On the “heretical Pope” question…
White Smoke, Anti-Pope:
A Response to “Fr.” Brian Harrison
The Rev. Brian Harrison, O.S., is a former professor of theology of the so-called Pontifical Catholic University of Puerto Rico. Australian by birth, he is a convert to the Vatican II Sect from Presbyterianism (1972). Harrison belongs to the conservative/semi-traditionalist wing of the Novus Ordo Sect and has contributed to publications such as The Remnant, The Latin Mass, This Rock (now Catholic Answers Magazine), and Living Tradition, whose associate editor he is. One of the few clerics of the Modernist Sect who is willing to deal with traditionalist issues, Harrison is often tapped when the Novus Ordo Church needs someone to weigh in on traditionalist controversy, especially Sedevacantism.
In March of 2001, “Fr.” Harrison published a brief article in This Rock magazine that was meant to be a refutation of Sedevacantism. Entitled “White Smoke, Valid Pope”, the piece argues that a heretical Pope would govern the Church illicitly but validly. In other words, according to Harrison’s thesis, a Pope who is a heretic would indeed be a true and valid Pope, but his papacy would not be “authorized” by God or the Church and therefore gravely sinful and contrary to canon law. (An earlier version of Harrison’s article had appeared in the May 2000 issue of Living Tradition.)
This particular position is rather original, and it seems that it never found many adherents over the years that followed. Still, since Harrison’s essay is occasionally brought up by people arguing about Sedevacantism on the internet, we decided to offer this response.
The full text of Harrison’s piece can be found on the Catholic Answers web site:
The first indication that Harrison’s thesis is indeed unique only to himself is the fact that he does not cite a single pre-Vatican II Catholic theologian or canonist to back up his central claims. If it were the teaching of the Catholic Church that a heretical Pope would govern the Church illicity but validly, Harrison should not have any difficulty finding some authority from before the council that affirms just that; yet he argues his entire case only on his own putative authority, on his own reading of certain canonical texts. This makes his case only as strong as the weakest of his arguments, and these we will now examine.
In what follows, we will assume that the reader has already read “White Smoke, Valid Pope” in its entirety. We will quote only the most crucial portions directly and then offer our critical commentary:
I am well aware that St. Robert Bellarmine and some other noted theologians have held that a pope may cease to be pope if he falls into heresy. But that is not doctrine, to which all Catholics are obliged to give their assent—it is debatable theological opinion with which we are free either to agree or disagree.
(Rev. Brian W. Harrison, “White Smoke, Valid Pope”, This Rock, vol. 12, n. 3 [Mar. 2001])
This is a common misconception. Actually, St. Robert Bellarmine did not hold that a pope “may” cease to be Pope if he were to become a public heretic. Rather, St. Robert taught that
…a manifestly heretical Pope per se ceases to be Pope and Head, just as per se he ceases to be a Christian and member of the body of the Church. Therefore he can be judged by the Church and punished. This is the opinion of all the old Fathers, who teach that manifest heretics immediately lose all jurisdiction.
(St. Robert Bellarmine, De Romano Pontifice, Book II, Ch. 30; in Controversies of the Christian Faith, trans. by Fr. Kenneth Baker [Keep the Faith, 2016], p. 839; see entire chapter here.)
Notice that this is not merely St. Robert Bellarmine’s personal “opinion”, as the Rev. Harrison makes it sound, but is in fact “the opinion of all the [Church] Fathers”. By dismissing St. Robert, Harrison is setting aside not merely a celebrated Doctor of the Church but also all of the Church Fathers, for it is they who support Bellarmine’s position. What weighty justification does Harrison give for making such an audacious move? None. What does he offer as a solid theological alternative? As we will see, nothing but his own, flimsily-argued and easily-refuted opinion.
What Harrison conveniently ignores entirely in his article is that the idea that a public heretic cannot be Pope is not so much a canonical matter as it is a doctrinal one. The reason why a public heretic cannot be Pope is not that there is some Church law that legislates against this; rather, the reason is that public heresy precludes one from membership in the Church altogether: “Actually only those are to be included as members of the Church who have been baptized and profess the true faith… For not every sin, however grave it may be, is such as of its own nature to sever a man from the Body of the Church, as does schism or heresy or apostasy…” (Pope Pius XII, Encyclical Mystici Corporis, nn. 22-23).
This is also the reasoning given by St. Robert Bellarmine himself, who does not appeal to ecclesiastical legislation but to the fact that a manifest (=public) heretic “per se … ceases to be a Christian and member of the body of the Church.” But if someone is not even capable of being a member of the Church on account of public heresy, then much less could he be the head of the Church! This stands to reason, for “it is absurd to imagine that he who is outside can command in the Church” (Pope Leo XIII, Encyclical Satis Cognitum, n. 15).
Moreover, it is a dogma of the Holy Catholic Faith that the Church is one: “I believe … in one, holy, Catholic, and apostolic Church” (Nicene Creed). The Church is united in Faith and government. But if the head of the Church could profess a faith that is different from the rest of the Church, then this unity would be destroyed, and far from being the foundation and linchpin of ecclesiastical unity, the Papacy would be its undoing. Furthermore, if the Pope has one faith and the rest of the Church another, which faith is a member of the Church then supposed to have? The Pope’s or the Church’s? The following teaching of Pope Pius IX underscores this conundrum:
Indeed one simple way to keep men professing Catholic truth is to maintain their communion with and obedience to the Roman Pontiff. For it is impossible for a man ever to reject any portion of the Catholic faith without abandoning the authority of the Roman Church. In this authority, the unalterable teaching office of this faith lives on. It was set up by the divine Redeemer and, consequently, the tradition from the Apostles has always been preserved.
(Pope Pius IX, Encyclical Nostis et Nobiscum, n. 17)
A “heretical Pope” simply does not fit into this equation.
We could produce dozens more quotations like this showing the incongruity between Catholic teaching on the papacy and the idea of a heretical Pope, but we will simply refer the interested reader to some prior material on our blog that pertains to this issue:
- Sedevacantism and the Papacy: Have the Gates of Hell prevailed?
- The Question of a “Heretical Pope” answered by the Fathers of Vatican I
- Vatican I and the “Heretical Pope”: A Follow-Up
“Fr.” Harrison continues:
On the basis of twentieth-century canon law (found in both the 1917 and 1983 Codes), a pope who fulfilled the canonical requirements for heresy—that is, who pertinaciously doubted or denied one or more truths to be believed with divine and Catholic faith (cf. 1983 Code 751; 1917 Code 1325 §2)—would not have the moral right before God to be pope. Therefore, his remaining in office would be illicit. Still, if he refused to resign, he would truly be the pope in the sense that his acts of papal governance would still be valid before God and the Church.
This is Harrison’s central thesis in a nutshell, which he seeks to prove in the remainder of his article. It is a mystifying argument, to be sure, because the Australian theologian begins by considering the matter only in terms of canon law but then immediately makes a moral claim (“would not have the moral right before God”) before drawing the canonical conclusion that it would be “illicit” for a Pope-turned-heretic to remain in office.
Let’s have a close look at Harrison’s argumentation to see whether it can withstand critical scrutiny:
Some sedevacantists claim that Cardinal Angelo Roncalli’s 1958 election as Pope John XXIII was invalid because of his having fallen previously into heresy and/or having secretly become a Freemason while acting as papal nuncio in Paris, thereby putting himself outside the Church. (At that time, membership in the Freemasons carried it with automatic, or latae sententiae, excommunication.)
Anything Angelo Roncalli (or any other Novus Ordo papal pretender) may have done secretly is irrelevant to the debate because in order to cause loss of membership in the Catholic Church, any defection from the Faith must be public, since the Church is a visible organization and membership — or lack thereof — is a public matter. Whoever argues that John XXIII was not a valid Pope on account of secret heresy or secret Masonic membership, argues unsoundly, and Harrison is correct in finding fault with it.
The central thesis of “White Smoke, Valid Pope”, however, sidesteps the whole issue about who was or wasn’t a public or private heretic before his election as Pope, and argues instead that even a public heretic would ascend to the Papacy validly:
I will not attempt here to investigate and evaluate such charges, because, even if they were true, the resulting excommunications—surprising as this may sound—would not have disqualified Cardinal Roncalli from being validly elected as Pope. This is made clear by the special Church law governing conclaves. At that time the relevant legislation was that laid down in Pope Pius XII’s Apostolic Constitution Vacantis Apostolicae Sedis (December 8, 1945).
This document includes a special provision—startling at first glance—that in fact has been included substantially in all other papal legislation for conclaves from the fourteenth century on. (The most recent legislative act on this topic is John Paul II’s apostolic constitution Universo [sic] Dominici Gregis, issued February 22, 1996.) The relevant law laid down by Pius XII reads as follows:
“None of the cardinals may in any way, or by pretext or reason of any excommunication, suspension, or interdict whatsoever, or of any other ecclesiastical impediment, be excluded from the active and passive election of the supreme pontiff. We hereby suspend such censures solely for the purposes of the said election; at other times they are to remain in vigor” (VAS 34). Active in this context means that such a cardinal may vote in the election, while passive means he himself can be elected.
No doubt Mr. Harrison thinks he has scored a slam dunk against sedevacantism here, but in fact he has only revealed his own incompetence on the matter about which he presumes to pontificate, as we will now demonstrate.
Pope Pius XII’s legislation does indeed lift all excommunications from the cardinals while they are in conclave, but — and this is Harrison’s big blunder — the ecclesiastical impediment of excommunication has nothing to do with why a public heretic cannot be Pope. What keeps a public heretic from being validly elected to the Papacy is precisely his public heresy, not some excommunication that the Church imposes as a result of the public heresy (and which she has the power to lift at any time).
Public heresy is a divine obstacle to attaining the papacy, whereas excommunication is only an ecclesiastical (human) obstacle. Pius XII being only the Pope and not God, was obviously only able to remove ecclesiastical impediments from the cardinals participating in conclave, which is exactly what he said he was doing: “None of the cardinals may in any way, or by pretext or reason of any excommunication, suspension, or interdict whatsoever, or of any other ecclesiastical impediment, be excluded from the active and passive election of the supreme pontiff” (Apostolic Constitution Vacantis Apostolicae Sedis, n. 34; italics & underlining added).
Harrison has committed the fallacy of accident, confusing the accidental (excommunication) with the essential (public heresy):
The fallacy of accident consists in mistaking the accidental (or nonessential) for the essential. Some things are affirmed or denied of a subject in virtue of something essential to it. Other things are affirmed or denied of a subject in virtue of something nonessential to it. To confuse these two is to commit the fallacy of accident.
(Edward P. Simmons, The Scientific Art of Logic [Milwaukee, WI: Bruce Publishing, 1961], p. 300)
Public heresy does incur an automatic excommunication (see Canon 2314 §1), but it is not the automatic excommunication that makes one inherently unable to attain or retain office in the Church — it is the public heresy which does.
This becomes more clear when we consider just what an excommunication is and does. To cease to be a member of the Church, it is not necessary that one be excommunicated. And in fact, some excommunicates remain members of the Church (more on that in a moment). In other words, loss of Church membership and excommunication, although related, are two essentially different things — one can suffer one without the other. Because Harrison misses this crucial distinction, he conflates both concepts and treats them as equivalent and interchangeable. No wonder the result is bad theology!
Have a look again at how Pope Pius XII defines membership in the Church: “Actually only those are to be included as members of the Church who have been baptized [baptism] and profess the true faith [no heresy], and who have not been so unfortunate as to separate themselves from the unity of the Body [no schism], or been excluded by legitimate authority for grave faults committed [no excommunication]” (Encyclical Mystici Corporis, n. 22). The Pope here enumerates four conditions that must be verified to be a member of the Catholic Church: One must be baptized, not be a heretic, not be a schismatic, and not be excommunicated.
Notice how excommunication is in a separate category altogether from heresy or schism. That’s because although the Church certainly imposes an automatic excommunication on all heretics and schismatics, this is merely an ecclesiastical punishment and is not what ultimately causes the loss of membership in the Church:
In the early ages the word excommunication was a generic term used to designate all ecclesiastical punishments and remedies. Consequently, the history of the censure of excommunication is very closely connected with that of ecclesiastical punishments in general; at times they are so closely allied that it is impossible to discriminate between them.
…[E]xcommunication is a censure, that is, a penalty by which a baptized person, delinquent and contumacious, is deprived of some spiritual goods, or goods annexed to spiritual things, until he ceases to be contumacious and is absolved. A censure is a penalty, that is, a privation of some good, inflicted by legitimate authority for the correction of the delinquent and punishment of the offence. It is a spiritual penalty, not only because it proceeds from a spiritual power and is inflicted for a spiritual purpose, but especially because it deprives one of spiritual goods, although secondarily it deprives one of temporal goods also. Moreover, it is a medicinal penalty, for its primary and immediate purpose is the emendation of the delinquent.
…Does the Church intend hy excommunication to deprive one entirely of membership in the Church, or does she intend only to deprive the delinquent of the blessings and rights which accompany membership? In answer to this question, most of the recent dogmatic theologians distinguish between the tolerati [“those to be tolerated”] and the vitandi [“those to be avoided”]. According to the more common opinion, the tolerati do not cease to be members of the Church, for the Church, in so far as she tolerates them, does not totally exclude them from her pale. With regard to the vitandi, the more commonly accepted opinion maintains that they cease to be members of the Church, since, at least temporarily, they are cut off from all external communion with the Church. [Fr. Adolphe] Tanquerey remarks that the question has little practical bearing, since the Church is wont to declare as vitandi only notorious heretics and schismatics who have already ceased to be members of the Church by reason of notorious heresy or schism.
(Rev. Francis Edward Hyland, Excommunication: Its Nature, Historical Development and Effects [Washington, D.C.: The Catholic University of America Press, 1928], pp. vii, 1-2, 9; italics given; underlining added.)
Note well, then: Although an excommunication can put someone outside the Church, it is not necessary that someone be excommunicated in order to lose Church membership. Notorious heretics and schismatics, as noted above, cease to be members of the Church not on account of an excommunication inflicted upon them by the law of the Church, but on account of being public non-Catholics, a status that is inherently incompatible with being a member of the Church. It is thus divine law, not ecclesiastical law, that puts them outside the Church.
This is why Pope Pius XII teaches expressly that “not every sin, however grave it may be, is such as of its own nature to sever a man from the Body of the Church, as does schism or heresy or apostasy” (Encyclical Mystici Corporis, n. 23; italics added). To say otherwise would involve one in an intolerable contradiction, for one would have to maintain that someone can be both a public Catholic and a public non-Catholic at the same time.
Unfortunately, Mr. Harrison ignores all this and so misrepresents the issue entirely. For him, what expels a public heretic or apostate from the bosom of the Church is not the nature of the sin itself but only the ecclesiastical punishment which the Church has legislated is inflicted on such people. Since Pius XII has legislated that this punishment — excommunication — is lifted from cardinals during a conclave, Harrison triumphantly concludes that sedevacantists do not have a case. Alas, here the former theology professor of that “pontifical” university has only revealed that he does not know what he is talking about.
Continuing with Harrison’s essay, we now move from flawed argumentation to downright absurdity:
It may seem incredible that the Church’s traditional law goes out of its way to make it possible for heretics, apostates, and Freemasons, among others, to be elected to the see of Peter. Shouldn’t such enemies of the Church be the first to be excluded from participation in something so sacred?
At first sight it would certainly seem so. But a moment’s reflection shows that such legislation is necessary precisely in order to protect the papacy from the calamity that sedevacantists claim has now in fact befallen it: a Church with no visible head and therefore no visible unity, a Church whose structures lie in utter chaos.
So, according to Harrison, it is supposedly a matter of God protecting His Church that a heretic, apostate, or Freemason can ascend to the Papacy validly! By contrast, we are told, for a heretic or apostate to occupy the papal office invalidly would constitute some great “calamity” for the Church! This is not just comical, it is also offensive to pious ears, utterly nonsensical, and an insult to God and Holy Mother Church. But what is more, a visible head who is manifestly not a Catholic does not save anything for Mr. Harrison, for such a man cannot be the principle of unity in the Church, as he himself is not part of this unity of Faith.
To further illustrate how absurd Harrison’s claim is, consider the state of the “Catholic Church” since Vatican II. Look at all that has been done by and under the watch of the Novus Ordo popes. Precisely how does saying that all this destruction, blasphemy, sacrilege, heresy, and impiety was unleashed by genuine Vicars of Jesus Christ (rather than anti-Catholic usurpers and charlatans) protect the Church? It does not make the least bit of sense. But then, apparently the Catholic Encyclopedia too is unaware of this tremendous barrier against ecclesial calamity: “Of course, the election of a heretic, schismatic, or female would be null and void” (s.v. “Papal Elections”). Harrison might as well expand his thesis to include female “popes” as well, for by the same logic that too should prevent the greater calamity.
Let us continue with the Australian theologian:
We need to remember that some offences carrying a penalty of latae sententiae excommunication, such as heresy, can be committed in great secrecy without any public knowledge of the fact. Thus, if the Church’s law required that a cardinal be free from all ecclesiastical censure in order to be eligible for the papacy, the voters in general would have no guarantee that any given candidate was not in fact ineligible because of some secret crime by which he had incurred excommunication. The voters might unwittingly carry out an invalid election, in which case the “pope” they elected would not be true pope. The invalidity of his acts would then be a kind of spiritual cancer quietly destroying the Church’s vital structures from within. The bishops appointed by him would have no true right to govern their respective dioceses. No laws he passed would be binding on the Church. In particular, the cardinals named by him would not be valid electors of a future pope. How then, if at all, could a true pope be restored? Who would be competent to decide?
This is true as far as it goes, but it is again beside the point. What may or may not have happened in secret is irrelevant because it is only when the sins of heresy, schism, and apostasy are public that they cause loss of membership in the Church (cf. Mgr. Gerardus van Noort, Dogmatic Theology II: Christ’s Church [Westminster, MD: Newman Press, 1957], pp. 241-242), as we already explained. The Modernist Revolution of the Vatican II Sect has been so successful not because of secret heretics running the show but because of public ones!
That’s the whole problem: The heresy is out in the open, and it has been affecting and infecting the Novus Ordo faithful throughout the world for decades, because the heretical pseudo-authorities are diffusing this heretical poison throughout the entire church. That’s why there is such widespread loss of Faith. It’s because it’s all public, not secret.
Thus, Harrison’s argument about how a secret heretic’s election to the papacy must be valid is correct as far as it goes, but it is a red herring. No sedevacantist argument is based on secret heresy.
The Rev. Harrison continues:
In any case, canon law makes it clear that such a pope [who becomes a heretic during his papacy] will not lose his power to govern the Church validly, not even by public expressions of heretical doctrine. In the 1917 Code [of Canon Law], we find that apostates and heretics incur latae sententiae (ipso facto) excommunication (canon 2314 §1), but we need to consider other canons in order to see how excommunication relates to loss of ecclesiastical office.
Once again, Harrison confuses public heresy and the immediate loss of office that occurs automatically on its account (regardless of ecclesiastical law) with the penalty of excommunication the Church imposes. Because he conflates these two essentially distinct things, the conclusions he draws are not applicable, namely:
Canon 2263 states that an excommunicated person, as we would expect, “is forbidden to exercise ecclesiastical offices or duties”—the first among which is, of course, the papacy. However, the next canon (2264) affirms the following: “An act of jurisdiction carried out by an excommunicated person, whether in the internal or the external forum, is illicit; and if a condemnatory or declaratory sentence has been pronounced, it is also invalid, without prejudice to canon 2261 §3; otherwise it is valid.” (The other canon cited here, 2261 §3, makes an exception to this invalidity when it is a case of an officially excommunicated priest giving absolution to someone in danger of death.)
These last four words—”otherwise it is valid”—are highly significant. Let us assume that this pope, the validity of whose election no one disputes, refused to admit he had fallen into heresy. Since no other earthly person or authority—not even all the rest of the bishops gathered in an ecumenical council—would be competent to pass a condemnatory sentence against this pope or to declare that he has incurred excommunication, it follows from the Church’s law that, if he refuses to resign, all his acts of jurisdiction would remain valid, even though they would be illicit. So while this pope would offend God gravely by exercising his office while under an (undeclared) excommunication, all his official acts still would be juridically valid and binding on the Church’s members.
The canons in question speak of the excommunicated per se, not of public heretics or apostates per se, hence what the canons say is irrelevant to the topic at hand. The fact that heretics and apostates incur automatic excommunication by Church law is merely accidental to the whole matter. One can be excommunicated without being a heretic or apostate (for example, one can be excommunicated for profaning the Blessed Sacrament, for attacking the Pope, or for procuring an abortion). By treating the excommunication as that which essentially causes the loss of office, however, Harrison is guilty of the fallacy of accident, as we already noted before, and thus his conclusions are bound to be flawed.
Harrison’s stumble over the fallacy of accident becomes even more evident in what he says next:
There is one other canon in the 1917 Code that might at first glance seem to provide a legal basis for the sedevacantists’ thesis that a pope could lose his office by falling into heresy after his election to the chair of Peter. Canon 188 §4 states that among the actions which automatically (ipso facto) cause any cleric to lose his office, even without any declaration on the part of a superior, is that of “defect[ing] publicly from the Catholic faith” (“A fide catholica publice defecerit“). However, to “defect publicly” from the faith clearly means something more drastic than making heretical (or allegedly heretical) statements in the course of public speeches or documents.
This particular cause of losing an ecclesiastical office is found in that section of the Code dealing with the resignation of such an office (canons 184–191) and is part of a canon which lists eight sorts of actions which the law treats as “tacit resignations.” In other words, they are the sorts of actions that can be safely taken as evidence that the cleric in question does not even to want to continue in the office he held up till that time, even though he may never have bothered to put his resignation or abdication in writing.
The beautiful thing about living 100 years after the 1917 Code of Canon Law was first released is that we really do not have to guess as to what its legislation means. We can simply look it up. And while Harrison curiously decided not to do that, we are only too happy to oblige.
Canon 188 n. 4 is the only canon that deals with automatic loss of office for heresy. It is no accident that this canon (found in Book II of the Code) is far removed from the canons that speak about penalties for ecclesiastical crimes (Canons 2314ff., found in Book V), and this is because automatic loss of office due to public defection from the Faith is not a penalty per se, it is simply the inherently necessary consequence of ceasing to be a member of the Church. Hence this canon is listed under “loss of ecclesiastical offices” (“de amissione officiorum ecclesiasticorum“) as part of Book II, “On Persons” (“De Personis“), in the Code of Canon Law.
If Harrison had actually consulted some pre-Vatican II literature on the issue, instead of simply offering his flawed, semi-educated guesses, he would have quickly seen his mistake:
It is plainly evident that a distinction is being made between the threatened or enacted penalty [of Canon 2314] on the one hand, and the tacit renunciation [of Canon 188] on the other. Nowhere in the Code is the tacit renunciation called a penalty.
(Rev. Gerald V. McDevitt, The Renunciation of an Ecclesiastical Office [Washington, D.C.: Catholic University of America Press, 1946], p. 116)
The Code of Canon Law is careful to call this automatic loss of office a tacit resignation, not a penalty or a privation.
Harrison tries to muddy the waters a bit concerning Canon 188 n. 4, making it seem as though it had no real bearing on the matter under discussion, when in fact it could not be more relevant to the issue. He says:
In such a context, therefore, canon 188 §4, in speaking of “public defection from” (or “abandonment of”) the Catholic faith, can mean only that kind of defection that is obvious and indisputable before all the world, even to doctrinally illiterate Catholics and non-Catholics. In this kind of defection, the cleric in question ceases even to profess the Catholic faith and clearly has not the slightest desire to continue in his previous clerical office.
What the Code is contemplating here would be, for instance, a priest who openly joins a Protestant sect or a Masonic lodge or who declares himself an atheist and joins the Communist Party. In such sad cases as these, it is common that the priest in question simply packs up and leaves without ever bothering to submit a formal letter of resignation to his bishop.
We need not reinvent the wheel here. While Harrison seeks to raise the bar to an artificially high level that makes public defection much more difficult to attain than “mere” heresy, the truth is that neither Church law nor Church doctrine require any additional conditions to be verified above and beyond those for public heresy or apostasy, as we will now see (the question of schism is a bit more tricky, as pure schism is technically not a defection from the Faith but from Christian charity, but the matter need not concern us here since we are not dealing with pure schism in the case of the Novus Ordo popes anyway).
On what grounds does Harrison insist that “public defection” must mean that the abandonment of the Faith is evident even to “doctrinally illiterate Catholics and non-Catholics”? He offers nothing but his own assurance. Even so, this argument will not be of any help to the Australian theologian, because when one does ask “doctrinally illiterate Catholics and non-Catholics”, they all know that the Catholicism since Vatican II is not the Catholicism from before Vatican II. Everyone knows it, except for a handful of souls that stubbornly deny it, and those are the ones in the “conservative” Novus Ordo camp like Harrison.
In any case, we need not speculate about any of these canonical things Harrison brings up. We can simply do what he didn’t do, and that is, turn to pre-Vatican II sources and “look it up”. Here is what we find:
Tacit resignation, or as it is sometimes called, equivalent resignation, is the result of certain explicitly determined facts, which, by a special disposition of law and of themselves, without the formalities of presentation, acceptance or declaration, produce the same effect as express [=explicit] resignation. Canon 188 enumerates taxatively the facts which produce tacit resignation. The only probable fact which might affect the episcopal office is that of public defection from the faith [Canon 188 n. 4]. This crime presupposes not an internal, or even external but occult act, but a public defection from the faith through formal heresy, or apostasy, with or without affiliation with another religious society. Simple schism without heresy would not suffice to constitute tacit resignation. The public character of this crime must be understood in the light of canon 2197 n. 1. Hence, if a bishop were guilty of this violation and the fact were divulged to the greater part of the town or community, the crime would be public and the see ipso facto becomes vacant.
(Rev. Leo Arnold Jaeger, The Administration of Vacant and Quasi-Vacant Dioceses in the United States [Washington, D.C.: Catholic University of America Press, 1932], pp. 81-82; underlining added.)
Note well: The author, Fr. Leo Jaeger, calls public defection from the Faith a fact which of itself produces a tacit resignation from office. What constitutes defection from the Faith? Quite simply, “formal heresy, or apostasy, with or without affiliation with another religious society”. How public is “public”? We are referred to the definition given in Canon 2197 n. 1: “A delict is: 1.º Public, if it is already known or is in such circumstances that it can be and must be prudently judged that it will easily become known.”
There is no great mystery here, and Harrison’s attempt to turn it into something “more drastic than making heretical … statements in the course of public speeches or documents”, is gratuitous: Every genuine act of public heresy, be it ever so slight, is ceasing to profess the Catholic Faith. As far as the offender in question having “not the slightest desire to continue in his previous clerical office”, this is another made-up requirement on Harrison’s part. The offender’s desire is completely irrelevant. He may very well seek to remain in office so he can do even greater damage to the Church, but the voluntary external public act of defecting from the Faith constitutes a genuine resignation from office. The resignation is not merely presumed, as Harrison seems to suggest; it is actual, albeit tacit.
Once again, there is no need to take our word for this. Look it up:
All that is necessary is that the cleric perform one of the acts or be accountable for one of the omissions to which the law attaches the effect of a tacit renunciation of office. In reality a tacit renunciation resembles a privation, but it can not be considered a privation since the law terms it a tacit renunciation.
The vacancy of the office is effected by the placing of these acts, even if the person should manifest his intention of retaining the office at the time he places the act. The tacit renunciation occurs in spite of any contrary intention on the part of the incumbent.
Thus the defection from the faith may be public by reason of the fact that it is already known to a notable part of the community. The law does not prescribe any special number as being necessary to constitute a notable part of the community. Determination of this point is left to man’s prudent judgment. Besides being public by reason of actual divulgation, the defection from the faith may be public also because of the fact that the circumstances force one to conclude that it will be easily divulged in the future. Thus if even only a few loquacious persons witnessed the defection from the faith, or if the sole and only witness was a taciturn person who later threatened to divulge the crime because of an enmity that has arisen between him and the delinquent, the delict would be public in the sense of canon 2197, n. 1.
(McDevitt, Renunciation, p. 113, 114, 139; underlining added.)
Harrison could have found all of this out himself if he had bothered to look it up. Why didn’t he?
Toward the end of “White Smoke, Valid Pope”, the author wraps things up by stating what back in 2001 may have seemed like a safe thing to say, but which now, in 2017, blows up in his face, thanks to the tireless efforts of “Pope” Francis:
It is quite obvious that none of the post-conciliar popes has ever acted in any way that is even remotely comparable with these sorts of “public defections” from the faith. Sedevacantists must admit that these occupants of the Apostolic Palace, recognized by the world as popes, have all at least publicly professed to be Catholics throughout their respective pontificates and have shown every public sign of intending to continue exercising the papal office until their dying day.
Although we do not concede for a minute Harrison’s own contrived version of “public defection”, which, as we have seen, is backed by nothing, nevertheless at this point the man he believes to be the Vicar of Jesus Christ on earth — the apostate Jesuit Jorge Bergoglio, “Pope” Francis — has pretty much fulfilled any standard of public defection from the Faith, as can be verified on our special topical page here:
Harrison ends his article by summing up:
1. The traditional and continuing law of the Church, expressed repeatedly in papal constitutions ever since the Middle Ages, allows for a heretical or apostate cardinal to participate fully in a papal conclave and even to be elected pope. If he could validly attain the papacy as a heretic or apostate, he could certainly retain it validly, even while remaining in that unhappy spiritual state.
Because he confuses the accidental (excommunication) with the essential (public heresy/apostasy) in his argumentation, Harrison’s foundational argument collapses. Applying to public heretics and apostates what papal legislation on conclave participation ascribes only to excommunicates, Harrison wrongly concludes that public heretics and apostates can lawfully and validly be elected Pope. In support of his absurd thesis, Harrison cites no interpretative authority; he argues his entire case from his own opinion about the meaning of canon law texts that, for the most part, do not even apply to the question at hand. The result is accordingly slipshod.
Harrison’s overconfident assertion that the “traditional and continuing law of the Church, expressed repeatedly in papal constitutions ever since the Middle Ages, allows for a heretical or apostate cardinal to participate fully in a papal conclave and even to be elected pope” leaves out of account another piece of evidence that contradicts him: Pope Paul IV’s 1559 Apostolic Constitution Cum Ex Apostolatus. This magisterial document is extremely relevant, not only because it very much constitutes part of the “traditional … law of the Church, expressed repeatedly in papal constitutions ever since the Middle Ages”, but also because it is one of the source documents the Code of Canon Law lists as pertaining to Canon 188. On the matter of how public defection from the Faith impacts the attainment of an ecclesiastical office, Pope Paul IV’s apostolic constitution states:
…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;
(ii) it shall not be possible for it to acquire validity (nor for it to be said that it has thus acquired validity) through the acceptance of the office, of consecration, of subsequent authority, nor through possession of administration, nor through the putative enthronement of a Roman Pontiff, or Veneration, or obedience accorded to such by all, nor through the lapse of any period of time in the foregoing situation;
(iii) it shall not be held as partially legitimate in any way;
(iv) to any so promoted to be Bishops, or Archbishops, or Patriarchs, or Primates or elevated as Cardinals, or as Roman Pontiff, no authority shall have been granted, nor shall it be considered to have been so granted either in the spiritual or the temporal domain;
(v) each and all of their words, deeds, actions and enactments, howsoever made, and anything whatsoever to which these may give rise, shall be without force and shall grant no stability whatsoever nor any right to anyone;
(vi) those thus promoted or elevated shall be deprived automatically, and without need for any further declaration, of all dignity, position, honour, title, authority, office and power.
(Pope Paul IV, Apostolic Constitution Cum Ex Apostolatus Officio, n. 6; underlining added.)
So much for that.
The point here is not to claim that every aspect of this apostolic constitution is somehow implied in Canon 188. Rather, we hold it up as a mirror to Harrison’s rash and flawed claims about how God protects His Church. As is evident from Pope Paul’s legislation, the sedevacantist position is by no means at odds with God’s solicitude for Holy Mother Church — on the contrary, it is entirely in harmony with it. It was precisely to prevent the calamity of a “heretical Pope” that Paul IV spelled out in this legislation that the election of a heretic, even if he should be chosen unanimously, has no validity whatsoever and cannot acquire validity later on. Yet Harrison wants you to believe that having a heretical pretend-Pope is worse than having a heretical Pope. That would certainly have been news to Pope Paul IV.
Harrison continues with his summary and finishes his article:
2. A pope who began his pontificate as an orthodox Catholic but became a formal heretic or apostate during his pontificate would thereby legally incur excommunication. However, even if his heresy or apostasy should become publicly discernible, the absence of any competent authority on earth who could lawfully declare his excommunication would mean that, if he refused to resign and continued to insist on carrying out acts of papal authority, those acts, though illicitly exercised, would still be valid. In other words, he would still be juridically the true pope whom we would have to recognize and obey in all things but sin, even though at the inner level at which grace operates he might well be totally separated from the mystical body of Christ.
So when the white smoke rises from the Vatican signifying that the college of cardinals has elected a new pope, we are assured that that pope’s authority is valid. Thus God guards his Church from the possibility of being cast into chaos by being left without an earthly governing authority.
And thus Harrison’s followers rest assured every night, knowing that although the wrecking of Catholicism by the Vatican II popes has been valid, it was most certainly never licit — and somehow this is a great testimony to how God guards His Church lest she be thrown into chaos! What does one say to such buffoonery?
What protection does it add to Holy Mother Church to say that although the Novus Ordo Missae of Paul VI was imposed validly, it was not imposed licitly? Are the faithful protected from spiritual harm in any way by knowing that “Saint” John Paul II is a valid saint but not a licit one? What difference, in the end, does it make to say that a certain pontificate was valid but not licit? And would the “illicit” Pope not be able to declare his own acts, his own entire reign in fact, to be perfectly licit?
Nearly six decades of the existence of the Novus Ordo Sect have proved beyond the shadow of a doubt that what casts Holy Mother Church into the greater chaos is not being left without a governing authority for a time — as terrifying as that is — but precisely the very thing that Harrison offers as the remedy, namely, recognition of a public heretic or apostate as the valid Vicar of Christ. That is what has given the Modernist Revolution all its firepower:
The entire force of the Conciliar revolt comes from the fact that it has apparently been imposed by the authority of the [Catholic] Church. How many bishops, priests, religious, and laymen, would have swallowed the lies of the heretics if they had not believed themselves bound to do so by the voice of Christ’s Vicar on earth? Questioning the authority of these men renders their revolution of doubtful authenticity.
(John Lane, “Concerning an SSPX Dossier on Sedevacantism”, p. 65)
If “Fr.” Harrison wishes to look for God guarding His Church “from the possibility of being cast into chaos”, He ought to find it in the consoling fact that not a single act of the Vatican II “popes” has been valid, and the entire destruction we have witnessed — from Vatican II to the “New Mass” to the false saints and countless evil disciplines and practices — never came from the legitimate authority established by Christ but only from charlatans “who say they are apostles, and are not” (Apoc 2:2), who have tried to “deceive (if possible) even the elect” (Mt 24:24) as part of the “operation of error, to believe lying: that all may be judged who have not believed the truth, but have consented to iniquity” (2 Thess 2:10-11).
It is much less dangerous for the flock to roam around aimlessly without a shepherd (cf. Mt 26:31), than to follow a wolf-in-shepherd’s-clothes into perdition.
So… white smoke, valid Pope? Far from it! For as long as they elect Modernists, it’s going to be… white smoke, anti-pope!
Next time, don’t be so quick to cheer…
Image sources: composite with elements from youtube.com (screenshot) and onepeterfive.com (cropped) / catholic.com / Getty Images
Licenses: fair use / fair use / Getty embed
Francisco Suárez S.I. speaks about Celestine III “error” in De Legibus (Lib. IV, Ch. XIV).
What does Suarez say about it?
Suárez says that Decretal Laudabilem was not a general law of the Church, and he affirms that Pope Celestine III only expressed his own personal opinion, and did it with hesitation (so he did not intend to define any doctrine).
Siscoe is wrong again.
I apologize to you for destroying your language. I am not fluent in English.
St. Robert Bellarmine also addresses the claims, in “De Romano Pontifice”. I heard that Fr. Cekada will release a video on it shortly, so I haven’t bothered much looking into this.
Although I was a “faithful” NO catholic for years, I always knew there was a terrible problem going on in the Church and with the Mass. I was all the traddie websites and books that pointed the errors to modernism. But as soon as I heard the sedevacantist argument, I knew that was the only explanation that preserves Christ’s promise to Peter. I can’t for the life of me understand how one can deny this logic. If a sedeplenist anywhere out there can come up with a way that a Modernist can be a Catholic, I am all ears.
The thinking of the communists/collectivists/satanists who have hijacked the Catholic Church is akin to that of Joseph Goebbels, the propaganda minister for NASD (Nazis), who famously stated that if you are going to lie, lie big. No amateur efforts. Go big. Tell a whopper as we say in America. Go for the gold. So, the big lie here? That the VII, Novus Ordo heresy is the Catholic Church founded by Our Lord Jesus Christ. The Big Lie. You do not end up much bigger than this lie, that the Satanic (not mistaken or confused) ends of the VII Sect are the total annihilation of the True Church. Satan’s goal. No less than the destruction of the Church founded by Our Lord Jesus Christ.
Goebbels was referring to the tactics of the Jews when he said that, and the other famous quote, not to his own tactics.
Thank you so much for the link.
This brilliant author refutes Siscoe’s article (see pages 85-86).
There is one thing that my old, one time, cobber Fr. Brian (Harrison) and the N.O.W. sedevacantists have in common; it’s papalatry. Fr. Brian has spent about 40 years trying to excuse ratbag popey types (and V II) while the S.V. mob have spent somewhat less than that trying to arbitrarily assume an authority to judge popey fellows. (As did all the previous Protestant types).
History shows us that the Peterine Succession continues through (not around) dud, crook, timorous, worldly ambitious, avaricious, hedonistic, popes.
If any of the papalaters have their way, the Church is dead. One lot of papalaters have it dead because some episcopal types have proclaimed didactic changes that must be followed unto perdition. Another lot of papalaters have it dead because it has no visible unity or government… just a scattering of wannabe popes quoting saints, theologians, Canon Law and anything else according to the convenience of their megalomania.
The guts of it is that while I (very likely) have a duty to resist perverse instructions and impositions of a legitimate authority I have no authority to depose them or to declare them deposed for any reason whatsoever. Leave that to proper and legitimate authority. I’m sure the Great Mother and Her Boy will delegate that responsibility to the incomparable father and spouse when the time is right.
Jesus had every right to depose (or declare deposed) Caiaphas and Pilate… but He didn’t. Who are you to arrogate that responsibility?
Ah yes, the ancient charge of “papalatry”. I have yet to see even a definition of that from any pre-Vatican II source. It’s simply a buzzword semi-traditionalists use to hide their straw man argument.
Yes, indeed, the papacy “continues through (not around) dud, crook, timorous, worldly ambitious, avaricious, hedonistic, popes”. But notice what the papacy does NOT continue through, and that is: NON-CATHOLIC Popes. Because there is no such thing. A bad Pope is possible; a heretical Pope is not.
We have addressed all of this at length in various posts on our web site. I hope you will go through at least some of them. The most pertinent are listed here:
You are clearly ignorant of Church teaching on the papacy. You seem to think that the Pope is nothing more than a glorified Protestant pastor, who has no real authority but simply gets to teach and command things that, if they are good, need to be followed, and if not, need to be resisted. One might say the same thing about any Protestant pastor. The only exception is that the Protestant can’t make infallible ex cathedra statements. But that’s not what Pope Pius IX, for example, taught:
“Nor can we pass over in silence the audacity of those who, not enduring sound doctrine, contend that ‘without sin and without any sacrifice of the Catholic profession assent and obedience may be refused to those judgments and decrees of the Apostolic See, whose object is declared to concern the Church’s general good and her rights and discipline, so only it does not touch the dogmata of faith and morals.'” (Quanta Cura, n. 5)
And Vatican I was pretty clear as well:
“If anyone thus speaks, that the Roman Pontiff has only the office of inspection or direction, but not the full and supreme power of jurisdiction over the universal Church, not only in things which pertain to faith and morals, but also in those which pertain to the discipline and government of the Church spread over the whole world; or, that he possesses only the more important parts, but not the whole plenitude of this supreme power; or that this power of his is not ordinary and immediate, or over the churches altogether and individually, and over the pastors and the faithful altogether and individually: let him be anathema.” (Denz. 1831)
Many more quotes with real Catholic teaching on the Papacy — many of which, I suspect, will surprise you — can be found in this post:
As far as deposing or judging a Pope: There is no legitimate authority that CAN judge or depose a Pope. That’s actually a dogma. On the other hand, no authority is needed to *recognize* that someone who cannot be Pope, is not Pope. We explain and outline it all here:
In this post you will find that it is actually *you* who are guilty of “judging the Pope”, at least in the subjective sense.
Our Lord Jesus Christ did not depose Caiaphas because Caiaphas had deposed himself: “And by this rending [of] his garments, [Caiaphas] shews that the Jews have lost the priestly glory, and that their High Priest’s throne was vacant. For by rending his garment he rent the veil of the Law which covered him.” –St. Jerome commentary on Matthew 26:63-66; found on p. 926 here: https://archive.org/details/p3catenaaureacomm01thom
And Pilate was a secular, not a spiritual, authority, so the question there is moot.
There! you have missed the whole point with a cherry-picking of the “letter of the law” in the spirit of the Lawyers who Jesus castigated along with the Scribes and Pharisees.
It’s a question of authority. I may even be morally obliged to think that the priest, bishop, even pope is a madman, heretic, or any kind of traitor, or worldly sycophant; but it is an OPINION that I will have to own up to on Judgement Day. I do not even have authority to officially excommunicate my own son or daughter; if I wished to do so I would have to take them to the Church for judgement, and any subsequent excommunication would be by the Church through the person of the Bishop who has the authority to do so.
Even if I am of the firm OPINION that a pope, or litany of popes, will be posthumously deposed (and, perhaps, excommunicated) by a subsequent competent authority it remains my OPINION (that I own) until the competent judgement is made. All the various rules and regulations that you are so fond of quoting are for the competent authority to consider when making its judgement. The alternative is the Sedevacantist version of Protestantism where everyone is their own pope.
There are more “problematic” issues for your version of Protestantism such as succession, ordinary magisterium (or government) of the physical, visible, badly beaten-near-to-death Mystical Body. But the resurrection will be of that Body; not some construct of yours.
The rest of your rabble-rousing rant is barely relevant.
Papalotry is an idolatrous ascribing of powers and perfections to the popes that they do not have.
No, it is not an opinion, and it could not possibly be: What is and isn’t Catholic is determined by objective, empirically verifiable criteria, and this is necessary because the Church is visible. But if we can know what is Catholic, then we can also know what is not Catholic, and neither is a matter of opinion.
Neither is it a matter of opinion who is a manifest heretic, because the definition implies precisely that it is manifest.
You confuse two things: (1) recognizing a fact, with (2) making a legal declaration that in an of itself has the authority to bind consciences. I am talking about (1), not (2).
As for that “competent authority” business, it’s addressed in one of the links I gave you:
If you want to discuss the issue, that’s fine — but then you’re going to have to read our material on it.
As far as that silly “sedevacantists are their own Popes” canard, it is actually you people who are. See “The Pope Speaks, You Decide”:
Your position involves a conundrum that is unsolvable in principle, unlike ours. You can see it spelled out here:
I didn’t rant, and it wasn’t rabble-rousing. If you want to score points through rhetoric, make sure it is at least accurate or appropriate, otherwise you make yourself look foolish.
Papalotry is a straw man argument, so there is no need for you to keep bringing it up.
I apologize that I keep pasting links for you to check out, but these arguments you are making have been addressed again and again on this web site, so I will refrain from repeating what has already been said and simply refer you to where you can find your objections refuted.
Yeah, that’s it: I’m B’nai B’rith trained. My goodness.
As for that legal loophole silliness, I’ll just let John Daly speak in his response to Michael Davies (1989) because Davies made the same argument you just made:
>>> Davies’s position amounts, in fact, to saying that there is no distinction between judging whether a particular person is the pope and judging the pope. But by forbidding us to judge whether a particular person is the pope or not, Davies in effect requires us to accept uncritically the validity of anyone’s claim to be pope. After all, if John-Paul II’s claim may not even be questioned, why should one be allowed to question the claim of some other pretender to the papacy, such as Clemente Domínguez Gómez of Palmar de Troya, who, since 1978, has styled himself “Pope Gregory XVII”? If one is “judging the pope” by examining Karol Wojtyła’s credentials, one must be “judging the pope” by examining Dominguez’s. But of course in reality one is doing no such thing in either case. Davies’s point involves a crass begging of the question: it presumes the very point that is disputed – John-Paul II’s legitimacy – as its grounds for forbidding us to question it. <<<
It does not require authority to judge that someone who manifestly cannot be Pope (by divine law), is not Pope.
Ah yes! I have run into Mr. Daly and several of his co-religionists before. That stitches up the Coomeraswamy link.
You (for the convenience of your self-styled popiness) have overlooked the profoundly simple matter of succession. If the papacy is not the See of Peter, customarily the Bishop of Rome, then the Palmar de Troya pretender could be the pope…. or anyone else, for that matter.
The only way the “Sede” can be transferred from one place to another is if it attached to a pope’s bum. It doesn’t just “pop up” anywhere someone claims to be pope. If that was the case I think there would be about 17 “popes” around the place in the last 50 years.
Any successor to the papacy will succeed the previous one; however inadequate he may have been. I do not have authority to judge who, or what, or when.
You have missed the essential refutation of your objection, namely, that it is “a crass begging of the question: it presumes the very point that is disputed – John-Paul II’s legitimacy – as its grounds for forbidding us to question it”.
No one is talking about transferring the papal see, which would be an impossibility anyway. But WHERE a Pope is elected — whether in Rome, Avignon, Bangkok, or Tupelo — is irrelevant. He would still be the head of the Church and the bishop of Rome. And of course there have been false popes IN ROME before, while the true Pope was elsewhere. Case in point: Pope Innocent II vs. Antipope Anacletus II in the 12th century: http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/01447a.htm
We are not talking about *inadequate* Popes, we are talking about heretics pretending to be Pope. That is an impossibility, per divine law: “Of course, the election of a heretic, schismatic, or female would be null and void” (Catholic Encyclopedia, s.v. “Papal Elections”) http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/11456a.htm
So, you make a fuss about JP II. I would contend that the election of Roncalli (John XXIII) is contentious too.
But the important thing is that I do not have authority to make official pronouncements or judgements about it. It’s God’s business and He’ll have to sort it out in His Own good time with the authority He has established… and that’s not me… or you.
That is, unless ole Coomeraswamy appointed you (and/or any/all of his other sycophants) pope, of course.
“Of course, the election of a heretic, schismatic, or female would be null and void” (Catholic Encyclopedia, s.v. “Papal Elections”) But I have no authority to examine the genitals or body hair, or examine the conscience of any popey fellow. I may suspect, I may conclude, but I cannot define.
The excerpt I quoted was from a book written in 1989, when John Paul II was at the helm. We make a big fuss about all of the false popes: John XXIII all the way through Francis.
Of course we don’t have the authority to make legal declarations or official pronouncements, but we’re not pretending to. Once again I have to quote from material that has already been written on this, simply because the objections you’re making are made constantly. From our post responding to Hilary White:
Binding someone else’s conscience does indeed require ecclesiastical authority, something no sedevacantist has. If any sedevacantist were to pretend that he has the right of himself to bind someone else’s conscience, he would be mistaken and act unjustly. In other words, no sedevacantist could say, “You must be a sedevacantist because I say so.” This would clearly be impermissible. But then again, is anyone doing this? If so, he is wrong.
But this is probably not what is actually happening. Rather, most probably, people are simply pointing out to Hilary White and her coreligionists that given the empirical facts about Francis, Sedevacantism is the only conclusion that does not run into conflict with Catholic teaching. It is thus the only conclusion that is possible, and hence it is also necessary. It is for this reason that others must embrace it — not because we sedevacantists say so, as though we had any authority to bind consciences, but because according to Catholic teaching no other conclusion is possible; and since we have an obligation to adhere to Catholic teaching, we thus also have an obligation to embrace Sedevacantism. In short, the necessity for Hilary White and everyone else to be sedevacantist does not arise from sedevacantists’ say-so, it arises from the fact that all are obliged by Catholic teaching and the manifest empirical facts to arrive at this conclusion.
This, then, has nothing to do with hubris. It is simply akin to explaining to someone that if he understands what “1” means, what “2” means, what “equal” means, and what “plus” means, then he must conclude, necessarily, that 1+1=2. Or, to use our earlier example, if Jack is a bachelor and all bachelors are unmarried, then we must conclude necessarily that Jack is unmarried. No other conclusion is permitted or possible, and we cannot hide behind the copout that we “don’t have the authority” to say that Jack is unmarried. Welcome to the authority of reason.
To say it is "God's business" is beside the point. Since we have an obligation to submit to the Pope and to uphold Catholic teaching on the Papacy, we are forced to make a decision as to whether or not Jorge Bergoglio is the Pope. Affirming that he is, is just as much of a (cognitive, not legal) judgment as affirming that he is not.
By the way: You can drop the constant references to Dr. Coomaraswamy now. Just stick to the issue we're discussing.
You need not examine someone's conscience to know whether he is or isn't Pope. Once again, a straw man argument, and one addressed many times. We are talking here about what is externally MANIFEST, and even aside from the whole issue of personal heresy, we can know that Francis isn't Pope because he has done things that, per Catholic doctrine, a true Pope is divinely protected from doing.
QED. Deal with it.
You’d better have a quick look at the definition of Papal Infallibility from Vat. C I to see what “a true Pope is divinely protected from doing.” Then have a flick through what St, Tom has to say about resisting the errors of superiors.
If you are going to insist that it is de fide “per Catholic doctrine” that some popey looking fellows are excommunicated by “manifest” (apparent) heresy you’ll have to (for consistency) proclaim that the whole Church (except for you and a few of your mates) is excommunicate for not acting and believing according to what you claim is “Catholic doctrine”. i.e. for not declaring an apparent scoundrel a “not-pope”. You’ll have to posthumously excommunicate a few notable saints for following a subsequently declared antipope as well. Even Ottaviani and Bacci would not be safe from your Grim Reaper.
Then! you can rejoice! The “church” will be just you and your followers.
Relish with the thought.
And you’d better check some dogmatic theology textbooks to see that there is a lot more to what a true Pope is divinely protected from doing than erroneous ex cathedra pronouncements.
For example: He cannot canonize someone to be a saint who is in fact not a saint. Such as: John Paul II. (All documented on this web site, but I have the feeling you wouldn’t be interested in the link.)
Another example: He cannot promulgate a heretical liturgical rite or harmful, evil, or heretical disciplinary laws for the entire Church. (Ditto as far as documentation.)
Resisting evil commands by superiors is one thing; for the Pope to teach or legislate to the universal Church is quite another. The SSPX has been very successful at misrepresenting the issue again and again as though it were about obedience to a superior’s individual commands. In truth it is about submission to the Pope’s Magisterium and government: “To the shepherds alone was given all power to teach, to judge, to direct; on the faithful was imposed the duty of following their teaching, of submitting with docility to their judgment, and of allowing themselves to be governed, corrected, and guided by them in the way of salvation. Thus, it is an absolute necessity for the simple faithful to submit in mind and heart to their own pastors, and for the latter to submit with them to the Head and Supreme Pastor.” (Pope Leo XIII, Apostolic Letter “Epistola Tua”)
The rest of your comment is irrelevant because who or what is “the whole Church” is tied directly to the question of who is a valid Pope.
How would sedevacantists address the objection that Titus 3:10 means that we have to wait for warnings to a potential heretic before we can claim the person suspected is in fact one? Thank you in advance for any guidance.
Titus 3:10: “A man that is a heretic, after the first and second admonition, avoid.” It seems that St. Paul here is not so much speaking about how to identify a heretic or at what point someone becomes a heretic, but rather about someone who already is one. He says that after one or two warnings, he is to be avoided by a Catholic. He doesn’t say *only* after warnings or *not until* warnings.
So, while a warning from the competent superior is *sufficient* to recognize a heretic, it is not absolutely *necessary*.
St. Robert Bellarmine responds to Cardinal Cajetan, who also used Titus 3:10 in his objection, as follows: “Yet heretics are outside the Church, even before excommunication, and deprived of all jurisdiction, for they are condemned by their own judgment, as the Apostle teaches to Titus; that is, they are cut from the body of the Church without excommunication, as Jerome expresses it” (De Romano Pontifice, Book 2, Ch. 30).
See here: http://novusordowatch.org/de-romano-pontifice-book2-chapter30/
So, this is actually another proof against “Fr.” Harrison, who seems to think that what cuts a heretic off from communion with the Church is a legal declaration of excommunication. But no, as St. Bellarmine makes clear here.
I appreciate the reply. I do think that while St. Paul doesn’t say explicitly to avoid only after warnings, that it is implied in his thought.
Still, warnings by whom? Does he mean a superior as you say?
I suppose what I can’t understand is what purpose the warnings would serve in the context in which St. Paul was speaking. If someone is outside the Church ipso facto by their heresy – which I don’t deny – then what reason would there be for warnings at that point? What are the warnings supposed to do?
Well, thankfully, we need not know the answers to these questions to know the Catholic teaching on the matter. It’s the job of theologians to interpret Holy Scripture and put Church teaching into a coherent whole, and that’s why we go to theology manuals for these kinds of questions, not Scripture directly.
As far as the sin of heresy goes, McHugh/Callan write in their “Moral Theology” (n. 829b):
“One must willingly consent to the error. But for formal heresy it is not required that a person give his assent out of malice, or that he continue in obstinate rejection for a long time, or that he refuse to heed admonitions given him. Pertinacity here means true consent to recognized error, and this can proceed from weakness (e.g., from anger or other passion); it can be given in an instant, and does not presuppose an admonition disregarded. Hence, if one sees the truth of the Catholic Church, but fears that assent will involve many obligations and out of weakness turns away from the truth, one then and there pertinaciously consents to error.”
Thank you. The last portion of that quote is very consoling even as it is challenging. It makes perfect sense, too, for Scripture says that it is possible to prefer the lie.
N.O.W. has cleverly, legalistically, avoided the issue again.
Even if I am morally obliged to form an OPINION that someone is an heretic I have no authority whatsoever to excommunicate, or declare excommunicated, them whom I suspect. The villain may even be technically excommunicate before I was even born but my cognisance before or after does not create or negate the fact which can only be defined by an appropriate authority.
N.O.Watchers exult themselves to be supreme judges based on the opinions of carefully selected theologians.
Francis being a public apostate is NOT AN OPINION. There are objective criteria for determining who is a member of the Church, and so if I can know who is a member of the Church, then logically I can also know who is NOT a member of the Church.
Excommunication, which is a church penalty (as explained in this article), has nothing to do with any of this, strictly speaking.
Aside from that, Frs. McHugh and Callan don’t given an “opinion” on the matter but the Church’s moral theology.
You missed the point again.
My (or your) assessment of anyone’s Catholicity can be only an opinion to be owned up to on Judgement Day unless there is an appropriate judgement made by the appropriate authority.
Opinions of theologians are nothing but the opinions of theologians.
I didn’t *miss* the point. I contradicted it.
What McHugh and Callan say about pertinacity isn’t their opinion, it’s Church teaching. The Church teaches through the unanimous consent of her theologians. Please inform yourself about theology a little bit first. Theological manuals like that is what the Church uses at her pontifical universities to train and educate her future priests and theologians.
If it were not possible to know (and act on this knowledge) who is a member of the Church (and thus also who isn’t), the visibility of the Church would cease, and you would end up with the invisible church of the Protestants.
Mother Church does not “teaches through the unanimous consent of her theologians” that does not exist. Theologians do nothing more than reconcile Revelation and Reason. Every single one of them is fallible… except the opinions of them that suit your purpose, of course.
Start here: “The Teaching authority of The Theological Manuals” by Mgr. Joseph Clifford Fenton: http://www.catholicapologetics.info/modernproblems/vatican2/Manuals.htm
Normal, usual, evasion. Dismiss a simple observation with a tsunami of words.