Year after year…
A Francis Christmas:
Roman Curia gets its annual Spanking
It’s that time of the year again!
On Dec. 21, the members of the Roman Curia were gathered in the Clementine Hall of the Apostolic Palace to receive what used to be called the Pope’s annual Christmas greetings. While Jorge Bergoglio has occupied the Vatican structures under the stage name “Pope Francis”, however, it is more appropriate to speak of a yearly Christmas spanking, at least since 2014. While most people around this time of year typically wish their fellow men blessings of grace, joy, and peace, Francis knows how to throw a monkey-wrench into the most quiet and contemplative season of the year.
Let’s recall:
- In his first presentation of Christmas greetings in 2013, there was already a mention of the problem of gossip, but overall the address was quite tame and within the bounds of the ordinary.
- In 2014, Francis priovided a “detailed diagnosis and careful analysis” of what allegedly ails his Curia, identifying as many as fifteen “diseases” such as “spiritual Alzheimer’s”, having a “funeral face”, the “terrorism of gossip”, and “existential schizophrenia”. Enough said!
- In 2015, during the “Year of Mercy”, Francis prescribed “curial antibiotics” with respect to the “diseases” he had diagnosed the year before.
- Last year, Francis denounced “cases of malicious resistance” to his supposed ongoing reform of the Curia, “which spring up in misguided minds and come to the fore when the devil inspires ill intentions (often cloaked in sheep’s clothing). This … kind of resistance hides behind words of self-justification and often accusation; it takes refuge in traditions, appearances, formalities, in the familiar, or else in a desire to make everything personal, failing to distinguish between the act, the actor, and the action.” That this choice of words came after the now-famous dubia on Amoris Laetitia had been made public, is surely pure coincidence.
With such a track record of “Christmas greetings”, it was a given that this year’s edition would be highly anticipated by not a few people, though perhaps not so much by the members of the Curia themselves.
To get straight to the point: Those expecting more Bergoglian fireworks were not disappointed. In over 3,500 words (in English), Francis extended “Christmas greetings” the way only he can. The full text of the address was released by Vatican News:
- Francis’ Christmas Greetings to Roman Curia (Dec. 21, 2017)
Drawing on his usual arsenal of flamboyant and bombastic metaphors, Francis began his spanking by quoting the words of a 19th-century archbishop, who had once noted that “[m]aking reforms in Rome is like cleaning the Sphinx with a toothbrush”. That was sure to get everybody’s attention, especially that of the media.
It didn’t take long before the Jesuit apostate launched into his favorite accusation of “self-referentiality”: “A Curia closed in on itself would betray its own raison d’être and plunge into self-referentiality and ultimately destroy itself.” He added that the Church “is by her very nature projected ad extra [to the outside], and only to the extent that she remains linked to the Petrine ministry, the service of God’s word and the preaching of the Gospel.” These words would carry some credibility if the one who uttered them actually attempted to preach the Gospel ad extra — to those outside the Church, who are most in need of it. Instead, Francis’ “preaching of the Gospel”, if we want to call it that, is entirely ad intra: He only ever mentions Christ to those who already believe in Him. The only time he talks about salvation is in front of those who already know and agree that they have a soul to save and that only Jesus Christ can save it. Everyone else — such as Jews, Muslims, Hindus, Buddhists, or atheists — gets the Masonic “gospel of man” instead, as was most recently on full display in Myanmar, where the “Pope” quoted Buddha and a Buddhist quoted Christ!
After reminding his curial underlings that they must be in communion with Peter, whose successor he falsely claims to be, he let some sparks fly:
This is very important for rising above that unbalanced and debased mindset of plots and small cliques that in fact represent – for all their self-justification and good intentions – a cancer leading to a self-centredness that also seeps into ecclesiastical bodies, and in particular those working in them. When this happens, we lose the joy of the Gospel, the joy of sharing Christ and of fellowship with him; we lose the generous spirit of our consecration (cf. Acts 20:35 and 2 Cor 9:7).
Here let me allude to another danger: those who betray the trust put in them and profiteer from the Church’s motherhood. I am speaking of persons carefully selected to give a greater vigour to the body and to the [curial] reform, but – failing to understand the lofty nature of their responsibility – let themselves be corrupted by ambition or vainglory. Then, when they are quietly sidelined, they wrongly declare themselves martyrs of the system, of a “Pope kept in the dark”, of the “old guard”…, rather than reciting a mea culpa. Alongside these, there are others who are still working there, to whom all the time in the world is given to get back on the right track, in the hope that they find in the Church’s patience an opportunity for conversion and not for personal advantage. Of course, this is in no way to overlook the vast majority of faithful persons working there with praiseworthy commitment, fidelity, competence, dedication and great sanctity.
Francis the passive-aggressive loves to hurl accusations at individuals whose precise identity he leaves to the media and others to speculate about — only to then accuse everyone of the “terrorism of gossip”! In the case above, however, it seems obvious that at least one of the individuals he had in mind is “Cardinal” Gerhard Ludwig Muller, the former Prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith who was fired on July 1 in a one-minute audience — but more on that further down below.
Demanding of his Curia faithfulness to him (while he, of course, is entirely unfaithful to our Lord and His Gospel), Francis said they should cultivate “a relationship of closeness to the Pope, a closeness marked by interior trust, a natural idem sentire [thinking the same, having the same opinion], which is expressed precisely by the word ‘faithfulness'”. Antipope Bergoglio is slyly co-opting the Catholic Papacy here to diffuse his Modernist poison to as many souls as he possibly can. He is as clever as he is talkative. Unfortunately, most of those who can see through his perfidy respond by watering down Catholic teaching on the Papacy instead of calling his bluff and denouncing him as a hireling (cf. Jn 10:12) who has usurped the role of chief shepherd of Christendom: “For such false apostles are deceitful workmen, transforming themselves into the apostles of Christ” (2 Cor 11:13). The problem isn’t the Catholic doctrine of the Papacy, the problem is manifest heretics claiming to be — and being accepted by others as — Pope. A new video we just released drives home this very point.
Switching gears and talking about the upcoming Roman synod on “Young People, the Faith and Vocational Discernment”, Francis quoted its preparatory document: “By listening to young people, the Church will once again hear the Lord speaking in today’s world.” On Twitter, the sedevacantist Fr. Anthony Cekada dealt this nonsense a knock-out punch: “What you will NOT hear the Supreme Doofex say is the reverse: ‘By listening to the Church, young people will once again hear the Lord speaking in today’s world'”. In this juxtaposition we see the difference between Modernism and Catholicism: The Modernist begins with man and concludes something about God; the Catholic begins with God and judges all things by His revealed truth. The Modernist goes to man to say something about God; the Catholic goes to God to seek the truth about man.
Next, the papal pretender turned to the topic of ecumenism, which is certainly most dear to his Modernist heart:
There are also areas to which the Catholic Church, especially after the Second Vatican Council, is particularly committed. Among these is Christian unity, which is “an essential requirement of our faith, a requirement that flows from the depth of our being believers in Jesus Christ”. It involves a “journey”, yet, as was also stated by my predecessors, it is an irreversible journey and not a going back. “Unity is made by walking, in order to recall that when we walk together, that is, when we meet as brothers, we pray together, we collaborate together in the proclamation of the Gospel, and in the service to the least, we are already united. All the theological and ecclesiological differences that still divide Christians will only be surmounted along this path, although today we do not know how and when [it will happen], but that it will happen according to what the Holy Spirit will suggest for the good of the Church”.
What do you know! This “essential requirement of our faith”, as Francis calls it, was not only missed for roughly 1,930 years by the Church, but downright condemned. We need not enter here into a full-fledged refutation of ecumenism (much of which can be found here); we can simply point to a few papal condemnations before Vatican II, such as:
- Pope Pius IX, Holy Office Letter to English Bishops on Christian Unity (1864)
- Pope Pius IX, Holy Office Letter to Certain Puseyite Anglicans (1865)
- Pope Pius IX, Apostolic Letter Iam Vos Omnes (1868)
- Pope Leo XIII, Apostolic Letter to Archbishop Francis Satolli (1895)
- Pope Leo XIII, Encyclical Satis Cognitum (1896)
- Pope Leo XIII, Apostolic Letter condemning the Proselytism of Protestants (1900)
- Pope Pius XI, Encyclical Mortalium Animos (1928)
- Pope Pius XII, Canonical Warning Cum Compertum (1948)
- Pope Pius XII, Holy Office Instruction Ecclesia Catholica (1949)
The true Catholic teaching is very simple: There is only one kind of genuine religious unity, and that is the unity of Faith, worship, and government in the Church founded by Jesus Christ, the holy Catholic Church. Everyone who is not yet a part of her must convert to her. No other kind of unity is possible or desirable. That’s what any “journey” or “dialogue” must ultimately culminate in; it is the goal to which all efforts must be directed. The fact that this teaching was abandoned at Vatican II demonstrates that the “Pope” (Paul VI) who ratified that infernal synod could not have been a true Pope.
Francis’ assertion that Catholics and Protestants proclaim the Gospel together is, if not properly heretical, at least proximate to heresy, since it implies that Protestants believe and profess the Gospel. One amusing aspect to this entire ecumenical farce is that, as “Cardinal” Kurt Koch candidly admitted earlier this year, after 50+ years of dialogue, the ecumenical partners cannot even agree on so much as the point of it all:
That the foul-mouthed heretic Martin Luther is now considered a “witness to the Gospel” for the Novus Ordo Sect, speaks volumes about what ecumenism does to souls and what the Vatican Modernists understand by the term “Gospel.”
Francis’ remark, made a bit later in his address, that “true dialogue cannot be built on ambiguity or a willingness to sacrifice some good for the sake of pleasing others”, is mere lipservice, for in jettisoning the Great Commission of teaching and making disciples of all nations (see Mt 28:19-20), “some good for the sake of pleasing others” has long been sacrificed. The Great Commission is a divine mandate, not a pious suggestion. Talk about the Church being “by her very nature projected ad extra“!
After Francis’ address, the pseudo-cardinals lined up one by one to greet their pseudo-pope, as is customary. Francis happily shook hands and exchanged words with all of them, except for one: “Cardinal” Gerhard Ludwig Muller. No words were spoken. Although Francis was still grinning jollily, Muller’s facial expression remained serious, and the handshake was quicker than you can say “socio-anthropological dynamic”. The incident was noticed by the Italian Vaticanist Sandro Magister and can be seen in this video, around the 51:26 mark. The awkward moment is also captured in the photo below:
Well then: Merry Christmas!
Image source: youtube.com (Vatican News; screenshot)
License: fair use
;
By listening to Jorge Bergoglio, young people once again hear the devil speaking in today’s world. Francis is a witness of another gospel as St. Paul warns, “But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach a gospel to you besides that which we have preached to you, let him be anathema. As we said before, so now I say again: If any one preach to you a gospel, besides that which you have received, let him be anathema.” Gal. 1:8,9
We are so blessed to realize that St. Peter’s seat is empty! I pray for those in the Novus Ordo every day, and work to get them out. But, I have to say that your articles are a source of tension release… and they are very funny.. (yet they also elucidate the serious modernist errors). With Chaos Frank, things are so hilariously ridiculous that it almost seems like a sitcom! I’m just waiting for something to snap. That big fat Frank can’t keep on inching further and further out onto the plank before it snaps! It’s a game to guess what will be the straw that finally breaks the camels back!
St. Peter’s chair is not empty. It is occupied by a son of satan (the 6th of the 7 heads, beginning with Roncalli; cf Apocalypse 12:3, 13:1, 17:3, 7, 9). So, rather than being labeled and anathematized a sedevacantist by blind tradcats, I prefer sedediabolus. After all, Our Lady said that Rome would lose the faith and become the seat of the antichrist. “Jesus answered them: Have not I chosen you twelve; and one of you is a devil?” (John 6:71)
Right! You make some very good points! Merry Christmas 🙂
Thank you, Dominic. May you have a most blessed Feast of Our Lord’s Nativity, as well. Viva Cristo Rey! In Christ the Infant King and His holy mother our Queen.
The term in canon law is actually, “sede impedita”. The article in the Catholic Encyclopedia mentions in its article on CARDINAL that were a pope to become a heretic or insane, there are no ecclesiastical laws to handle it, “sede Romana impedita”. Christ founded His society on earth also as a juridical society, and before the true pope is elected, the Roman diocese declares legally that it is vacant before proceeding to elect.
“Were a Pope to become a heretic…” I can only speak for myself, but I don’t think any true Pope has ever become a heretic. What we have here is people claiming to be Pope who were never Pope for an instance.
Either never been, or ceased to be, are both possibilities for sure. But the certainty that the man does not have the Faith is by the impossibility of his action as alleged pope, making it a dogmatic fact he cannot be. But the same errors while not being pope allow for the man to have the virtue of Faith along with the material error. The act within the papacy cannot allow for material error, because that is what infallibility precisely prevents – ‘erring’….against faith or morals.
When one familiarizes oneself with Roncalli, one can see that the man had issues from the very beginning. By the time of his ordination, he was already a modernist (I know, I am a presumptuous and judgemental monster). And Montini’s parents were whack jobs, so it stands to reason that he was brought up with anti-catholic ideas. It is down hill from there.
How these people acted once “elected” confirms what the evidence already points out.
According to my understanding it is impossible for the Chair of Peter to be occupied by a heretic. A better explanation is that it is impeded. In other words there is an impediment to its occupancy by a true successor of Peter.
Merry Christmas NOW and friends.
The most the Church allows us to say is that a false pope can “possess” the Pontificate, or Apostolic See, albeit, uselessly spiritually. Since he doesn’t have the keys of St. Peter, the most he can do is what materially would be associated with that possession. Like a thief who steals a car by towing it away; he cannot drive it without the key, but he has the power to maintain it for driving, such as keep the tires inflated and change the oil, etc.
Rube, Where does the Church teach this?
When Pius IX, on the occasion of raising him to the dignity of a “Doctor of the Church”, approved of St. Francis de Sales’ work “Catholic Controversies” saying it is a “full and complete demonstration of the Catholic religion”. Within it, the Doctor teaches:
“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.”
The “either deprive” means it is legitimate to believe he possesses the Apostolic See, obviously uselessly since he is out of the Church.
In 1887 the Roman Congregation scrutinized and approved in its 5th edition a three book set of canon law books in English for the American clergy, “Elements of Ecclesiastical Law”. It echoes the same idea, but terms it the “Pontificate”, and describes it in more canonical terms in reference to the above “either…or”:
“Question: Is a Pope who falls into heresy deprived, ipso jure, of the Pontificate?”
“Answer: There are two opinions: one holds that he is by virtue of divine appointment, divested ipso facto, of the Pontificate; the other, that he is, jure divino, only removable. Both opinions agree that he must at least be declared guilty of heresy by the church, i.e., by an ecumenical council or the College of Cardinals. The question is hypothetical rather than practical”.
Obviously if both opinions agree that he must be judged, both opinions therefore agree the man is not a pope already, otherwise they wouldn’t dare go to judgment.
Sorry Rube, but both your answers came before the 1917 Code of law. Can. 188.4 says differently and we go by the current law, not by opinions pre-code of law, right?
Ecclesiastical law is human law, not divine law. What I presented pertained to divine law, and ecclesiastical law cannot be opposed to it.
No Rube, you didn’t provide Divine law. You provided opinions and those opinions were overridden by the law. Much of ecclesiastical law is divine law not just human law. Are you now arguing that the law of the Church was written against divine law? Because it looks like you’re in heresy for suggesting it.
St. Francis de Sales provided what was in accord with divine law. What don’t you accept in what he taught?
Rube, First of all, I don’t accept your interpretation of him. He plainly states “out of the Church” which means he has nothing to do with the papacy. He’s out of the church. De Sales suggests that the church has two options, but neither implies that the fallen pope (as you say) “possesses the apostolic see.” He simply means “the Church must either deprive him (deny recognition), or, as some say, declare him deprived (deny recognition with declaration)”.
Secondly, he’s giving his opinion because in his day, you were permitted to hold that a heretic could be pope until warned or declared so as taught by Cajetan, John of St. Thomas, etc. These erroneous opinions have been squashed by the teaching of the First Vatican Council and the post Vat1 popes.
What the Church teaches today is what we go by and the law tells us in can. 188.4 how it works. Past opinions are meaningless.
You didn’t answer my question: Are you now arguing that the law of the Church was written against divine law? I ask this because you’re suggesting the law of the Church when written goes against the Divine law and that is heresy.
You have many erroneous ideas. First, St. Francis de Sales was approved AFTER 1870, which means it was freshly approved by the Church after the Vatican Council. As was “Elements of Ecclesiastical Law” ( EEL).
Next, words mean something, and you must know what they mean. The word “deprive” means “dispossess”. Look it up rather than inventing your own definition. I could stop right here as being sufficient, but let me continue.
Ecclesiastical law is human law. This is from EEL. These laws help make it easier to protect divine law. If the law goes away, the divine law still stands.
If you look at the encyclical “Magnae Nobis” you will see it stated that the Roman Pontiff is above canon law, so it doesn’t apply to him. This means that canon 188.4 does not apply to a pope, which is why St. Francis taught according to divine law alone on this subject.
Lastly, Cum Ex Apostolatus mentions BOTH that a pope cannot be a heretic AND a heretic can participate in a certain type of ecclesastical jurisdiction. This is not a contradiction. Both are true, which is why it says, “type of”.
Rube, deprive means to deny possession or depose. And there are several ways someone can be deposed, literally or spiritually. Whatever Francis de Sales meant is really irrelevant because it was an opinion in his day. We go by the law. Again, not all Canon law is human law. Much of it is Divine law as Rev. Augustine explains in his commentary on the Code of Canon law.
Very Rev. H. A. Ayrinhac taught in his “General Legislation in the New Code of Canon Law,” pp. 349-350: Loss of Ecclesiastical Offices. Canons 185-191 “applies to all offices, the lowest and the highest, not excepting the Supreme Pontificate.” (p. 346)
The pope doesn’t fall under the penalties found in canon law but can.188.4 is not a penalty.
As for the church law 188.4, it doesn’t go away and it doesn’t go against divine law. You have not given any divine law. You have given an opinion it most certainly is not divine law that a fallen (heretical) pope maintains the apostolic see.
The main problem with your argument is that you’re saying Canon law was written against Divine law. That’s heresy!
As for Cum ex. your miss applying the point taught by Pope Paul IV.
Twice now you falsified my position in order to then say it is heresy. I never said canon law was written against divine law. Never. In fact, right from the start I said the opposite – “What I presented pertained to divine law, and ecclesiastical law cannot be opposed to it.” I cannot help but wonder whether you are really reading what I am posting.
Further evidence that you are not really even reading is that you are just repeating things that I have already addressed. Yes, the word “deprive” means “dispossess” look it up and stop inventing your own meaning to it. Then you try to dismiss the quote by St. Francis de Sales by saying it is old opinion even though I explained that the Church FRESHLY approved of it. That brings it current as of 1877, after the Vatican Council.
It is also clear you don’t really understand the difference between divine and ecclesiastical law. I already said that the Roman Congregation approved of EEL and it plainly says that ecclesiastical law is human law. But you don’t understand that. Yes, divine law is within that human law, but because man is adding stipulations, this is why it is considered human law. It is divine law that the will of a man can choose to resign an office. But that is not merely what canon law leaves it as. It adds stipulation to make it easier to discern and easier to handle. Those added stipulations don’t apply to a pope, just the divine law.
Rube, I asked you the question because you first dismissed what I wrote. I’ve not falsified anything. You even go against your own quotation because the second quote you provide (which comes from Sebastian Smith quoting earlier canonists) states, “There are two opinions” and you insist that it’s the divine law. You are giving opinions. PERIOD!
I gave you the current law and the expert canon lawyer that tells us who it applies to which contradicts what you wrote. You know better than Rev. Ayrinhac now?
Making St. Francis de Sales a doctor of the Church doesn’t necessarily mean that his opinion is Church teaching. We have several Church doctors whose opinions are now considered heresies, such as St. Chrysostom and St. Anselm’s teaching that Mary sinned, or St Gregory Nazianzen’s teaching that hell is not eternal.
Rev. Augustine writes, “canon law is either human or divine.” You are wrong!
All you have done is tell us your opinion what is divine law and you are wrong to say that it’s divine law that a fallen heretical pope may possess the apostolic see!
Are you going to continue on with your lies or admit that you’re wrong?
Yes, you did falsify something – you said, that I said, canon law could be against divine law and that that was heresy. Yet…I NEVER said canon law could be against divine law. You are the one who should stop lying to yourself about that. What I said is in black and white here, so if you are going to accuse me, then quote me verbatim first.
Of course I knew the EEL said “opinion”! I am the one who provided the quote and I know what the word “opinion” looks like! My point was that the EEL was not talking about canon law, but about an opinion that “pertained” to divine law *NOT* canon law. Yes, I know there are “two” opinions, but my point is that BOTH are acceptable opinions. Namely, that it is acceptable to think the Apostolic See can be possessed or not by a false pope, but nevertheless in either case a practical declaration NEEDS to be made. St. Francis was presenting both hypothetical opinions as not being against the faith to believe.
As well, I mentioned that the EEL said that ecclesiastical (canon) law was “human law”. Don’t call me a liar just because YOU think that Rev. Augustine said something opposite. You should try to reconcile both before rushing to call me a liar.
Also, I already explained about the interaction of human and divine law in the canons, and you seem to just pass right over that. I have already acknowledged that canon law pertains to divine law, because it is there to make things easier to protect divine law. But just because of that doesn’t mean it IS divine law….and the EEL said it is “human law”, because it adds things that are not already there in the divine law.
Rube, I’ve read the conversation between you and 2c3n1 and you can’t call yourself a Catholic by arguing against Canon 188.4. It’s clear that is what you are trying to do by saying there are two acceptable opinions when there is only one acceptable teaching which we must adhere to.
Lee Speray? If you are, I have noticed you have an off-balanced extreme views on things. Canon 188.4 is human law on top of divine law. I have already explained this here. Let me get more detailed now. The divine law is that the WILL of a prelate to resign is a solid truth that occurs that cannot be stopped. Yet, implied resignation is more difficult, and canon law makes this easier by legislating how to discern and handle it. BUT…this canon law does not apply to a pope, which is why St. Robert Bellarmine says ‘manifest heretic’ and St. Francis de Sales says ‘explicit heretic’. This is not arguing “against” canon law, it is exlpaining that canon law does not apply to a pope and we must go with what the Saint and Doctors I mentioned said about it.
Who is he? Do you know him? Thank you for showing us how Rev. H. A. Ayrinhac doesn’t know what he is talking about and that you do. Throw in Rev. Augustine in there to since you disagree with him on what constitutes Canon Law.
No thanks for the sarcasm. They do know what they are talking about, though it is not beneath them to be mistaken. At this point I would only be repeating myself.
Rube, Why are you trying to “out” the name of a commenter? You use a pseudonym to protect your identity for good reason I’m sure. What was your purpose to pull a stunt like that?
I am arguing against your faulty understanding, not the canon. It’s solid that a manifest heretic cannot be pope. But a “pope” and the “Apostolic See” (or “Pontificate”) are not the same thing. The EEL I previously quoted mentions that for the false pope, there are two opinions about whether he possesses it legally still but uselessly. For practical purposes, it doesn’t matter, because either way a declaration is needed before proceeding to an election.
What’s faulty is your argument that a fallen heretical pope can possess the apostolic see.
And it’s no wonder you think that when you invent your own definition for the term “deprive”.
Rube, you got it wrong and I proved it. It’s your opinion against the canonists.
You have yet to prove that your re-definition of “deprive” is legit.
Rube, I defined deprive in a comment as: deny possession or depose which a dictionary states. It’s not my personal definition. I have no problem with using either definition concerning St. Francis de Sales. If we use your interpretation of de Sales, what’s the difference between “the Church must either deprive him, or, as some say, declare him deprived” in relation to the fallen pope with the Church?
Rube, I falsified nothing. I asked you, “Are you now arguing that the law of the Church was written against
divine law? Because it looks like you’re in heresy for suggesting it.” You didn’t answer the question.
I quoted Rev. Augustine, do you not accept what he stated? I quoted Rev. Ayrinhac, do you not accept what he stated?
Somewhat belated, I know, but I wish to add something, because I thought more about it. Do you remember the pope who had an error about the beatific vision? I think it was a Pope John? Anyway, this was a concern at the time, and it was considered basically heretical. Yet, historically they say it was well-known, but that he didn’t teach it as universal pastor, just on a local level, so that it didn’t affect him being pope. Now….look at later canon law about bishops and priests express heresy publicly, the law says they lose their office ipso facto. Yet, that previous Pope John didn’t lose his office ipso facto! And, the canon law doesn’t worry about teaching as universal pastor or not. Think about it, this shows the difference between divine and ecclesiastical law, otherwise you would have to complain that in the time of that Pope John they didn’t claim he lost his office ipso facto. New canon law ADDS to divine law more safety by making lesser mistakes in doctrine have graver results that make it more fearful for clergy to make mistakes in regard to doctrine.
Rube, Pope John XXII has been dealt with numerous times. He didn’t preach heresy and that’s why he didn’t lose office. N.O.W. dealt with the Pope John XXII issue here: https://novusordowatch.org/?s=john+xxii
A pope who preaches heresy ipso facto loses his office because he’s out of the Church, and that’s divine law! Universal pastor has nothing do with it.
Your entire argument has been exposed by the real experts of canon law that I provided. Cardinal Manning also explains why you’re wrong.
Did you notice at the link you gave it says, with emphasis added, “he taught this as a private teacher, not as Pontiff”. Now, why would this be said if it wasn’t important?
Rube, You missed the point because at the link it also stated “Pope John spoke on a matter not yet settled (3) in order to ascertain the truth of the matter so it could be defined, (4) meanwhile permitting others to differ from him. In other
words, the Pope did not exercise his Magisterium; he did not commit heresy; and although his view was erroneous, it was permissible for him to hold at the time. The Church historian Fr. Reuben Parsons explicitly states that in holding his theory, Pope John was “in the full exercise of his right” (Studies in Church History, vol. 2, 2nd ed. [Fr. Pustet & Co., 1896], p. 500).
As I’ve stated before, the canonists and Cardinal Manning explain why your argument is wrong.
You didn’t answer my question, but your answer does show that you think what I mentioned doesn’t mean anything in itself. But it does. You see, even things that have not been settled can still be harmful to the faith. To “err” against faith or morals includes things that are even less than heresy, even ambiguously phrased doctrine the Church is protected from when it comes to universal teaching. That is why what I pointed to has particular significance when it comes to infallibility. Other bishops don’t have that. They can err against faith or morals unwittingly. Canon 188.4 was designed for them. It is NOT divine law that a prelate loses his office for material error that he is not personally guilty of.
Rube, You wrongly accused Pope John of heresy and I showed you that he didn’t teach heresy. That was the point of your argument which you got wrong. You thought Pope John taught heresy but didn’t lose the pontificate thinking you proved me wrong. Fact is, you got the whole thing wrong! Pope John didn’t err against the faith because opinion stage is not part of the faith. Popes can err but not against the faith. It looks like you’re in heresy again rejecting the First Vatican Council which declared: “this See of St. Peter always remains unimpaired by any error.”
Can. 188.4 was designed for popes, now? You said it doesn’t apply to popes. Which is it?
Material error? You don’t know what it is. I’ve read the manuals on it, but you have not.
You don’t get anything right. All you do is spew nonsense and heresy.
I said error and heretical, not heresy. And you basically just ignored my whole present argument about material heresy of lesser bishops NOT being divine law to oust them from their offices.
Rube, I have proved you wrong on Pope John XXII and now you’re doing damage control on what you said. Are you now saying that when Pope John was being heretical in his preaching, that he wasn’t preaching heresy? Lol.
I’ve already quoted Ayrinhac and you’re arguing against him on the canon. I quoted Augustine what constitutes canon law but you apparently think you know better than all the canonists.
I ignored your present material error argument because you haven’t admitted to your errors on the other points and I have never brought up some argument that concerns material errors. It’s completely irrelevant. Btw, you never answered my question why you attempted to out another commenter. Why don’t you tell us who you are?
You never answered several of my questions but you expect me to answer all of your questions.
Go to thetradforum.com and we can continue this there. Mario would appreciate it, I’m sure.
Indeed I would. I’m closing the thread now.
Rube:
I have always had some difficulties with the materialiter/formaliter theory with regard to the post Vatican II “popes.”
You seem to have some insight on the matter. Therefore, I am sincerely asking you to comment on what I wrote to someone about 3 weeks ago on N.O.W.:
“for me, the usurpers of the Chair of St. Peter have NO AUTHORITY for ANYTHING – not even strictly material or administrative things, let alone infallible pronouncements such as canonizations. For me, if Jorge should command the Swiss Guard to wear solid blue socks instead of multi-colored socks, I would consider such a rule null and void. If he were to rule that bishops must no longer wear amaranth, but revert back to the more ancient custom of green, I would consider it null and void. These inimical usurpers have NO authority for anything.”
This is my OPINION, but I would certainly be open to a correction, based on Catholic teaching. That’s why I tend to not be a follower of the materialiter/formaliter theory. I don’t think any of the Vatican II “popes” had any authority to alter any rules of the conclaves, or to make certain men cardinals, or to force retirement on prelates who have reached a certain age, etc.
I would appreciate your opinion. Thank you.
I think the reply you need is to look (below) at an excerpt Sonia provided from “Cum Ex Apostolatus”. It mentions that heretics, while they cannot be pope, can have “a certain type of ecclesiastical jurisdiction”. I must reiterate, for good measure, that the “papa materialiter” concept includes the belief that the man is NOT a true pope.
Thank you. I do realize that the papa materialiter concept includes the notion that he is not the pope formaliter. However, what does that mean in the practical order? For me, the Vatican II “popes” had no authority to do anything, in as much as they were/are not Catholics and are inimical to the faith. For me, their alteration of the rules for who are papal electors is null and void. Their rules that force retirement on clerics is null and void. Thus, if Jorge were to rule that bishops must not use amaranth for any clothing, but go back to the ancient custom of using green on their cassocks, birettas etc.; would certain sedevacantist bishops follow such a ruling? It would certainly NOT be sinful to go back to the green, in as much as it was an old custom, and it would pertain only to the MATERIAL aspect of the church, and have nothing to do with doctrine, morals, worship. Does a materialiter “pope” have the power to make any changes whatsoever, in even the most mundane things (like the socks of the Swiss Guard)? If the answer is no, than I am inclined to think the materialiter/formaliter theory is a useless distinction which solves no problems and addresses nothing. But, again, I am looking for contrary opinions to mine.
I would like to know what that “certain type of ecclesiastical jurisdiction” is. I find it difficult for anyone to be subject in any way (materially or formally) to an inimical, heretical usurper. In what way is a Catholic subject to a heretic, with regard to anything pertaining to religion?
Excellent thoughts on the subject! I have some immediate thoughts as a result, but I would rather think about it more, before responding. Very interesting.
After thinking about this more, what comes to my mind is the difference between “Bishop of Rome” and “Universal Pastor”. They are two distinctions I have seen made, and I think they would apply to your question. They say the man can act in either role. Such as historically a pope preaching a heresy in his own Church, but not teaching it to the world.
As well what comes to my mind is the idea that a “certain type of ecclesiastical jurisdiction” would necessarily (a fortiori) include anything less than jurisdiction, namely, “authority” that is not considered jurisdiction.
Lastly, there is the concept of the “Administrator” which traditionally administrates duties when a see becomes vacant. These duties don’t make the administrator the bishop, but nevertheless they were duties under the authority of that bishop when he was alive.
Putting all these together, I would say the false pope is relegated merely to some type of Administrator only in that diocese.
Thanks for the reply.
It still doesn’t click with me. Perhaps I am dunce.
The Bishop of Rome is, by definition, the Universal Pastor. Its like two names for the same thing (e.g. car and automobile).
Can you site an example of a pope preaching heresy in “his own church,” by which, I guess, you mean a Church in the Roman diocese, because all the churches of the world are his own? I can concede the idea of an immoral pope coercing someone to commit sin with him, but that is different from teaching or preaching heresy to a Roman congregation or to the Universal Church.
To me, any jurisdiction without authority is no jurisdiction at all. For example how could the ordinary of a diocese (say, the Bishop of Podunk, Iowa) have jurisdiction, but no authority? Or how could the Bishop of Podunk, Iowa have authority, but no jurisdiction? I can see where he has authority in the diocese of Podunk, Iowa, but not in the diocese of Cornfield Iowa. But with regard to the Roman Pontiff who has plenary power, authority, and jurisdiction, I still don’t get it.
So how would the “materialiter” Bishop of Rome, who is excluded from the Church (outside of the church, extra ecclesiam) due to his heresy, and is neither a priest nor a bishop, have a “certain jurisdiction” but no authority? I think if he has no authority he has no jurisdiction. The two go hand-in-hand.
All of this is academic, but I have always had a problem with the theory. In Jorge’s case, he is neither a priest, let alone a bishop. He was a raging heretic before his election by a body of heretics. So the designation of Jorge to become the pope by a group of heretical “cardinals” who were “elevated” to the college of cardinals by usurpers pretending to be popes makes the whole thing a COMPLETE SHAM.
Perhaps the materialiter/formaliter theory applied to the case of Roncalli’s “election,” (which I believe was invalid due to the 1: various suspicious deaths – murders? – and calamitous events with the college of cardinals, and 2: the fact that Roncalli was a flaming Modernist, and possibly 3: the forced resignation or abdication of another elected pope – as is the contention of some) where real cardinals allegedly really elected a heretic. And then perhaps there may have been a similar situation with Montini’s continuance of the revolution in 1963. But the conclaves which “elected” Luciani and Wojtyla and the subsequent conclaves were certainly not even capable of making a valid election, because (presumably Catholic) cardinals over 80 yrs old were not permitted, and there were so many modernists cardinals “created” by Roncalli and Montini (198 of them). Therefore, I just do not see what good the materialiter/formaliter theory provides for Catholics now.
In my opinion, heretics who were “created” cardinals by heretical non-popes cannot be electors of the Roman Pontiff. What if Jorge made it a rule that the Lutheran Synod of Bishops will be the electoral body for the next conclave? It would be similar to the current group of heresiarchs who have elected John Paul I through Jorge. I think sede privationists with the materialiter/formaliter theory would say that a materialiter pope can alter the method of election of the pope. I don’t see how.
I think we are in an even worse situation than what the sede privationists would admit. But, I am no great thinker, and have only a modest education. I am willing to be corrected.
I hope to effectively address all your concerns by covering what I see are the main points.
The Catholic books talk about “when” he teach as universal pastor, which implies he can also teach merely as Bishop of Rome and not universal pastor. It’s like a man who is both husband and father, some of his acts will be as father and others as husband, even though he is both.
All jurisdiction is authority, but not all authority is jurisdiction. The father of a family has authority, but he does not have jurisdiction.
The term sedeprivationist was invented by someone in England who was against it. It is not the real term for the thesis.
I don’t particularly care to promote the thesis. I only defend it when it is misunderstood or ridiculed, because it is also a defense of the reputations of the great men who have held it, as well as the reputation of Thomistic philosophy since it is the sacred command of the Church that all schools learn philosophy and theology according to the methods of St. Thomas.
I think it is sufficient merely to understand that by divine law the right to elect the Bishop of Rome is with the clergy-citizens there, notwithstanding any other methods or stipulations by law that can be put aside in unusual circumstances, as long as these clergy concede to a man with the true Faith who agrees to be their bishop, then it is simply done, election over. Being a “citizen” is a geographical thing, not a spiritual office.
Without the thesis, it is just as easy to defend the true position fo the false popes, which is what I have quoted from two books. There simply needs to be a declaration that the previous impeder was a false pope before an election can proceed, and the declaration, logically, must include the consent of those who have the right to elect.
Yeah.
These Popes – Pope Gregory XVI in Mirari Vos (1832)
Pope Pius IX in Quanta
Cura and Syllabus of Errors (1864)
Pope Leo XIII in
Immortale Dei (1865) and Libertas Humana (1888)
Pope
Pius XI in Quas Primas (1925) and Mortalium Animos
(1928)
Pope Pius XII in Mystici Corporis (1943)
– condemned what Vatican II condones; further:
“Heretics and schismatics are barred from the Supreme Pontificate by the Divine Law itself, because, although by divine law they are not considered incapable of participating in a certain type of ecclesiastical jurisdiction, nevertheless, they must certainly be regarded as excluded from occupying the throne of the Apostolic See, which is the infallible teacher of the truth of the faith and the center of ecclesiastical unity – Bull Cum Ex Apostolatus [16 Feb. 1559], Pope Paul IV
I would add that folks who think Bergoglio is an idiot, well, it seems to me, he is counting on the Novus Ordo ‘faithful’ (that includes, Mr Matt, and Mr Ferrara and friends) to continue to be ‘useful idiots’ (a Stalinist term).
The whole ‘ecumenical dialogue’ thing is the same play-book used in the purposefully, never-ending “peace” “negotiations” between the Palestinians and the Jews. Just keep the Palestinians talking while we (Jews) keep stealing land and building settlements.
In this juxtaposition we see the difference between Modernism and Catholicism: The Modernist begins with man and concludes something about God; the Catholic begins with God and judges all things by His revealed truth. The Modernist goes to man to say something about God; the Catholic goes to God to seek the truth about man.
This is one of the best sentences i’ve ever read. And I’ll use it often when speaking to novus ordo catholics and their cousins, those still attached to the sspx.
In the Modernist church, Christ must conform to the world, in the Catholic Church the world must conform to Christ.
Exactly. A main element within the Heresy of Modernism–that being Vital Immanentism.
Romans 1;7
7 To all that are at Rome, the beloved of God, called to be saints. Grace to you, and peace from God our Father, and from the Lord Jesus Christ.
Not the United States; Not Washington DC; not London;England; not even Jerusalem! Rome.
His Father died at 50, his mother at 70, his younger brother at 68.
Francis seems to enjoy briskly shoving the Cardinals aside. Especially the non-Trotskyites! He is the most insincere and reptilian of the putative pontiffs.