroner to recognize a dead body. The coroner merely has the authority to later officially pronounce the body dead. But the body was already factually dead, though not yet legally dead. Further, one need not like the fact that the body is dead; yet it remains dead, regardless of any legal declaration and regardless of one’s feelings.
For more on “R & R” madness, see these posts on the superb Novus Ordo Watch site:
“Rethinking” the Papacy? A New Narrative for the Semi-Trads
No Jekyll-and-Hyde Magisterium: Against the Theological Sophistry of Peter Kwasniewski
Anything but Sedevacantism! Analysis of a curious Phenomenon
Also see the following, and more, on my Jeremiah Alphonsus channel on Youtube:
The Mad Absurdity of the “Recognize & Resist” Position
9:31 AM
Jeremiah Alphonsus on Youtube said...Anything but Sedevacantism! Analysis of a curious Phenomenon
https://www.thecatholicmonitor.com/2022/06/a-catholic-monitor-comment-section.html
A Catholic Monitor Comment Section discussion on Sedevacantism: "A False Solution to a Real Problem":
Fred Martinez said…
Debbie said... I don't see how all the post conciliar popes are not heretics.
Debbie,
That was me (Fred) who posted the above
I know you and I don't like Ferrara, but nor does Woods who co-authored the book and I still say:
"The Great Facade" is still where I think you should start on your question above and other questions with pages 12n, 39, 57, 58, etc.
Page 59 says sedes and neo-conservatives embrace the "same error.The Magisterium embraces whatever the Pope says." Unlike Francis the other Vatican II popes didn't do:
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.'"
Also, "the Church MUST either deprive him, or, as some say, declare him deprived, of his Apostolic See." or we become Protestant-like:
"[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)
- 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."
I, too, have a good friend who is a Sede, but I won't join him,for the above reasons , others and the infallible Vatican I:
Are you prepared to deny Vatican I?
Vatican I clearly teaches that popes will reign perpetually:
"[T]he true doctrine concerning the establishment, the perpetuity, and the nature of the apostolic primacy. In this primacy, all the efficacy and all the strength of the Church are placed. (Vatican I, Pastor Aeternus, chapter 1)" (UnamSanctumCatholicm.com, "False Principles of Sedevantism (Part 1)).
I hope that is helpful.
7:53 PM
Fred Martinez said…
There are no more cardinals alive who were made so by Pope Pius XII which means no more popes will reign perpetually.
9:56 AM
You don't need Cardinals to elect a Pope in an extreme situation...Bishops, archbishops could..
10:02 AM
The renowned Catholic historian Carroll explicitly wrote:
"Papal election procedures are governed by the prescription of the last Pope who provided for them (that is, any Pope can change them, but they remain in effect until they are changed by a duly elected Pope)."
"During the first thousand years of the history of the Papacy the electors were the clergy of Rome (priests and deacons); during the second thousand years we have had the College of Cardinals."
"But each Pope, having unlimited sovereign power as head of the Church, can prescribe any method for the election of his successor(s) that he chooses. These methods must then be followed in the next election after the death of the Pope who prescribed it, and thereafter until they are changed. A Papal claimant not following these methods is also an Antipope."
[http://www.ewtn.com/library/homelibr/antipope.txt]
10:12 AM
Nothing is true belief if it is not an infallible definition.
Encyclicals, apostolic exhortations, synod documents council documents, apostolic constitutions - nothing - nothing at all is necessarily true becuase they are not infallible defined.
Bergoglio has never spoked to make a single ex cathedra defintion - so you can disagree with anything.
2:37 AM
"The Great Facade" is still where I think you should start on your question above and other questions with pages 12n, 39, 57, 58, etc.
Page 59 says sedes and neo-conservatives embrace the "same error.The Magisterium embraces whatever the Pope says." Unlike Francis the other Vatican II popes didn't do:
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.'"
Also, "the Church MUST either deprive him, or, as some say, declare him deprived, of his Apostolic See." or we become Protestant-like:
"[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)
7:28 AM
https://motheofgod.com/threads/can-a-pope-be-a-heretic-and-can-a-good-catholic-say-so.9461/page-3#post-139764
"Hopefully this will finally lay to rest the false notions that 1) a pope cannot be a heretic, 2) a layperson commits sin in calling a pope a heretic, 3) popes are always owed obedience and cannot ever be criticized, and 4) anyone critical of a pope is guilty of "attack," "hatred," etc., or is liable to damnation":
More official Church teaching:
It shall be lawful for each and all of the cardinals,...as well as for all the clergy and the Roman people,... to withdraw without penalty and at any time from obedience and loyalty to the person so elected even if he has been enthroned (while they themselves, notwithstanding this, remain fully committed to the faith of the Roman church and to obedience towards a future Roman pontiff entering office in accordance with the canons) and to avoid him as a magician, a heathen, a publican and a heresiarch."
Pope Julius II, Council of Lateran V. 1513
"Now when [the Pope] 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."
St. Francis de Sales, "The Catholic Controversy"
"...a pope who is a manifest heretic by that fact ceases to be pope and head, just as he by that fact ceases to be a Christian and a member of the body of the Church; wherefore he can be judged and punished by the Church. This is the judgment of all the early fathers, who teach that manifest heretics immediately lose all jurisdiction."
St. Robert Bellarmine, "On the Roman Pontiff"
"If God permitted a pope to be notoriously heretical and contumacious, he would then cease to be pope, and the Apostolic Chair would be vacant."
St. Alphonsus de Liguori, "The Truths of the Faith"
"An heretical pope necessarily ceases to be head of the Church, for by his heresy he is no longer a member thereof: in the event of his still claiming the Roman see a general council, improperly so-called because without the pope, could remove him. But this is not deposition, since by his own act he is no longer pope."
A Catholic Dictionary, 1951. Deposition
"The councils of Constance and Basle, and Gallican theologians, hold that a council may depose a pope...(2) /ob fidem/ (on account of his faith or rather want of faith, i.e. heresy). In point of fact however, heresy is the only legitimate ground. For a heretical pope has ceased to be a member of the Church, and cannot, therefore, be its head."
Catholic Encyclopedia, 1913. [Vol. IV p.435] Councils
In addition, [by this Our Constitution, which is to remain valid in perpetuity We enact, determine, decree and define] that if ever at any time it shall appear that any Bishop, even if he be acting as an Archbishop, Patriarch or Primate; or any Cardinal of the aforesaid Roman Church, or, as has already been mentioned, any legate, or even the Roman Pontiff, prior to his promotion or his elevation as Cardinal or Roman Pontiff, has deviated from the Catholic Faith or fallen into some heresy: (i) the promotion or elevation, even if it shall have been uncontested and by the unanimous assent of all the Cardinals, shall be null, void and worthless... "Cum ex Apostolatus Officio" Apostolic Constitution of Pope Paul IV, 1559
Hopefully this will finally lay to rest the false notions that 1) a pope cannot be a heretic, 2) a layperson commits sin in calling a pope a heretic, 3) popes are always owed obedience and cannot ever be criticized, and 4) anyone critical of a pope is guilty of "attack," "hatred," etc., or is liable to damnation.
11:58 AM
https://gloria.tv/post/ccfWZin62bJ13DBwFas3Gwojt/replies
There is a difference between "material" heresy and "formal" heresy. A Pope can be a "material" heretic -- i.e. he can actually hold personal heretical views (as did John XXII) since a Pope is only infallible when making Ex Cathedra statements to the Universal Church on matters of faith and morals.
HOWEVER, a Pope cannot be considered a formal heretic until/unless a duly formed juridical body within the Church examines his alleged "heresies" and requests a retraction or repudiation of any of his positions which are actually found to be contrary to Church doctrine, and only -- if then -- such a Pope refuses to repudiate and/or correct his personally held beliefs.
If such a Pope were to recant his errors and repent of them in such a circumstance, he is not a formal heretic.
11:59 AM
https://www.thecatholicmonitor.com/2020/12/if-francis-is-heretic-what-should.html
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."