Blog arhiva

The “Heretical” Popes (Part 1): Adrian VI

Setting the Record straight…

The “Heretical” Popes
Part 1: Adrian VI

[UPDATE 07-APR-2015: The First Vatican Council on the Question of a Heretical Pope]

There are two major lines of argument used by people who are rabidly anti-sedevacantist; that is, those who oppose the position of Sedevacantism not on account of evidence, real or imagined, but on account of a desire to see the position opposed for some other motive.

The first line of argumentation is to downplay the problems with the Vatican II “Popes” to make them seem less serious than they are. The second line of argumentation is to exaggerate the problems with some true Popes of the past to make them seem comparable to the situation we find ourselves in today, when outright apostates are claiming the papal office, especially Francis, Benedict XVI, John Paul II, and Paul VI.

As the heresies of Francis are so much out in the open now that anyone who wishes to retain some respectability and credibility can no longer deny them, it is the second line of argumentation that is now receiving renewed emphasis. On various blogs, forums, and web sites, claims are being made by some to the effect that “we’ve always had heretical Popes” — an outrageous and theologically as well as historically erroneous statement that is being uttered with a nonchalantness that could put Hans Kung to shame.

Boiling it down to the basics: The reason it is impossible for the Church to have a publicly heretical Pope is that this would destroy the unity of the Church, one of the hallmarks of her nature. The Church is necessarily united in Faith; if her head publicly held a different faith, she would cease to be one and be no better than the local Protestant church down the street, where each believer may disagree with any other, even with the pastor, about what the truth really is.

Already in Holy Scripture, St. Paul the Apostle refers to Holy Mother Church as “the pillar and ground of the truth” (1 Tim 3:15) and teaches that our Lord instituted the sacred hierarchy so that “we all meet into the unity of faith, and of the knowledge of the Son of God, unto a perfect man, unto the measure of the age of the fulness of Christ; that henceforth we be no more children tossed to and fro, and carried about with every wind of doctrine by the wickedness of men, by cunning craftiness, by which they lie in wait to deceive” (Eph 4:13-14).

Furthermore, the Catholic Magisterium has consistently taught that all Catholics must be subject to the papacy as a student is subject to his teacher:

“The vigilance and the pastoral solicitude of the Roman Pontiff … according to the duties of his office, are principally and above all manifested in maintaining and conserving the unity and integrity of the Catholic faith, without which it is impossible to please God. They strive also to the end that the faithful of Christ, not being like irresolute children, or carried about by every wind of doctrine by the wickedness of men [Eph 4:14], may all come to the unity of faith and to the knowledge of the Son of God to form the perfect man, that they may not harm one another or offend against one another in the community and the society of this present life, but that rather, united in the bond of charity like members of a single body having Christ for head, and under the authority of his Vicar on earth, the Roman Pontiff, successor of the Blessed Peter, from whom is derived the unity of the entire Church, they may increase in number for the edification of the body, and with the assistance of divine grace, they may so enjoy tranquility in this life as to enjoy future beatitude.”

(Pope Benedict XIV, Apostolic Constitution Pastoralis Romani Pontificis, March 30, 1741; excerpted in Papal Teachings: The Church, p. 31; underlining added.)

 

The Holy Apostolic See and the Roman Pontiff have primacy in the entire world. The Roman Pontiff is the Successor of Blessed Peter, the Prince of the Apostles, true Vicar of Christ, Head of the whole Church, Father and Teacher of all Christians.”

(Pope Benedict XIV, Apostolic Constitution Etsi Pastoralis, May 26, 1742; excerpted in Papal Teachings: The Church, p. 32; under-lining added.)

 

“Our desire is to maintain unity in the bond of peace; and We have no other motive, in exposing the deceits of those who abuse the names of the [Church] Fathers to give false meaning to their words. Let all understand that there is no teaching which the Fathers have more at heart than that all should be kept in unity, attached to this Chair [of St. Peter] which alone Christ has made mother and mistress of all the others.”

(Pope Pius VI, Decree Super Soliditate, Nov. 28, 1786; excerpted in Papal Teachings: The Church, p. 60; underlining added.)

 

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, Letter Epistola Tua to Cardinal Guibert, June 17, 1885; underlining added.)

 

“Furthermore, we declare, we proclaim, we define that it is absolutely necessary for salvation that every human creature be subject to the Roman Pontiff.”

(Pope Boniface VIII, Bull Unam Sanctam, Nov. 18, 1302; under-lining added.)

 

“Now, whoever will carefully examine and reflect upon the condition of the various religious societies, divided among themselves, and separated from the Catholic Church, which, from the days of our Lord Jesus Christ and his Apostles has never ceased to exercise, by its lawful pastors, and still continues to exercise, the divine power committed to it by this same Lord; cannot fail to satisfy himself that neither any one of these societies by itself, nor all of them together, can in any manner constitute and be that One Catholic Church which Christ our Lord built, and established, and willed should continue; and that they cannot in any way be said to be branches or parts of that Church, since they are visibly cut off from Catholic unity.

“For, whereas such societies are destitute of that living authority established by God, which especially teaches men what is of Faith, and what the rule of morals, and directs and guides them in all those things which pertain to eternal salvation, so they have continually varied in their doctrines, and this change and variation is ceaselessly going on among them. Every one must perfectly understand, and clearly and evidently see, that such a state of things is directly opposed to the nature of the Church instituted by our Lord Jesus Christ; for in that Church truth must always continue firm and ever inaccessible to all change, as a deposit given to that Church to be guarded in its integrity, for the guardianship of which the presence and aid of the Holy Ghost have been promised to the Church for ever. No one, moreover, can be ignorant that from these discordant doctrines and opinions social schisms have arisen, and that these again have given birth to sects and communions without number, which spread themselves continually, to the increasing injury of Christian and civil society.”

(Pope Pius IX, Apostolic Letter Iam Vos Omnes [1868]; underlining added.)

These quotes speak for themselves, and they are obviously incompatible with the idea that a Pope could be a heretic, and that when he is, each of the faithful needs to determine this for himself and “resist” him accordingly, lest he be led astray and be punished eternally.

If a true Pope could be a heretic and still remain Pope, then the Church would have no need of a Pope — then he would not differ in essence from the leaders of the Anglican sect, or of the Eastern Orthodox churches, or of the Protestant faith communities. He would just become a ceremonial head whose tasks might include that of guiding, directing, and inspecting, but who ultimately holds no genuine authority, in virtue of his office, to teach the Faith and whose teaching demands assent for the mere fact that he, the Pope, is the one who is teaching (cf. Pope Pius XII, Encyclical Humani Generis, n. 20).

The one ecumenical council that dealt extensively with the dogmatic teaching on the papacy and the nature and authority of the Catholic Magisterium was the Vatican Council of 1870 (aka the “First” Vatican Council). Listen attentively to what the council teaches so eloquently:

To satisfy this pastoral duty, our predecessors always gave tireless attention that the saving doctrine of Christ be spread among all the peoples of the earth, and with equal care they watched that, wherever it was received, it was preserved sound and pure. Therefore, the bishops of the whole world, now individually, now gathered in Synods, following a long custom of the churches and the formula of the ancient rule, referred to this Holy See those dangers particularly which emerged in the affairs of faith, that there especially the damages to faith might be repaired where faith cannot experience a failure. The Roman Pontiffs, moreover, according as the condition of the times and affairs advised, sometimes by calling ecumenical Councils or by examining the opinion of the Church spread throughout the world; sometimes by particular synods, sometimes by employing other helps which divine Providence supplied, have defined that those matters must be held which with God’s help they have recognized as in agreement with Sacred Scripture and apostolic tradition. For, the Holy Spirit was not promised to the successors of Peter that by His revelation they might disclose new doctrine, but that by His help they might guard sacredly the revelation transmitted through the apostles and the deposit of faith, and might faithfully set it forth. Indeed, all the venerable fathers have embraced their apostolic doctrine, and the holy orthodox Doctors have venerated and followed it, knowing full well that the See of St. Peter always remains unimpaired by any error, according to the divine promise of our Lord the Savior made to the chief of His disciples: “I have prayed for thee, that thy faith fail not: and thou, being once converted, confirm thy brethren” [Luke 22:32].

So, this gift of truth and a never failing faith was divinely conferred upon Peter and his successors in this chair, that they might administer their high duty for the salvation of all; that the entire flock of Christ, turned away by them from the poisonous food of error, might be nourished on the sustenance of heavenly doctrine, that with the occasion of schism removed the whole Church might be saved as one, and relying on her foundation might stay firm against the gates of hell.

(Vatican Council, Dogmatic Constitution Pastor Aeternus, Ch. 4; Denz. 1836-1837; underlining added.)

It should be obvious to all that this teaching cannot be squared with the idea of a Pope who is also a public heretic, that is, one who publicly professes a faith that contradicts the faith of the Catholic Church as received from the Apostles. Quite simply, if a Pope could be a public heretic, then Vatican I’s teaching was false. But this is impossible. Therefore, we know that a Pope cannot be a public heretic.

Nevertheless, time and again assertions are made by anti-sedevacantists that several Popes in the Church’s history were public heretics — the sole objective being, of course, to lend support to the argument that if these “heretical Popes” were still true Popes, then so must we consider Francis and his five predecessors of infelicitous memory likewise to be true Popes, at least until some future Pope should declare otherwise (in which case one would then have to ask why anyone should pay attention to that future Pope if the contemporary ones need not be heeded, since what applies to one Pope necessarily applies to all of them). The position is entirely driven by the desire to justify accepting the Vatican II “Popes” while not having to assent to their teaching or having to submit to their rule.

The names of the alleged “heretical Popes” in Catholic history are usually the following, in chronological order (though others pop up occasionally as well): Liberius, Honorius I, Stephen VII, John XII, and John XXII. We will examine each case one by one, and perhaps a few others, in several installments, of which the current post is but the first, although we must begin with a different name altogether: that of Adrian VI.

Although no one has accused Pope Adrian VI of heresy, we will begin our blog post series on the “heretical Popes” with his case because he is sometimes invoked as having taught and believed that Popes can be heretics. In fact, the infamous quote, “Many Roman Pontiffs were heretics, the last of them being John XXII”, is ascribed to Pope Adrian, and some eager anti-sedevacantists have been quick to circulate this suspicious quote on the internet because, if true, it would help their case tremendously. Yet, this attitude of “Let’s make a claim first and ask questions later” is not acceptable with regard to such a serious and important matter as the orthodoxy of the Vicars of Christ and Catholic teaching on the papacy in general, which is the most august office in the world.

So, let’s pose the question directly: Did Pope Adrian VI truly utter or even teach these words, and what is their source?

The fact is that Pope Adrian did no such thing. Rather, the words were uttered by the theologian Adrianus Florentius, who later became Pope Adrian VI (he retained his baptismal name, Adrian, even as Pope). The book in which Adrianus makes this assertion is his Commentary on the Fourth Book of Sentences of Peter Lombard, published in 1516 (and in other editions even before then). Adrian did not became Pope until 1522 and died the following year. The authenticity of the quote can be verified by consulting an original copy of the book, which is available online. We are producing here a snapshot of the paragraph that contains the passage in question:

Source: Hadrianus Florentius, Quaestiones in quartum sententiarum praesertim circa sacramenta (Louvain, Belgium: 1516), fol. XXIII [screenshot of p. 52 of PDF file provided by Google Books]

There is no doubt that this quote and its source are authentic. We see, for example, other Catholic theologians writing at the time of Adrianus Florentius or after — but before the Vatican Council of 1870, we curiously note — referring to Adrian’s quote. For example, Bp. Jacques-Bénigne Bossuet of Meaux, France, uses the controversial quotation in Chapter 28 of his monograph Gallia Orthodoxa (1682).

Though in many ways recognized as a great theologian, Bossuet was also a proponent of Gallicanism and opposed the infallibility of the Pope, which was later defined as a dogma by the First Vatican Council, where this tenet of the Gallican school was condemned as heretical. At the time of Bossuet, however, a number of Gallican positions later condemned were still permitted theological opinions, or at least ones that were tolerated. This explains why Bossuet was able to hold this particular idea without being condemned at the time.

Gallicanism was a conglomeration of errors concerning the authority of the Pope mostly found in 17th and 18th-century France, though its origins go back to the 14th century. Over time, various Gallican propositions were condemned by the Church, most notably by Pope Alexander VIII in 1690 and Pope Pius VI in 1794, and most recently by the First Vatican Council in 1870, so that Gallicanism “is now professed only by the heretical sect of the Old Catholics” (Donald Attwater, ed., A Catholic Dictionary, s.v. “Gallicanism”) — note well! It is perhaps no accident that a lot of the errors held and promoted by the Society of St. Pius X resemble those of Gallicanism, as their founder, Abp. Marcel Lefebvre, was French.

Back to Bossuet. In the above-mentioned work, he approvingly cites Adrianus Florentius — who, at the time, was a theology professor in Louvain, Belgium — concerning the allegation that “many Roman Pontiffs were heretics”, though he admits that Adrianus wrote this not as Pope but as a theologian before he was raised to the Supreme Pontificate. Nevertheless, Bossuet argues, after Adrian had become Pope, he never retracted his original claim and even published his writings in Rome in 1522, that is, after becoming Pope. This is also the argument made by the rabidly anti-sedevacantist French blog La Question, which features an article on the topic here:

So, this seems like a slam dunk for the anti-sedevacantists, doesn’t it?

Well, not so fast. We need to be careful to distinguish evidence and facts from assumptions and conjecture. Let’s take a step back and list what we know and what we can reasonably infer:

  • Though not clearly proven, it is reasonably established that Adrianus Florentius made the claim that many Popes were heretics — unless the document was a forgery, which, however, would have to be proven
  • It is known that this was Adrianus’ belief before becoming Pope — he uttered it as a theology professor at Louvain
  • This belief, though erroneous, was allowed to be held at the time, or at least tolerated, as we can see from the fact that other theologians who held it, not only Adrianus Florentius but also Bossuet, for example, were not censured at the time (something that St. Robert Bellarmine points out, as we will see below)
  • It has not been directly proven, but merely inferred (albeit reasonably), that the edition of Adrianus’ writing after he became Pope still contains the claim that many Roman Pontiffs were heretics
  • The position taken by Adrianus and seconded by Bossuet was adhered to before the dogmatic teaching on the papacy by the Vatican Council of 1870
  • Even if we were to concede that it is possible for a Pope to become a public heretic and still remain a valid Pope, it is clear that Adrianus’ assertion that “many” Popes were heretics is definitely false
  • The only “Catholic” book we know of that still used the Adrianus quote after the First Vatican Council is Paul Viollet’s 1904 work L’Infaillibilité du Pape et le Syllabus [“The Infallibility of the Pope and the Syllabus”], where the author tries to back up his position that Popes can be heretics. This book, however, was subsequently examined by the Vatican and placed on the Index of Forbidden Books under Pope St. Pius X in 1908

Can you imagine what the anti-sedevacantists would say to us if as “proof” of our position we used a statement written by a Pope before he was Pope on the grounds that he did not retract it after becoming Pope and ordered (or simply didn’t prevent) the publication of his book during his pontificate? We’re talking here about people who do not think they are bound by teachings in papal encyclicals, by papal canonizations, by decrees of ecumenical councils, by universal church law, etc. Why would they care about what a Pope said before he became Pope — even if he allowed the document to be published once more after ascending the papal throne — about 350 years before the First Vatican Council?

It’s really funny how these anti-sedevacantists always demand nothing short of an ex cathedra pronouncement of us to prove our position, but somehow their position is definitively proved by every hiss or sneeze of anyone who wasn’t burned at the stake. The double standard is glaring and quite telling. Apparently, their arguments are determined not by what is true and reasonable, but solely by what helps support their desired conclusion.

But let’s look at some more evidence concerning the position taken by Adrianus Florentius, which he may also have held privately as Pope Adrian VI (we say “privately” because he certainly never made it part of his pontifical Magisterium). It’s not like no Catholic theologian or historian has ever written about this other than Bp. Bossuet and Paul Viollet. In fact, even St. Robert Bellarmine mentioned Adrian VI, as we will see later.

The famous French manual Dictionnaire de Théologie Catholique [“Dictionary of Catholic Theology”] has an entry on Adrian VI, and devotes one paragraph in particular to the issue at hand:

In Quaestiones in IVum Sententiarum, the statement that the pope can err, even in something which touches upon the faith has been noted. But it is altogether wrong that certain adversaries of infallibility have seen in this a serious argument in their favor, or that even in our days, certain others pretend to be scandalized by it. Adrian wrote the book from which the citation is taken long before his elevation to the chair of Peter, and it obviously does not participate in any way in the authority of pontifical acts. There is, moreover, no proof that in the mind of its author the assertion applies to ex cathedra definitions; consequently, [the statement] is nothing more than a reproduction of a theological opinion we encounter many times before the sixteenth century, either from the pen of popes themselves or in documents they approved. Thus Innocent III wrote: ‘Faith is so necessary to me that, if for every other fault I am subject to the judgment of God alone, it is only for a sin I commit in a matter of faith that I become subject to judgment of the tribunal of the Church.’ And already even before this, one reads in the Decree of Gratian (dist. XL, c. vi) these words of Boniface, Archbishop of Mainz: ‘No mortal man should pretend to reproach [the Roman Pontiff] for his faults. For, established as the judge of all, he recognizes no judge over himself, at least as long as he does not commit an error against the faith.’ In these texts and many others like it, the pope is obviously spoken of as a private doctor.

(J. Forget, “Adrian VI”, in Dictionnaire de Theologie Catholique [Paris: Letouzey, 1913-50], vol. I, c. 461; our translation; some italics removed.)

So, in short, the key take-away here is that what Adrianus said, even if we grant that he ordered it reprinted while he was Pope, is nothing but a “theological opinion” which, at that point in time, was still permissible to hold, but which was certainly no longer acceptable since the First Vatican Council, whose teaching is irreconcilable with the idea that the Pope could be a heretic. Hence it is easy to see why Paul Viollet’s book was put on the Index, even though it actually carried an imprimatur from the local ordinary, Abp. Fulbert Petit (ouch!).

The argument about Adrianus Florentius on the “heretical Popes” is also made by the excommunicated “Old Catholic” heretic Johann von Döllinger in his condemned work Der Papst und das Concil [in English translation as The Pope and the Council (Boston, MA: Roberts Brothers, 1870), p. 306], which he wrote under his pseudonym Janus. The work was also put on the Index of Forbidden Books and was refuted by Cardinal Joseph Hergenröther in his 1870 book Anti-Janus.

Next, let’s go to an Italian resource. The Dizionario di Erudizione Storico-Ecclesiastica [“Dictionary of Historical-Ecclesiastical Erudition”] says regarding Pope Adrian VI:

Adrian VI, Pope 228, formerly Adriano Florenzio, son of the craftsman Florenzio, was born on March 2, 1459 in Utrecht, Netherlands, and not in Sanzano in the diocese of Brescia, as stated without any good reason by the capuchin Mattia Bellintani (Storia di Salò, 1586). He received his degree in Leuven, and after that founded a college in that university which bears his name, which was later also named “Pontifical”. Someone noted that Adrian wrote (in 4 sent. de confirmatione): plures Pontifices fuerunt heretici (multiple Popes were heretics). Lodovico Vincenzo Goti excellently answers this accusation (tom. I verae eccles. cap II. n. 6): Adrian stated this while he was a theologian in Leuven; therefore, if his works were reprinted after he became Pope, without the removal of these words, one cannot say that he, as Pope, would support such a statement. How many times are works not reprinted without the author being aware of it, or with the author not being the last to make amendments? Later, Adrian received the ecclesiastical jurisdiction of Leuven, then became dean of the cathedral, and finally vice-chancellor of the university. Maximilian I, Holy Roman Emperor, appointed him as preceptor of Charles, his grandson, also sending him as ambassador to Ferdinand, the King of Spain, who appointed him as bishop of Tortosa, in that kingdom. When Charles ascended to the throne, the king gave to Adrian full powers over all the aspects of his monarchy and, since Adrian had already been made Cardinal of Saints John and Paul by [Pope] Leo X after an inquiry of Maximilian, he left him as general inquisitor and governor of Spain for the whole time, before going to Germany and taking possession of that empire under the name of Charles V.

(Gaetano Moroni Romano, ed., Dizionario di Erudizione Storico-Ecclesiastica [Venice: Tipografia Emiliana, 1840], s.v. “Adriano VI”, p. 104; our translation; some italics changed.)

Ah, so maybe the whole matter isn’t as clear-cut as some anti-sedevacantists would have us believe. Viollet, in his condemned work, mentions this reference and even quotes it (see p. 21, fn. 1) but claims it is improbable that Pope Adrian modified his work before being reprinted, or that it was reprinted without his knowledge or permission. All right, so now we’re down to arguing probabilities. That’s fine, as far as it goes, but let’s not act as though we had a clear-cut case here. In addition, let’s not forget that Viollet’s opinion appears in a book that has been condemned by the Church. So, which position had we rather side with?

At the end of the day, however, as already indicated, it does not really matter whether Pope Adrian had this work reprinted with or without this error, for the following two reasons:

  • The error was a permitted theological opinion at the time
  • The error in no wise became a part of his papal Magisterium

St. Robert Bellarmine himself in fact addresses the thesis of Adrianus Florentius in his monumental work De Romano Pontifice, first published by this name in the 17th century. He calls the opinion that the Pope can be a heretic and of himself (though not when making a definition at a council) teach heresy an opinion that “we dare not call properly heretical, for we still see those who maintain this position tolerated by the Church; yet it does seem completely erroneous and proximate to heresy and can rightly be judged heretical by the Church” (St. Robert Bellarmine, De Romano Pontifice, Book 4, Ch. 2, in Opera Omnia, Book 1 [Naples: J. Giuliano, 1856], p. 478; now available in complete English translation here: On the Roman Pontiff).

Now notice one very important thing: St. Robert is writing in the 17th century, over 250 years before the First Vatican Council issued its dogmas on the papacy. This corroborates exactly what we’ve asserted in this post, namely, that before Vatican I, these matters were still being disputed among theologians, especially back in the 1500’s and 1600’s, when Adrianus and Bossuet were writing, and therefore some positions were then either allowed or at least “tolerated” (St. Robert’s word) that can no longer be held today, over 140 years after Vatican I. In fact, St. Robert — who, as of 1931, is a Doctor of the Church, we might add — already says in the 1600s that the position taken by Adrianus and many anti-sedevacantists today could with justice be condemned as heretical in the future. This had not yet been done back then, so the people who held it were not heretics, but it is significant that St. Robert says that it deserves to be condemned as heretical. No wonder books during and after Vatican I who maintainted this position were put on the Index.

Another point that ought to be brought up, even if just for the sake of historical accuracy, is that when Adrianus Florentius wrote that “many Roman Pontiffs were heretics” in his Quaestiones in Quartum Sententiarum, he said it merely in passing and not as part of a treatise on papal authority or the unity of the Church. Rather, the context was dismissing an argument made by a theological opponent regarding the sacrament of confirmation. The opponent had cited St. Gregory the Great to substantiate his point about priests being able to administer confirmations, and Adrianus, disagreeing, said that Gregory had been wrong, and besides (so the theologian Adrianus claimed), “many Roman Pontiffs were heretics”. That is the context of the controversial saying to begin with. This does not, of course, negate what he said, but it is important to keep in mind that Adrianus’ remark was incidental to a discussion on a completely different topic; it was an obiter dictum. In addition to that, we note that he was wrong, not only with regard to confirmation, but also with regard to the question of whether many Popes were heretics. This is something that tends to be glossed over: Adrianus’ assertion is false.

And thus we have demolished yet another misleading anti-sedevacantist argument. As you can see, it takes real research to properly understand such issues, and we Sedevacantists are greatly outnumbered by the (often paid) apologists of the much more popular and convenient “resistance” position, in which you can have all the advantages of the sedevacantist position without any of its disadvantages.

Alas, our critics have the “bully pulpit”. They have the prestige, the positions of authority, the applause of the majority, the fancy broadcasting equipment, and the money and the time to disseminate their position to a wide audience. But there is one thing we have that they do not: the truth. If you would like to help the mission of Novus Ordo Watch, we have listed 12 specific ways you can do so; and no, they do not have to involve money.

A few more closing comments are in order.

In the debate about Sedevacantism, whether the Chair of St. Peter has been vacant since the death of Pope Pius XII in 1958, a lot of things are asserted by people who do not really understand the subject matter or who do not take the time to do real research. As we can see in the case of Pope Adrian VI here, it is very disappointing and troublesome to see anti-sedevacantists mindlessly recycle a quote of which they have no real knowledge other than someone having discovered it in a book put on the Index. They use the quote because it helps their case, regardless of what the truth of the matter may be. Such “research” and argumentation are reprehensible, and look at the consequences: They have now put in people’s minds the impious idea that a Pope does not even have to profess the true Faith in order to be Pope, in order to be the bulwark of truth and the principle of unity in the Church. The matter is absurd.

What’s also quite interesting is that these arguments and quotes brought forth by the anti-sedevacantists about the “heretical Popes” tend to be brought up, since 1870, only by people who argued against Vatican I. The only two “Catholic” books we know of since that council that use the case of Adrian VI to argue that Popes can be heretics are Dollinger’s and Viollet’s, and both were put on the Index. Not exactly a positive omen for our critics.

That’s why it is no surprise to see that, in general, any “resistance” quotes brought up by anti-sedevacantists are always from sources before 1870, when the First Vatican Council settled a number of teachings regarding the Papacy and the Magisterium. (Our TRADCAST 003 podcast deals with this matter at length.) Why will they not quote theologians after the council to justify their “recognize-and-resist” stance? Quite simply, because they cannot find any who teach such a thing, that’s why.

In Sacred Theology throughout history, you will always find positions at one time permitted and held that are later condemned or abandoned. This is to be expected, as the task of the theologian is to explain Catholic teaching and show its source in and harmony with Divine Revelation. Over hundreds of years, as theologians debate various issues, there will always be positions accepted that are later rejected by the Church as untenable, erroneous, or even heretical, and the history of the Church is full of precisely that, as the famous doctrinal document collection Denzinger (“The Sources of Catholic Dogma”) attests.

As we have insisted on numerous occasions in the past, it is absolutely essential to distinguish “heretical” Popes from immoral or “bad” Popes. The former is an impossibility, whereas the latter is, unfortunately, not unheard of in the history of the Church. The following resources we have produced will clarify this important distinction and explain the reasons why one is impossible and the other isn’t:

The Vatican II Sect and the resistance position of the Society of St. Pius X have done immeasurable damage to people’s understanding of Catholicism, especially the papacy. People are now accustomed to accusing real Popes (including the fake ones, inasmuch as they believe them to be real) of heresy without batting an eye. Yet notice how, even hundreds of years before Vatican I, St. Robert Bellarmine went out of his way to argue that such a thing was not even possible. If only St. Robert had had the wisdom of today’s resistance bloggers! He had no idea that the history of the Church is filled with “heretical Popes”, and neither did the fathers of the First Vatican Council! Martin Luther would be proud.

In truth, the situation is absurd. In their insatiable desire to see the Novus Ordo “Popes” as true Popes, while rejecting anything and everything from them that they find objectionable, the “resisters” have injected into people’s minds ideas that are entirely at odds with sound Catholic teaching, perverting their Faith to the point that they would never think of applying the clear teachings of the Catholic Magisterium on the papacy to Francis, Benedict XVI, John Paul II, or Paul VI. They would never do so because they know that if they did, it would turn them into heretics. But you cannot fight heresy with more heresy, nor with schism. It is simply impossible to accept Francis and his five predecessors as true Popes (with all that entails, not just the verbal acknowledgment) and still be a Catholic. So, what follows? They cannot have been true Popes. It is a necessary conclusion.

Thus far our first post in our ongoing series The “Heretical” Popes. Others will follow in due time. As you can see, it is very easy to disseminate a quote one has picked up somewhere without knowing the background, and to accuse Popes of the past of having been heretics. But it takes real, painstaking research to disentangle the whole mess and find out what the truth of the matter really is.

 

in Novus Ordo Wire    

Oglasi

The Errors of Michael Davies: A Comprehensive Refutation

John Daly destroys Semi-Trad Pioneer

The Errors of Michael Davies:
A Comprehensive Refutation

MICHAEL DAVIES — AN EVALUATION
by John S. Daly

(1st ed. 1989, 2nd ed. 2015)

FREE DOWNLOAD!

One of the most prominent and influential writers of the traditionalist movement in the Vatican II Church was the English writer Michael Treharne Davies (1936-2004), shown above with then-“Cardinal” Joseph Ratzinger. No individual has written more prolifically than Davies on traditionalist issues, and probably no single layman, with the possible exception of Dietrich von Hildebrand, has enjoyed wider prominence, credibility, and trustworthiness than him. But is this respect Mr. Davies has enjoyed really well-founded? If not, what does this mean for the people who base most of their understanding of the traditionalist subject matter on the research and argumentation of this one individual?

In a devastating dossier of 584 pages entitled Michael Davies — An Evaluation, Englishman John S. Daly (web site here) thoroughly dismantles the star apologist for Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre and the Society of St. Pius X. This exhaustively-researched and well-documented book exposes and refutes the errors, fallacies, dangers, false theology, and sloppy scholarship of Michael Davies. Twenty-six years after it was first published, a new revised and expanded edition of this invaluable work was made available to the public in 2015, both in hardcopy and electronically, the latter as a free PDF download only through Novus Ordo Watch. We have advertised this outstanding work in various ways on this web site before and are happy to do so once more.

The book description provided by the author reads as follows:

Cambridge-educated translator John S. Daly puts the scholarship of the late Michael Davies under the spotlight. What emerges from systematic comparison with statements of the Magisterium and the greatest theologians must destroy Davies’s credibility in the eyes of every serious reader. “Michael Davies – An Evaluation” remains not only an unanswered indictment of Davies as a Catholic scholar, but a standing refutation of the entire ecclesiology of those who believe it possible for an orthodox Catholic to reject the doctrinal errors and reformed rites spawned by Vatican II without calling into doubt the legitimacy of recent papal claimants and the validity of the new sacraments….

(source)

There is no doubt, of course, that Davies has done considerable good and provided excellent analysis and refutation of many errors promoted by the Vatican II religion. His work as a whole is certainly responsible for opening the eyes of a great many people to the dangers and heresies of the Novus Ordo Sect (which he, alas, identified with the Catholic Church), and has (re)kindled in countless souls a love for the Holy Catholic Mass offered in the traditional Roman rite.

Daly’s exposé does not mean to detract from the good which has admittedly been accomplished by Davies over the years. However, this good must be weighed against the considerable damage he has done and harm to souls he has caused, as demonstrated throughout this work. A glass may be filled 80% with nutritious juice, but if the remaining 20% are poison, the entire glass will be contaminated, and death or serious illness will result. Pointing out that 80% of the contents were good, will not help to undo or minimize the damage of the 20%. It would also be quite irresponsible and deceptive to focus only on the healthful content and pretend the poison does not exist.

It is for this reason that we wish to assist in the distribution of Mr. Daly’s dossier — to reveal, for the good of souls, the many dangerous errors, fallacies, and problems in the research and argumentation of Michael Davies, upon whom so many, quite unjustifiedly but in good faith, have relied in their understanding of traditionalist Catholic issues over the years.

The author himself clarifies his motives for exposing Davies in the introduction to his study:

In view of Mr. Davies’s uniquely influential position in the Catholic world today, a candid examination of his writings to assess to what extent his facts, theology and reasoning can be relied upon seems to be an appropriate undertaking. That is what this Evaluation sets out to achieve by subjecting Mr. Davies’s writings to careful analysis in the light of Catholic authority.

…After several years of study and work in Catholic publishing I reached the conclusion that an Evaluation such as this was necessary in order to accomplish three main objectives:

(i) To refute the gravely erroneous positions of Mr. Davies … in which his assertions have been responsible for leading many souls astray in matters upon which salvation may quite literally depend.

(ii) To show by careful analysis that Mr. Davies is a grossly unreliable author whose statements about Catholic doctrine should never be accepted without verification from genuine Catholic authorities.

(iii) To set out in a single study the main points of disagreement among those commonly referred to as traditional Catholics, allowing both sides to state their case, and showing by rigorous demonstration in each case where the truth lies.

(John S. Daly, Michael Davies — An Evaluation, new ed. [Saint-Sauveur de Meilhan: Tradibooks, 2015], pp. XIII-XV)

Davies was a very interesting speaker, and his writing was usually quite pleasant to read. His English accent and delightful humor contributed to his affable personality. We have already conceded that much of his research and argumentation was valid and good. However, this cannot exonerate him from the many erroneous arguments he advanced and the inadequate or selective research he engaged in, often with regard to issues impacting Sedevacantism (case in point: his widely-repeated but false thesis that St. Athanasius was excommunicated by Pope Liberius, refuted here and also here).

The conclusions author John Daly reaches about Michael Davies are less than flattering:

The conclusions reached in this Evaluation are that Mr. Davies is a shameless purveyor of false doctrine, sometimes reaching actual heresy; intensely ignorant even on many elementary points of theology as well as on matters of historical fact and general Catholic knowledge; not infrequently guilty of downright dishonesty; an execrable scholar; arrogant and foolish; a source of huge scandal and, in fine, an utter disgrace to the name of Catholic. Naturally these conclusions are far from savoury. My only justification for reaching them is that they are inescapably true, and my justification for publishing them is that the good of souls demands that so great a source of danger be exposed as publicly as possible.

(Daly, Michael Davies, p. XV)

To give you a snapshot of the valuable information contained in Michael Davies — An Evaluation, we are reproducing here its table of contents:

Introduction to the New 2015 Edition

Introduction

I. Davies’s Attitude to Authority

II. Shockingly Slipshod Scholarship

III. The Vacancy of the Holy See

Appendix: Suarez on the Heretical Pope

IV. Dishonesty, Inconsistency and Arrogance

V. Which Side is Michael Davies on?

VI. Miscellaneous Doctrinal Errors

VII. The Society of St. Pius X

VIII. Davies as an Anarchist

IX. Errors of Sacramental Theology

(a) The Orders of Archbishop Lefebvre
(b) The 1968 New Rite of Ordination
(c) Validity and “Significatio Ex Adjunctis”
(d) Validity of the Novus Ordo Missæ

X. The Alleged Fall of Pope Liberius

XI. Salvation Outside the Church?

XII. Doctrinal Evolution?

XIII. Open Letter to Mr. Michael Davies

At almost 600 pages, the reader will find this work is quite comprehensive in its critique of the Lefebvrist apologist. Such a critique is necessary because we who live in these times are engaged, at least in prefigurement, in the battle of Christ vs. Antichrist, and certainly that of Pope vs. Antipope, Church vs. Counterchurch. Human respect can never get in the way of defending the truth, no matter how unpopular it might be.

To purchase a copy of this dossier on Michael Davies in paperback, you may do so directly from Mr. Daly’s web site:

If you prefer to order through Amazon.com, you may do so by clicking here.

If you would like to download for free an electronic copy of this book — fully searchable through optical character recognition — you may do so at the link below:

Download Here:
PDF Format (3.5 MB)

Michael Davies — An Evaluation
by John S. Daly
New Edition (2015)
© John S. Daly

Although this book reserves copyright, Novus Ordo Watch is distributing it with the full and explicit permission of the copyright holder, author John S. Daly.

The battle for truth is an essential part of the battle for the salvation of souls, our own as well as those of others. It is therefore imperative for people to see falsehood exposed for what it is, and to realize that Michael Davies, whom many consider a weighty authority on the pressing issues or our time, was in fact a dangerous charlatan, even if he was right on many points. People who object in principle to a critique such as the one by Mr. Daly, on the grounds that “we should not be criticizing fellow-traditionalists”, have not understood the nature and the severity of the situation we are dealing with. Motives aside, we must know who is working on the side of Christ and the Truth, and who is working for the other side.

In his second epistle to the Thessalonians, St. Paul wrote that God would permit, in the end, the “operation of error” to blind many souls because they did not love the truth:

And now you know what withholdeth, that he may be revealed in his time. For the mystery of iniquity already worketh; only that he who now holdeth, do hold, until he be taken out of the way. And then that wicked one shall be revealed whom the Lord Jesus shall kill with the spirit of his mouth; and shall destroy with the brightness of his coming, him, whose coming is according to the working of Satan, in all power, and signs, and lying wonders, and in all seduction of iniquity to them that perish; because they receive not the love of the truth, that they might be saved. Therefore God shall send them 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 2:6-11; underlining added.)

If you have not seen it yet, make sure you read Cardinal Edward Manning’s commentary on this passage and the great research he did on the question of the Pope, the Antichrist, and the latter times, in which we must surely now be, simply because that which 60 years ago would have been considered practically impossible, has now come to pass, and things are deteriorating quickly:

The situation in which we find ourselves today is unprecedented but not unexpected. A long-term vacancy of the Apostolic See, with no clear way out, seems to be a necessary condition enabling the rise of the Antichrist, else “he who withholdeth” — the Pope — would indeed restrain him. So, keep this in mind, whenever you hear some uninformed loudmouth tell you that “God would never permit this!”, that what God will or won’t permit is told to us in Divine Revelation, including Holy Scripture, and the matter is clear: God will not only permit but even “send”, as it were, the “operation of error”, with the precise intent that people will “believe lying” so that “all may be judged who have not believed the truth, but have consented to iniquity”.

Davies in his last years

We must remember also that while good will is necessary in this battle, it is not sufficient. The late great Fr. Frederick William Faber warned that one reason why the deception of the Antichrist would be so successful is that many “manifestly good” men would follow him and do his work, in ignorance:

We must remember that if all the manifestly good men were on one side and all the manifestly bad men on the other, there would be no danger of anyone, least of all the elect, being deceived by lying wonders. It is the good men, good once, we must hope good still, who are to do the work of Anti-Christ and so sadly to crucify the Lord afresh…. Bear in mind this feature of the last days, that this deceitfulness arises from good men being on the wrong side.

(Fr. Frederick Faber, Sermon for Pentecost Sunday, 1861; qtd. in Fr. Denis Fahey, The Mystical Body of Christ in the Modern World [text here]; underlining added.)

Besides, fallen men tend to deceive themselves, quickly ascribing good will to themselves when in fact the truth may be quite different. How often do we not tell ourselves we are only interested in the truth when in fact we are not and prefer our own self-interest before all else! (On this, see the same Fr. Faber’s excellent spiritual advice on self-deceit in Spiritual Conferences, 2nd ed. [1860], pp. 153-235.)

Jeffrey Knight’s talk on Sedevacantism and willful ignorance is also apropos here, a real eye-opener:

So, remember, ignorance alone will not get you off the hook, because much ignorance today is quite culpable. This doesn’t mean that those who are culpably ignorant are guilty of malice or ill will — no, it may simply be a case of culpable negligence. It’s time to show some fortitude, which is, after all, one of the four cardinal virtues and also a gift of the Holy Ghost: This is about the eternal destiny of your soul, for heaven’s sake! And if you have a spouse and children, it is about their souls as well. It’s time to take things seriously! Stop kidding yourself and look the facts in the eye! They do not cease to be facts just because we refuse to look.

Likewise, remember that you have nothing to lose and everything to gain: If Sedevacantism is true, it does not become false just because you refuse to look at the evidence; and if Sedevacantism were false, it would not become true just because you are looking into it. Besides, consider that Sedevacantism is entirely safe. By adhering to it, you cannot be led into heresy, nor into schism, if you are faithful to Catholic teaching. Supposing, for the sake of argument, that the position were false, where would be the danger? What could you be accused of?

The worst that could be said of you is that you were wrong about who the Pope was, or whether there was a Pope. You believed, in good faith, that there was no Pope when in fact there was one — but at least you acted consistently and in accordance with Catholic teaching, to the best of your ability and in peace with your conscience. You could be accused of having made a sincere mistake, nothing more; a mistake regarding the identity of the true Pope, as many others did before in Church history, and quite innocently (assuming, of course, that you have done your best to figure it out). This is the worst that could be said. You could not be accused of adhering to or spreading false doctrine (heresy), nor of refusing to be subject to the man you acknowledged to be the Pope (schism). That you would not submit to a man you were sincerely convinced could not possibly be Pope, cannot be laid to your charge, since a Catholic is required to refuse submission to an impostor.

God does not require us to be infallible, but He does require us to adhere to Catholic teaching at all times and in the same sense and meaning it has always had, and He requires us to accept manifest facts as true and to reject contradictions as false. Sedevacantism is the only position that can reconcile the known empirical facts with Catholic teaching. For this you cannot be faulted, even if — per impossibile — it turned out to be false.

But back to Michael Davies, the man upon whose research and argumentation so many have relied for their understanding of traditionalist issues, from the Novus Ordo Missae to Sedevacantism to the illicit episcopal consecrations of Archbishop Lefebvre.

On April 22, 1980, Davies appeared on Firing Line with Bill Buckley, Jr., debating a Novus Ordo priest and the infamous pseudo-traditionalist Malachi Martin. The video of the show is available online, and we are embedding it below as a little perk so you can experience Michael Davies at a time when he had just published the first volume of his Apologia Pro Marcel Lefebvre:

Michael Davies on Bill Buckley’s Firing Line (1980)

What’s interesting — and very telling — is that although Michael Davies lived until 2004, he never responded to John Daly’s blistering critique, which had first been published fifteen years prior. One would think that if such a powerful refutation of one’s own writings was being disseminated, that the individual targeted would do everything in his power to defend himself to retain or regain his credibility, certainly over a period of time as long as 15 years and at the request of several intellectuals (see Daly, Michael Davies, pp. IX-X). Not so with Michael Davies — even though his critic had even provided a convenient summary of his findings, issued as an open letter consisting of very specific errors he challenged Davies to address (found in the book as Chapter 13, pp. 553-584). No attempt at a rebuttal was ever made by the Lefebvrist apologist.

Davies died on September 25, 2004, and so has already received his judgment. We pray that it was a merciful one and that he repented of all his errors and sins before being summoned to appear before the Divine Judge. It is not our desire to focus so much on the person of Davies as on his errors, powerfully refuted in this work by John Daly, because these errors are still alive and well today, not least because the name of Michael Davies has been attached to them. Nevertheless we must call attention to the fact that it is not wrong, according to the Catholic position on personal polemics, to attack, besides the argument itself, also the person making it. Fr. Felix Sarda y Salvany explained this in his Vatican-endorsed book Liberalism is a Sin (1886):

This monumental dossier on Michael Davies is as explosive as it is detailed, and yet it is also eminently readable. You will find a great many arguments still heard today from people in the “recognize-and-resist” camp competently refuted by the sound reasoning and authentic Catholic sources used in this powerful critique, which most people have never seen or even heard of.

This Evaluation of Mr. Davies will prove a very valuable tool in defending the sedevacantist position and debunking one of its foremost critics. We do not think it an exaggeration to say that after these 584 pages, there is nothing left of the credibility of the celebrated Lefebvrist apologist.

The facts are in; the truth is out. Exit Michael Davies…

The Case Against Roncalli

I learn quite a lot thanks to my readers. Each week in the comments section, there are many good discussions. Most are on the same topic as the post, but not always, and that’s fine by me. When I’m challenged on a topic I often re-think my position, to get a better understanding both for my own edification and that I may be of more informative value to my readers. I believe in the axiom,”He who does not understand his opponents’ point of view, doesn’t fully understand his own.” Last week, a comment was made by someone who objected to my designating Roncalli (John XXIII) as a false pope. He had challenged me on this point about a year ago, and I was going to research my position more thoroughly, but alas, life so often gets in the way of our plans.

This time, I started to research the topic and my findings were most fruitful–resulting in this post you’re now reading. Anyone who wishes to read the whole thread between my interlocutor and myself may do so by referring to the comments section of last week’s post. In sum, he said, “Sedevacantists recognize Paul VI onwards as pseudo-popes based on SOLID, IRREFUTABLE EVIDENCE. For some reason you’re not applying this standard to Roncalli…Again, I don’t know if Roncalli was an usurper. Neither do you, so perhaps you should pull back on DECLARING him a pseudo-pope, and instead just state that YOU believe he was problematic to the point that YOU have your doubts that he was genuine. ” (Emphasis in the original).

In this post, I will put forth the reasons, proving beyond a reasonable doubt, that Roncalli must be objectively dismissed as a false pope. There’s so much that could be written, but I will confine myself as best as possible to make it terse and get the point across without delving into all aspects of his life. Hence, you will not see, for example, accusations that he was a Freemason addressed. I might touch on such issues in another post. This one will suffice for the stated purpose.

Angelo Roncalli: A Brief Background
Angelo Giuseppe Roncalli, the man who would convoke the Robber Council Vatican II, was born the fourth of thirteen children in 1881. He was born to a family of sharecroppers who lived in an Italian village. Roncalli studied for the priesthood, and completed his doctorate in Canon Law the same year as his ordination, 1904.  He became Professor of Patristics at the Lateran University in 1924, only to be relieved of his post within months “on suspicion of Modernism.”
In February 1925, the Cardinal Secretary of State Pietro Gasparri summoned him to the Vatican and informed him of Pope Pius XI’s decision to appoint him as the Apostolic Visitor to Bulgaria (1925–1935). He was subsequently consecrated a bishop in 1925 by Cardinal Porchelli. On 12 January 1953, he was appointed Patriarch of Venice and raised to the rank of Cardinal-Priest of Santa Prisca by Pope Pius XII. After the death of Pope Pius XII on October 9, 1958, Roncalli was allegedly elected pope on the eleventh ballot occurring on October 28th. He took the regnal name of John XXIII. Interestingly, this was the first time in over 500 years that this name had been chosen; previous popes had avoided its use since the time of Antipope John XXIII during the Great Western Schism several centuries before. Both his name and his “reign” would be an appropriate foreshadowing of the Vatican II sect which he helped to create.
Preliminary Considerations
1. A pope who falls into heresy— as a private individual— automatically loses his papal authority by Divine Law.
 According to Doctor of the Church St. Alphonsus Liguori, “If ever a pope, as a private person, should fall into heresy, he would at once fall from the pontificate.” (See Verita della Fede, Pt. III, Ch. VIII, 9-10).
According to Wernz-Vidal, “Through notorious and openly divulged heresy, the Roman Pontiff, should he fall into heresy, by that very fact [ipso facto] is deemed to be deprived of the power of jurisdiction even before any declaratory judgement by the Church….A pope who falls into public heresy would cease ipso facto to be a member of the Church; therefore, he would also cease to be head of the Church.(See Ius Canonicum. Rome: Gregorian [1943] 2:453).
2. A heretic is incapable by Divine Law of attaining the papacy.
 According to theologian Baldii, “Barred as incapable of being validly elected [pope] are the following: women, children who have not reached the age of reason, those suffering from habitual insanity, the unbaptized, heretics and schismatics…” (See Institutiones Iuris Canonici [1921]; Emphasis mine).
According to canonist Coronata, “III. Appointment of the office of the Primacy. 1. What is required by divine law for this appointment: …Also required for validity is that the appointment be of a member of the Church. Heretics and apostates (at least public ones) are therefore excluded.” (Institutiones 1:312; Emphasis mine)
3. If one has a reasonable suspicion regarding the election of a pope, he may be considered as a doubtful pope, and therefore no pope in the practical order.
According to theologian Szal, “Nor is there any schism if one merely transgresses a papal law for the reason that one considers it too difficult, or if one refuses obedience inasmuch as one suspects the person of the pope or the validity of his election, or if one resists him as the civil head of a state.” (See The Communication of Catholics with Schismatics, CUA Press [1948], pg 2; Emphasis mine).
Remember that we need not have proof beyond a reasonable doubt (moral certainty) but SUSPICION. A reasonable suspicion in civil law is seen as more than a guess or hunch but less than probable cause. It is based on “specific and articulable facts,” “taken together with rational inferences from the circumstances.” Hence, if someone were elected pope, and coerced into resigning, he would remain pope. Any subsequent Cardinal “elected” could not attain to the papacy even if not a heretic. Moreover, with the death or true resignation of the man elected pope (at a time subsequent to the invalid election), it would not thereby automatically make the invalidly elected cardinal the Vicar of Christ.
Was Roncalli a Heretic Prior to His Election?
  • In the biography by Lawrence Elliot entitled I Will Be Called John:A Biography of Pope John XXIII,[Reader’s Digest Press, 1973] it is recorded that as early as 1914, Roncalli was accused of Modernism while a teacher at the seminary at Bergamo. Cardinal De Lai, Secretary for the Congregation of Seminaries, formally reprimanded Roncalli, saying: “According to the information that came my way, I knew that you had been a reader of Duchesne [an author of a three volume work placed on the Index of Forbidden Books  for teaching Modernist tenets—Introibo] and other unbridled authors, and that on certain occasions you had shown yourself inclined to that school of thought which tends to empty out the value of tradition and the authority of the past, a dangerous current which leads to fatal consequences.” (pg. 59)
  • For ten years (1905-1915), Roncalli was secretary for Bishop Radini Tedeschi, a Modernist sympathizer. Roncalli describes him thus: “His burning eloquence, his innumerable projects, and his extraordinary personal activity could have given the impression to many, at the beginning, that he had in view the most radical changes and that he was moved by the sole desire to innovate…[Tedeshi] concerned himself less with carrying out reforms than with maintaining the glorious traditions of his diocese and with interpreting them in harmony with new conditions and the new needs of the times.”(See Leroux, John XXIII: Initiator of the Changes, pg. 10) Bp. Tedeschi wanted to “update” traditions by re-interpreting them with the “needs of the times.” Sound familiar?
  • He received the red hat of a cardinal from the hands of French President Vincent Auriol in 1953 at Roncalli’s own insistence. Auriol was a committed Socialist, of whom Roncalli said he was an “honest socialist.” Pope Pius XI had stated, “No one can be, at the same time, a sincere Catholic and a true socialist.”(See Encyclical Quadragesimo Anno [1931], para #120)
  • While working in Bulgaria, Roncalli became well acquainted with Eastern Schismatics. His heretical ecumenism shone through “Catholics and Orthodox are not enemies, but brothers. We have the same faith; we share the same sacraments, and especially the Eucharist. We are divided by some disagreements concerning the divine constitution of the Church of Jesus Christ. The persons who were the cause of these disagreements have been dead for centuries. Let us abandon the old disputes and, each in his own domain, let us work to make our brothers good, by giving them good example. Later on, though traveling along different paths, we shall achieve union among the churches to form together the true and unique Church of our Lord Jesus Christ.” (See Luigi Accattoli, When A Pope Asks Forgiveness, New York: Alba House and Daughters of St. Paul, [1998], pp. 18-19; Emphasis mine.) Do the schismatics share the same faith with the One True Church? Obviously not.
  • According to Renzo Allegri (translated from the original Italian Il Papa che ha cambiato il mondo, Testimonianze sulla vita private di Giovanni XXIII, pg. 66) a Bulgarian journalist named Stefano Karadgiov stated, “I knew Catholic priests who refused to go into an Orthodox Church even as tourists. Bishop Roncalli, on the contrary, always participated in Orthodox functions, arousing astonishment and perplexity in some Catholics. He never missed the great ceremonies which were celebrated in the principle Orthodox church in Sofia. He put himself in a corner and devoutly followed the rites. The Orthodox chants especially pleased him. (Emphasis mine)
  • The import of Roncalli actively participating in false worship cannot be understated. Participating in false religious worship, according to the approved canonists and theologians, is a manifestation of heresy and/or apostasy. According to theologian Merkelbach, external heresy consists not only in what someone says, but also dictis vel factis, that is “signs, deeds, and the omission of deeds.” (Merkelbach, Summa Theologiae Moralis, 1:746; Emphasis mine)
  • Nor is this an isolated report of Roncalli participating in prayer with those outside the Church. According to John Hughes in Pontiffs:Popes Who Shaped History [Our Sunday Visitor Press, 1994], “He [Roncalli] became good friends of the Reverend Austin Oakley, chaplain at the British Embassy and the Archbishop of Canterbury’s personal representative to the Orthodox Ecumenical Patriarch. Even more unusual were Roncalli’s visits to Oakley’s chapel, where the two men prayed together.” (Emphasis mine). Furthermore, according to Kerry Walters in John XXIII (A Short Biography) Franciscan Media,[2013], Roncalli once proclaimed from the pulpit that Jesus Christ “died to proclaim universal brotherhood.” (pg. 14)
Did Something Strange Happen at the 1958 Conclave?
 1.  There were several top contenders for the papacy after the death of Pope Pius XII. Fr. DePauw, my spiritual father, made it known to me that his personal friend, Alfredo Cardinal Ottaviani, who was in charge of the Supreme Sacred Congregation of the Holy Office, was so certain he would be elected, that he had already picked out his regnal name as Pope Pius XIII. Other strong contenders included Cardinals Agagianian (Modernist sympathizer), Lercaro (Modernist sympathizer), and Siri (anti-Communist and anti-Modernist like Ottaviani). The U.S. government was very interested in the election, as the Cold War was in high gear, and they wanted another staunch anti-Communist like Pope Pius XII.
In October of 1958, there were only 55 Cardinals in the world, the lowest number in decades because Pope Pius knew so many bishops were suspect of Modernism. It was the “second wave” of resurgent Modernism. Pope St. Pius X had driven the Modernists underground, but had not extirpated them. So why did Pope Pius XII give the red hat of a Cardinal to Roncalli? Contrary to what many think, the Church doesn’t simply excommunicate clerics on a whim. The fact that they were censured or held suspect of heresy is the Church doing Her job. The hope is to reform those who go astray and bring them back into the fold. Even the great St. Pius X gave the worst Modernists time to reform before excommunication. To be clear, the Church is in no way infallible when it comes to ecclesiastical appointments. Choosing someone as a Cardinal does not relieve their censure or suspicion of heresy automatically.
Pope Pius XII had a back-stabbing Judas as his confessor; Fr. Augustin Bea. Bea was thought to be anti-Modernist, but at Vatican II he worked for the passage of Nostra Aetate, the heretical document on non-Christian religions. He was an ecumenist to the extreme and wanted the Jews “absolved” for their crime of Deicide. Could he have protected Roncalli, having the ear of Pope Pius and convincing him he was “reformed” and/or not electable as pope? This is one of many possibilities, but the crux of the matter is it does nothing to absolve Roncalli of his false teachings and even without ecclesiastical excommunication, he would have been removed from the Church by Divine Law for profession of heresy.
2. Confusing white smoke signals appeared and American intelligence had allegedly found out that Cardinal Siri had been elected pope. Then the smoke was black. White smoke signals mean that a Cardinal had been elected and accepted his election as the new pope. This has lead some to speculate that Siri was elected pope (“Gregory XVII”) and was forced to resign. Therefore Roncalli’s election was null and void. I don’t accept the “Siri Theory” for good reason.

See my post http://introiboadaltaredei2.blogspot.com/2015/02/one-question-siri-cant-answer.html for my thoughts on the “Siri Theory.” Is it possible some other Cardinal was elected, forced to resign (which made Roncalli’s election null and void), and then lost office by going along with the Modernists? It’s a possibility. Lest anyone say there is no evidence of seriously confusing smoke, according to Kirk Clinger, “The partly white, partly dark smoke confused even the Vatican radio announcers. They had to apologize frequently for their error. The column of smoke which rose from the chimney of the Sistine Chapel was first whitish, then definitely white, and only later definitely black.” (See A Pope Laughs: Stories of John XXIII,Holt, Rinehard, and Winston[1964], pg. 43)

3. The most convincing report I heard was that both Cardinals Ottaviani and Siri were unable to muster the two-thirds plus one vote to be elected. As a result, a group of “moderates” convinced most Cardinals to give their votes to Roncalli as a “transitional” pope. He was 77 years old, and (so the reasoning went) wouldn’t do much. Could there have been threats to a Cardinal that got elected and he was forced to resign? At least two Cardinals present made disparaging statements about what transpired at that conclave, which is highly suggestive that there was something seriously wrong. They were Cardinals Ottaviani and Spellman.
4. Does this give us a reasonable suspicion, such that we may doubt Roncalli’s election? Reasonable suspicion is a low standard of evidence, so I’d say definitely so. However, there is more than ample proof Roncalli was a heretic prior to his election and therefore could not attain to the papacy. Finally, let’s not forget that a cause can be discerned by examining the effects. For example, the intelligent design of the universe points to a Creator. Likewise, if the man who came out of the conclave did what a true pope would not (indeed could not) do, we can safely say he wasn’t elected pope.
5. Roncalli, as “pope” rehabilitated every major heretic that had been censured under Pope Pius XII and had them as approved periti (theological experts) at Vatican II. These heretics included the likes of Congar, de Lubac, and Hans Kung, among many others, none of whom were required to abjure any errors. Roncalli promoted ecumenism. He ordered the words removed from the prayer of Consecration to the Sacred Heart of Jesus : “Be Thou King of all those who are still involved in the darkness of idolatry or of Islamism.” He changed the Good Friday prayers so as to remove the phrase “perfidious (i.e., faithless) Jews.” He modernized the Mass, Breviary, and Calendar. He was friends with Socialists, Communists, and Freemasons, none of whom he sought to convert. Are these the actions of a true Vicar of Christ?
Pacem In Terris: Heresy On Earth
The death-knell for those who wish to consider Roncalli pope lies in the fact that he professed heresy in his encyclical Pacem In Terris, published April 11, 1963. This section of my post is taken from the work of Mr. John Lane called John XXIII and Pacem in Terris. I give full credit to Mr. Lane for his incredible research  and incisive analysis. I have condensed the pertinent parts of his article in this section and included some of my comments and research, which I mixed in.—Introibo
The encyclical Pacem in Terris, was about “establishing universal peace in truth, justice, charity, and liberty,” and in addition to the Church, it was addressed “to all men of good will.” The heretical proposition is the opening sentence of paragraph #14. The official Latin version, published in the Acta Apostolicae Sedis (“AAS” –Acts of the Apostolic See), No. 55, 257-304 is as follows:

In hominis juribus hoc quoque numerandum est, ut et Deum, ad rectum conscientiae suae normam, venerari possit, et religionem privatim et publice profiteri. 

In English it means, “We must include among the rights of man that he should be able to worship God according to the rightful prompting of his conscience and to profess his religion privately and publicly.”
Those who defend Roncalli will point out (correctly) that the Church teaches humans have the right to profess and practice only the Catholic religion which is the One True Church, outside of which no one is saved. Error has no rights. There is nothing wrong with this statement in Pacem (they contend) because the word rightful modifies the “prompting of his conscience” such that it implies that one is not simply entitled to follow his conscience in the worship of God unless his conscience is rightful (i.e., in accordance with the One True Church). What no Catholic can declare is that each person should be able “to profess his religion privately and publicly.” This implies (as we shall see) that one can profess any religion, be it the True Religion or any of the myriad false religions, both privately and in public; which idea is heretical and condemned by the Church.

Here’s where it gets interesting. The possessive adjective “his” does not appear in the official Latin text published in the AAS. However, its interpolation by translators (including the official English text available on the Modernist Vatican’s website) is by no means unjustified for two reasons:

(a) Latin very rarely includes such adjectives, frequently showing them to be  understood from the context.
(b) Abundant evidence shows that John XXIII’s true meaning is represented by the inclusion of “his”–which evidence will be examined.

If you read the sentence without the word “his” it admits of an orthodox interpretation: i.e., people have the right to profess religion publicly and privately provided it’s the Catholic religion. Nevertheless, we cannot omit that word without altering the intended sense of the encyclical; a sense that is unabashedly heretical. Let no one protest that this is an exercise in mere semantics. The semi-Arian heretics, under pressure from the Emperor, were prepared to submit to every syllable of the Nicene Creed except they rejected the statement that Our Lord was consubstantial (homo-ousion) with the Father, but He was merely (homoi-ousion) of like substance, not the same substance. One letter marked the all important line between Catholic doctrine and heresy.

It is beyond dispute that the meaning Roncalli wished to convey, and to which he consciously lent his (alleged) “authority,” was that each person has the right to profess his religion—whatever that religion may be–both privately and publicly. Here is the evidence:

1. The encyclical was not, as traditionally done, addressed only to the members of the Roman Catholic Church, but to “all men of good will.” If it was only addressed to Catholics, one could argue that they would know that “his” religion is the Catholic religion, because only the Truth may be openly professed and preached. After all, he would then only have Catholics as his intended audience. It is completely unreasonable to expect Jews, Mohammedans, Protestants, and Eastern Schismatics (among other non-Catholics) to obtain that understanding from the context. The only reasonable conclusion at which they would arrive is that the encyclical guarantees every single one of them the objective moral right to practice and professhis particular false religion in public.

2. The 32nd edition of Denzinger’s Enchiridion Symbolorum [The Enchiridion is a compendium of all the basic texts on Catholic dogma and morality since the Apostolic Age. Commissioned by Pope Pius IX, it has been in use since 1854, and has been regularly updated since] was edited by Fr. Schonmetzer and has the offending sentence tagged with a footnote referencing the Masonic United Nations’ Universal Declaration of Human Rights (1948) article 18:

Everyone has the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion; this right includes freedom to change his religion or belief, and freedom, either alone or in community with others and in public or private, to manifest his religion or belief in teaching, practice, worship and observance.

This passage is irreconcilable with Catholic doctrine, yet it is linked to the very sentence that would make a reader believe that everyone is free to express his religion in public, no matter if it is the true religion or not. It would suggest that Roncalli was conscious of that portion of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights as he penned Pacem in Terris. If this does not contradict Catholic teaching, nothing does.

As Pope Gregory XVI taught: “Now We consider another abundant source of the evils with which the Church is afflicted at present: indifferentism. This perverse opinion is spread on all sides by the fraud of the wicked who claim that it is possible to obtain the eternal salvation of the soul by the profession of any kind of religion, as long as morality is maintained. Surely, in so clear a matter, you will drive this deadly error far from the people committed to your care…This shameful font of indifferentism gives rise to that absurd and erroneous proposition which claims that liberty of conscience must be maintained for everyone. It spreads ruin in sacred and civil affairs, though some repeat over and over again with the greatest impudence that some advantage accrues to religion from it.” (See Mirari Vos [1832], para. #13 and 14).

The defenders of Roncalli will protest that there is a “lack of evidence” that Roncalli authorized the footnote; but such objection fails miserably. The authors of the Enchiridion are selected precisely to ensure that their references and explanations will meet with official approval of the Holy See, and any remark misrepresenting the mind of same would meet with a public rebuke and a retraction demanded by Rome, which was far from the case. Moreover, the involvement of the editors of the 32nd edition is more demonstrable than in any prior edition. It was the first time that the passage of Pope Pius IX’s condemnation of religious liberty was omitted.  The startling omission is explicable only on the basis that it was intended to conceal the explicit contradiction between Pacem in Terris and Quanta Cura. 

This passage was omitted: From which totally false idea of social government they do not fear to foster that erroneous opinion, most fatal in its effects on the Catholic Church and the salvation of souls, called by Our Predecessor, Gregory XVI, an “insanity” viz., that “liberty of conscience and worship is each man’s personal right, which ought to be legally proclaimed and asserted in every rightly constituted society; and that a right resides in the citizens to an absolute liberty, which should be restrained by no authority whether ecclesiastical or civil, whereby they may be able openly and publicly to manifest and declare any of their ideas whatever, either by word of mouth, by the press, or in any other way.” But, while they rashly affirm this, they do not think and consider that they are preaching “liberty of perdition;” and that “if human arguments are always allowed free room for discussion, there will never be wanting men who will dare to resist truth, and to trust in the flowing speech of human wisdom; whereas we know, from the very teaching of our Lord Jesus Christ, how carefully Christian faith and wisdom should avoid this most injurious babbling.” (See Quanta Cura [1864], para. #3).

Clearly, it cannot be reasonably maintained that those who took such great care to arrange the suppression of the “offending” part of Quanta Cura were not also responsible for the footnote to Pacem in Terris which concerned the same subject.

3. That fact that the sentence from Pacem in Terris must be understood in connection with the Universal Declaration of Human Rights is confirmed by the fact that in Pacem itself, the Masonic United Nations and its Declaration are commended and praised in paragraphs #142, 143, and 144. Roncalli said of the Declaration “It is a solemn recognition of the personal dignity of every human being; an assertion of everyone’s right to be free to seek out the truth, to follow moral principles, discharge the duties imposed by justice, and lead a fully human life. It also recognized other rights connected with these.” (para. #144; Emphasis mine). An encyclical is carefully read over by the Pontiff before signing and promulgating it. Moreover, high ranking theologians craft it at the direction of the pope. Each word is carefully chosen. If these “other rights” written in the Declaration did not include the infamous “right” to religious liberty, is it not obvious this would have been made clear?

4. The encyclical was roundly praised by the Masonic lodges and the secular media both of which promote religious Indifferentism and religious liberty through supporting separation of Church and State.

5. The Church cannot (and does not) teach ambiguously in expressing theological truths. Any deliberate ambiguity must be interpreted against the orthodoxy of the one teaching ambiguously. Propositions that are ambiguous or admit of interpretations that are either orthodox or heterodox are deemed “heretical by defect.” This is also the case with propositions that are true, but are calculated to omit pertinent truths or terms they ought to include. The following proposition of the Jansenist Pseudo-Synod of Pistoia was condemned:
“After the consecration, Christ is truly, really and substantially present beneath the appearances (of bread and wine), and the whole substance of bread and wine has ceased to exist, leaving only the appearances.”

In 1794, Pope Pius VI condemned that proposition in the Apostolic Constitution Auctorem Fidei because “it entirely omits to make any mention of transubstantiation or the conversion of the entire substance of the bread into the Body, and the whole substance of the wine into the Blood, which the Council of Trent defined as an article of Faith…insofar as, through an unauthorized and suspicious omission of this kind, attention is drawn away both from an article of Faith and from a word consecrated by the Church to safeguard the profession of that article against heresies, and tends, therefore, to result in its being forgotten as if it were merely a scholastic question.”

Summation: It is impossible to excuse Roncalli (John XXIII) from the charge of heresy by arguing that this sentence can admit of an orthodox interpretation, because it does not. Even if, ad arguendo, it could so admit of an orthodox interpretation, Roncalli would still be guilty of heresy by defect because it has been shown that the obvious sense of the sentence, taken in both text and context, is incontrovertibly heretical.

Conclusion
What, then, are the practical and objective conclusions we can deduce from the so-called pontificate of “Good Pope John”?
  • He was influenced and kept friends with Modernists, Masons, Socialists and other sworn enemies of the Church from his earliest days in the priesthood
  • He was removed from his teaching post on suspicion of heresy (Modernism)
  • He worshiped and prayed with heretics and schismatics
  • He made an overtly heretical statement regarding Catholics and Eastern Schismatics having the “same faith”
  • The conclave of 1958 was surrounded by suspicious activity and lead many to believe that someone else had been elected pope prior to Roncalli
  • After his “election” Roncalli rehabilitated all the living censured theologians under Pope Pius XII and had them actively serve as theological experts during Vatican II
  • Roncalli taught the heresy of religious liberty in Pacem in Terris; he paved the way for its adoption at Vatican II in the heretical document Dignitatis Humanae

Therefore,

1. It is morally certain that Roncalli was not pope since at least the promulgation of the heretical encyclical Pacem in Terris of April 11, 1963. A true pope cannot teach heresy.
2. Was Roncalli “pope” from October of 1958 until April 11, 1963? In a word: No. We know a cause by the effect it produces. If you see someone who’s sick, you know it’s caused by an illness, even if you can’t diagnose exactly what illness it is. Pope’s do not rehabilitate heretics, promote ecumenism and teach heresy. It is highly more probable than not that Roncalli was a heretic at the time he entered the conclave and never attained to the papacy in the first place. It is also possible (but not likely) that someone else was elected pope and resigned under duress, making Roncalli’s subsequent “election” invalid. There’s more than sufficient evidence prior to the promulgation of Pacem in Terris that we can suspect the validity of his election (due to heresy, election of another, or both) to treat him as a dubious pope –which is no pope in the practical order.
I could write dozens of posts on “Evil Pseudo-Pope John.” However, I hope this one will be sufficient to put to rest the arguments of those who are “agnostic” about his “papacy” and think he might have been pope. Finally, for those who have even the slightest qualm of conscience or scintilla of doubt remaining, let me add that Bergoglio “canonized” him a “saint.” The same Argentinian apostate who gave us “St.” John Paul the Great Apostate and “St” Paul VI, gave us “St” John XXIII. If that’s not enough to make you realize the destruction he caused, and for which the Vatican II sect praises him, no amount of information can wake you from your denial.

The Anti-Father

If you ever heard the Vatican II sect “priests” talk about the Gospel in their “homily,” you would get the idea that the books of the Bible are more or less a bunch of nice stories that teach us to be kind because “God is good all the time.” They denigrate “born again” Protestant ministers, not for their many and genuine heresies, but because they “falsely” believe the Bible to be the inspired and infallible Word of God. At the same time, (so we are told), in the days pre-Vatican II, Catholics were “not allowed” or “discouraged” from reading the Bible on their own. In this way, they were prevented from seeing that the Bible is a nice collection of myths, stories, and some truths to encourage us to believe in a nice God and His Son Who was “the greatest man (sic) on Earth.”

If you’re wondering how we got to this sorry state of affairs, modern Biblical scholarship was infected by the Modernists in the wake of Vatican II. The seeds were sowed in the late 19th century, and one man in particular did more damage than all the others. Alfred Firmin Loisy was born in France on February 28, 1857, and died June 1, 1940. He was ordained a priest on June 29, 1879, but was off-course in his spiritual life. He obtained his theology degree in 1890. Loisy claimed in his journal that he had a “fever for glory” and wanted to become a “Father of the Church.”(See McKee, The Enemy Within the Gate [1974], pg. 23). His arrogance and diabolical hatred for all things traditional Catholic, led to him becoming one of the “Fathers of Modernism” and of the Vatican II sect, which his influence helped to spawn in 1964.

As we shall see in this post, Loisy was particularly critical of the Bible, and is even called in some circles the “Founder of Biblical Modernism in the Catholic (sic) Church.” It is because of him, and his intellectual/spiritual disciples, that the true teaching regarding the Bible was discarded.

Ridding The Bible of “Myths”
Loisy argued against the Mosaic authorship of the Pentateuch, the reliability of Genesis’ creation accounts, and against the historical dependability of the Bible in general. As a result, he was removed from his teaching position at the Institut Catholique.  After his dismissal, he was made a chaplain at a girls school at Neuilly. In 1900 Loisy became lecturer at Ecole des hautes Estudes at the Sorbonne, where he was able to continue spreading his ideas as a Modernist. Pope Leo XIII issued the encyclical Providentissimus Deus in 1893 condemning the errors of Modernist Biblical criticism.
 Undaunted, Loisy continued to write heretical books, using Modernist Biblical criticism. In particular, Loisy:
  • Denied the authority of God, the Scriptures, and Tradition
  • Denied the Divinity of Jesus Christ
  • Denied Christ was omniscient
  • Denied the Redemptive death and Resurrection of Christ
  • Denied the Virgin Birth
  • Denied Transubstantiation
  • Denied the Divine Institution of both the papacy and the Church

In December of 1903, Loisy’s books were placed on the Index of Prohibited Books by the Supreme Sacred Congregation of the Holy Office with the full approval of Pope St. Pius X, who had just been elected pope in August of that year. On January 24, 1904, Loisy wrote to the saintly and thoroughly Anti-Modernist Raphael Cardinal Merry del Val. The Cardinal was the right hand man of Pope St. Pius X, and with good reason. Cardinal Merry del Val was everything Loisy was not: humble and pious. Moreover, the Cardinal was an intellectual giant, having not only a Doctorate in Sacred Theology as an approved theologian, but he also earned a doctorate in philosophy and licentiate in Canon Law. He did not fancy himself a “Father of the Church” but actually penned a “Litany of Humility.” Some ascribed the authorship to another, but the Cardinal recited it daily, nevertheless.  His cause for sainthood was introduced in 1953, and in my opinion, had Vatican II not happened, he would have an “St.” before his name.

Loisy told the Cardinal in his letter that “I accept all the dogmas of the Church.” This was an unabashed lie, because at the same time in his journal he wrote, “I have not been Catholic in the official sense of the word for a long time…Roman Catholicism as such is destined to perish, and it will deserve no regrets.” (Ibid, pgs. 32-33). The wise Cardinal was not satisfied, as he knew all too well how Modernists lie and conceal their true intentions by giving different meanings to dogmas. A Modernist could say, “I believe in the Resurrection of Christ (insofar as he lives on; not materially, but in the minds of His followers).” The part in parentheses is never said aloud. Cardinal Merry del Val continued to advise Pope St. Pius that more stringent measures needed to be taken.
Finally, in 1907, His Holiness Pope St. Pius X condemned 65 Modernist propositions in his famous declaration Lamentabili Sane. Of those 65 propositions, fifty (50) were taken from the works of Loisy. Enraged, Loisy realized that there was no reconciliation possible with the Church and his heresy. He now made plain what he had heretofore keep close to his vest when he wrote publicly, “Christ has even less importance in my religion than he does in that of the liberal Protestants: for I attach little importance to the revelation of God the Father for which they honor Jesus. If I am anything in religion, it is more pantheist-positivist-humanitarian than Christian.” On March 7, 1908, Loisy was solemnly excommunicated by Pope St. Pius X. He became a college professor, forsaking his clerical status, and died unrepentant in 1940.
The Condemnations of Lamentabili Sane
Here are just some of the propositions (all solemnly condemned by St. Pius X) which Loisy propagated in regard to Holy Scripture:
4. Even by dogmatic definitions the Church’s Magisterium cannot determine the genuine sense of the Sacred Scriptures.
7. In proscribing errors, the Church cannot demand any internal assent from the faithful by which the judgments She issues are to be embraced.

9. They display excessive simplicity or ignorance who believe that God is really the author of the Sacred Scriptures.

10. The inspiration of the books of the Old Testament consists in this: The Israelite writers handed down religious doctrines under a peculiar aspect which was either little or not at all known to the Gentiles.

11. Divine inspiration does not extend to all of Sacred Scriptures so that it renders its parts, each and every one, free from every error.

12. If he wishes to apply himself usefully to Biblical studies, the exegete[interpreter of the Bible] must first put aside all preconceived opinions about the supernatural origin of Sacred Scripture and interpret it the same as any other merely human document.

In Defense of God’s Word
The attacks of Loisy and the Modernists on Sacred Scripture lack merit, even apart from a theological perspective. The following is taken and condensed from the work of A. Anderson, a lawyer who attacked the alleged logical basis of the Modernists’ faulty exegesis. Anderson shows that the Modernists cannot maintain their position in regard to Sacred Scripture being “unreliable”— even in the purposeful absence of theological proof. What makes his work, entitled A Lawyer Among the Theologians, (Hodder and Stoughton, [1967]) truly masterful, is how he demonstrates that the Gospels are historically reliable while fighting Modernists “on their own turf” by using the best secular evidence, and not invoking any theological authority.
Reasons for Accepting the Gospels as Historically Reliable
As a form of literature, the Gospels are unique, for they were written by believers to confirm the readers in their faith or to bring to faith those who did not yet believe. Since the Christian faith is rooted in history, the Evangelists were concerned in reporting what actually happened, and therefore the religious aim of the Gospels is not a valid reason for rejecting them as historically inaccurate or unreliable.
1. Two Evangelists explicitly claim they are reporting historical facts. St. Luke begins his Gospel by telling us that he has been at pains to gather reliable information about the events he plans to chronicle in order that Theophilus, for whom he is directly writing, may rest assured that his faith in Christ is based on well-established fact. The order in which he recounts the facts is not strictly chronological, but in its main outlines Luke’s account of the public ministry of Jesus tallies with those of Sts. Matthew and Mark. St. John also presents his Gospel as a record of facts which serve as a warranty for faith in Christ.
2. The Evangelists, even if they wanted to, could not have made up the story, for the central figure is so tremendous and the story of His life so unique as to be beyond the power of human imagination. Even John Stuart Mill, a rationalist philosopher who rejected the supernatural said, “Who among His disciples or among the proselytes was capable of inventing the sayings of Jesus or or of imagining the life and character revealed in the Gospels? Certainly not the simple fishermen of Galilee; certainly not St. Paul, whose character and idiosyncrasies were of a totally different sort; still less the early Christian writers.”
3. The Gospels had to pass the scrutiny of men who had witnessed the events that were recorded, and were hostile to the Christian claims.
4. Historical and archaeological research have revealed that the Gospels depict with striking exactitude the very complex social and political order that prevailed in the Middle East in the third decade of the first century, an order that was completely destroyed in 70 A.D. The Evangelists’ reliability in recording these items creates a presumption that their testimony on other matters is true as well.
5. A crucified Messiah was completely out of step with regard to Jewish expectations. The Jews were expecting a Messiah, but not a suffering Messiah, and still less an Incarnate Deity. Even if they thought the Messiah was to be the Son of God, even the most learned rabbis of the day would NOT think Him to be born in a stable, spend thirty years in obscurity as a carpenter, and end His life on the ignominious death of the cross. Christ therefore was, in the words of St. Paul, a “stumbling block” on the path to faith. (1 Corinthians 1:23).
There is non-Christian testimony from pagan historians which corroborate the unique life of Jesus Christ. These writers include:
  • Flavius Josephus
  • Tacitus
  • Suetonius
  • Pliny the Younger
Conclusion
The Modernists have come to destroy all that is good, beautiful, and true. The would be “Church Father” Alfred Loisy was the quintessential Modernist, seeking to destroy the Church and replace Her with a One World Religion. He began attacking the reliability of the Bible, and the Vatican II sect continues with the de-supernaturalized “social Gospel” which reduces the Faith to little more than worldly concerns and advocates for Socialism/Communism. One of Loisy’s most noted sayings was, “Jesus came proclaiming the Kingdom, and what arrived was the Church,” as if Our Lord never intended to found a Church. Loisy admitted to being a “pantheist-positivist-humanitarian” –a man devoid of the Faith.
Bergoglio and his false hierarchy are Loisy’s successors in heresy and apostasy. They proclaim a mythical Jesus (“There is no Catholic God”) Who founded no Church (“proselytism is solemn nonsense”) and lets you do what you want (“Who am I to judge?”). The only thing our SSPX friends need to recognize is that the Vatican II sect is not the Roman Catholic Church, and then resist the sect by admitting sedevacantism— thereby joining the fight against it.

41 comments:

  1. Admit sedevacantism? The only thing harder than admitting you were wrong is admitting you were fooled. SSPX and the other cottage industry resisters have painted themselves so far in the corner that they have become blinded by their own spin.

    Reply

  2. Tom,
    True. I guess miracles do happen? At least we can hope so—for all our sakes!

    —-Introibo

  3. Thank you, Introibo, for displaying the correct attitude one should take towards the SSPX.

    If one believes that all of the SSPX clergy are engaged in a false opposition designed to ensnare souls, one probably spends a good deal of time slapping their own head (ala Mel Gibson in “Conspiracy Theory”) while breathlessly ranting about various conspiratorial organizations. *Wild look in the eyes is optional.

    If one thinks that the SSPX has been somewhat infiltrated by the enemy, all the MORE reason to fervently pray for all of the good and holy SSPX clergy that aren’t traitors to our Lord.

    As sedevacantists we believe that they’ve concluded wrongly. This doesn’t mean we’re better or are “the chosen ones.” Far from it. Many of us are only right due to favorable circumstances.

    Did St. Monica revile and disown Augustine? It is incumbent on us to pray fervently each day for tne intention that the SSPX and their adherents see the truth. We also have a moral responsibility to see the very best in others until that is no longer possible. So from a starting point of the SSPX being horribly wrong on serious religious matters, tbey are to be pitied rather than be excoriated. Prayed for rather than uncharitably criticized.

    We’re all in this together. We all ultimately want the same thing – Heaven.

    Reply

  4. @anon7:28
    Well stated my friend!

    God Bless,

    —-Introibo

  5. Is their any difference between the SSPX and the Indult?

  6. The title of this article “The Anti-Father” reminds me of a statement by Frankie the Fake stating that “God is Father and also Mother”. Leave it to Frankie the Fake to spread confusion and modernism. Since Frankie is into and a practicing New Ager himself, perhaps he is telling many of the feminists and New Agers that it is ok to pray to God as “Goddess”? I also wonder if he will change the Our Father to “Our Father and Mother” in the Vatican II Sect?
    See link below:

    https://www.lastampa.it/2019/01/16/vaticaninsider/the-pope-god-is-father-and-also-mother-and-always-loves-even-criminals-TDZFfyjpVfPqOD6mpRYprJ/pagina.html

    Reply

  7. Joann,
    No doubt “feminist theology” has taken hold since Vatican II. Bergoglio will lead people into EVERY EVIL. There was a “priest” in Boston when Ratzinger was “pope.” He was baptizing babies “In the name of God the Creator, and of Jesus the Christ, and of the Holy Spirit.”

    Some parents questioned its validity, and much to that “priest’s “ chagrin, even the Modernist Vatican declared them null and void and to be unconditionally repeated!!

    Be assured that under Francis, he wouldn’t perturb an invalid Sacrament!

    God Bless,

    —-Introibo

  8. Not every one that saith to me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven: but he that doth the will of my Father who is in heaven, he shall enter into the kingdom of heaven. Many will say to me in that day: Lord, Lord, have not we prophesied in thy name, and cast out devils in thy name, and done many miracles in thy name? And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from me, you that work iniquity. Matthew 7: 21-23

    I hate to say it, but I bet Alfred Firmin Loisy wishes he believed in the bible and in the Church now.

    I’m surprised the Novus ordo hasn’t talked about making him a “Doctor of the Church” like some have in regards to Teilhard de Chardin.

    Reply

  9. @anon5:39
    Oh, give them time! Teilhard shall be their “doctor,” Loisy shall be their “father,” and since its inception the V2 sect has had Satan for their lord and master.

    God Bless,

    —-Introibo

  10. The seeds of Modernism were sown in the 17th century, when many theologians downplayed the condemnation of Galileo by the Holy See, insolently maintaining that the last word had not been had not yet been spoken on the subject of heliocentrism. By the second half of the 19th century, not a single theologian held to the biblical view of cosmology, and all without exception accepted heliocentrism. By the mid-20th century, scarcely a single one held to the Genesis account of creation, and evolutionism was all the rage in theological circles. Small wonder, then, that the Modernists were able to just waltz in and take the fortress unopposed. For the institutional Church had already been gut-shot by the craven capitulation of modern churchmen to the impious ravings of modern science. Therefore, the task of the Modernists couldn’t have been easier. It was like drowning puppies.

    Reply

  11. George,
    Good to hear from you again! It’s been some time since you last commented.

    Are you claiming that geocentrism is “dogma” or Catholic doctrine the denial of which is a mortal sin against the Faith?

    Two responses:
    According to Theologian Salavarri, “…decisions of this kind [regarding Biblical Commissions, condemning Galileo, ] are not absolutely infallible nor irrevocable; therefore the assent due to them, although anyone rightly ascents to them without a prudent fear of being in error (I.e., morally certain) , still it is not absolute nor absolutely irreformable.” (See “Sacrae Theologiae Summa” Volume IB, pg. 701).

    2. Pope St Pius X solemnly approved the following two answers and decisions of the Pontifical Biblical Commission on 6/29/1909 in response to several queries:

    Question # 7: “Whether, since it was not the intention of the sacred author, when writing the first chapter of Genesis, to teach us in a scientific manner the innermost nature of visible things, and to present the complete order of creation but rather to furnish his people with a popular account, such as the common parlance of that age allowed, one, namely, adopted to the senses and to man’s intelligence, we are strictly and always bound, when interpreting these chapters to seek for scientific exactitude of expression?”

    Answer: In the negative.

    Question # 8: “Whether the word yom (‘day’), which is used in the first chapter of Genesis to describe and distinguish the six days, may be taken in its strict sense as the natural day, or in a less strict sense as signifying a certain space of time; and whether free discussion of this question is permitted to interpreters?”

    Answer: In the affirmative.

    Therefore, one is free to accept or deny geocentric ideas and the idea that Earth is only 6,000 years old. The decisions of the time referred to in Genesis was approved by The Foe Of Modernism himself—Pope St Pius X.

    That there were Modernists seeking to infiltrate the Church prior to V2, conceded. That the approved theologians all taught error, denied. For this would ascribe error to the Universal and Ordinary Magisterium which is impossible lest the Church defected. (Heresy)

    Notice how vigilant the Church was in condemning Loisy and his ilk. So were Roncalli and Ratzinger censured. It was only after Roncalli usurped the Throne Of St Peter did we get to this point.

    God Bless,

    —-Introibo

  12. Introibo: “It was only after Roncalli usurped the Throne Of St Peter did we get to this point.”

    Hi Introibo,

    We’ve previously had a conversation about the strict requirement for solid evidence before we can observe that an individual is a papal usurper or pseudo-pope.

    As noted previously, the world hasn’t yet been graced with the exhaustive and definitive article by Fr. Cekada wherein he deals the killer blow to Roncalli’s papacy by demonstrating clear-cut actions and words that would’ve doubtlessly eliminated any possibility of Roncalli attaining or maintaining the office of pope. We know that John Salza demolished a facile argument put forth by Bp. Sanborn. Others have unsuccessfully sought to show heresy in “Pacem in Terris.” There are the persistent rumors of Freemasonry, etc. But nothing presented thus far has any probative value insofar Roncalli being a pseudo-pope. There is plenty demonstrating that Roncalli was a very bad egg, sailing close to wind of heresy (he is on file as being “suspected of Modernism”), but it appears that solid evidence to convict him has not yet surfaced.

    Arising from the preceding are three immediate questions.

    1) Should we or can we refer to a papal claimant as a definite usurper without a standard of evidence that clearly demonstrates this?

    2) Considering all of the mystery (e.g., white smoke appearing at one stage during the 1958 conclave), and confusion wrought by rumors and known, dubious associations Roncalli had with bad actors, is this enough to put John XXIII/Roncalli into a “doubtful pope” category, thus enabling informed Catholics to flee him like one would run from doubtful sacraments?

    3) Do you now have any unimpeachable/solid evidence clearly showing that Roncalli was a definite false pope?

    Please discuss.

  13. Roncalli has many flaws as you rightly pointed out. Let’s first review this general principle from Theologian Szal:
    “Nor is there any schism if one merely transgresses a papal law for the reason that one considers it too difficult, or if ONE REFUSES OBEDIENCE INASMUCH AS ONE SUSPECTS THE PERSON OF THE POPE OR THE VALIDITY OF HIS ELECTION, or if one resists him as the civil head of a state.” (See “The Communication of Catholics with Schismatics” CUA Press [1948], pg 2; Emphasis mine).

    Do we have reason to suspect the election of Roncalli? Yes.

    John XXIII
    Was removed from his teaching position at the Lateran University under “suspicion of Modernism.” He was on a list of suspected Modernists as far back as 1925, and which list was kept at the Holy Office.

    Received the red hat of a cardinal from the hands of French President Vincent Auriol in 1953 at Roncalli’s insistence. Auriol was a committed Socialist, of whom Roncalli said he was an “honest socialist.” Pope Pius XI had stated, ” No one can be, at the same time, a sincere Catholic and a true socialist.”

    Promoted ecumenism. He ordered the words removed from the prayer of Consecration to the Sacred Heart of Jesus : “Be Thou King of all those who are still involved in the darkness of idolatry or of Islamism.” He changed the Good Friday prayers so as to remove the phrase “perfidious (i.e., faithless) Jews.” He further modernized the Mass, Breviary, and Calendar.

    He made the following statement which is isolated, yet enunciates a heretical idea:
    In his encyclical Pacem In Terris (1963), he stated in paragraph #11, “Also among man’s rights is that of being able to worship God in accordance with the right dictates of his own conscience, and to profess his religion both in private and in public.”

    I really don’t see how he can escape the charge of heresy and either lost office or never attained it.

    Could the Siri Theory be true ? Possibly. I don’t buy it, but I try to follow the evidence where it leads. US intelligence DID report only an hour or so after the original white smoke that Giuseppe Cardinal Siri was elected as Pope Gregory XVII.

    Finally, According to Dr. Rama Coomaraswamy, there was someone deeply into the teachings of Rudolf Steiner; one Angelo Roncalli, who would become “Pope” John XXIII and convoke the Second Vatican (Robber) Council! Coomaraswamy writes, “Then in 1924, after the death of his beloved bishop [Bp. Tedeschi], he [Roncalli] was called back to Rome and given a minor post in the Association for the Propagation of the Faith. At this time he also became a part time Professor of Patristics at the Lateran University, only to be relieved of his post within months “on suspicion of Modernism” and for “teaching the theories of Rudolf Steiner” (See The Destruction of the Christian Tradition, World Wisdom Press, 2006, pg. 134 & Footnote 17, pg. 154).

    Rudolf Steiner was an open occultist.

    In 1958, would a Catholic have reason to suspect Roncalli? The average Catholic, no. But with over 60 years of hindsight we DO. Hence, a doubtful pope is to be treated as no pope at all.

    —-Introibo

  14. Thanks for all that, Introibo.

    We’ve been through all this before. You’ve said nothing new. I don’t find your reasoning convincing.

    Bottom line: What you’ve listed is not solid evidence for heresy or apostasy.

    Your “cumulative” approach does not magically add up to Roncalli being a heretic/apostate/non-Catholic. What we need is a minimum of ONE example where it can be CLEARLY shown WHAT crime Roncalli committed and HOW that crime caused him to lose the faith/cease to be a Catholic.

    Rumors of being a Freemason, Freemasons claiming he was one of their own, rumors of being a Communist, hearsay in books, hearsay about what American security agencies thought at time, theories about Cardinal Siri being elected, Steiner being an occultist, your view of a passage out of Pacem in Terris, etc. etc., don’t even begin to approach proof for Roncalli being a false pope. As a lawyer, I think you know what I’m saying is true. And Canonical legal standards are what Roncalli must be judged against, and not, for example, a “preponderance of evidence” based on hearsay.

    What I was seeking was your thoughts on whether a Catholic today can legitimately put Roncalli in the “too hard basket,” DESPITE the FACT that one would be doing so based purely on a wealth of rumor, innuendo, unverified facts, etc. That’s what our “doubt” would be/is based on. Let’s be very clear about that. Based on a complete lack of solid evidence, I hardly think one can go about 100% declaring Roncalli an usurper. That’s not how justice works.

    Heavily in Roncalli’s favor is:

    1) Compelling, is that Roncalli was suspected of Modernism (heresy) as early as 1925 yet was never brought before the courts.

    2) Although the average Catholic layman wasn’t aware of Roncalli’s shenanigans, Church authorities certainly were. Everything you’ve mentioned was seen by the authorities.

    3) Compelling, is that Roncalli sat unchallenged (for years) as Cardinal under Pope Pius XII, right up until Pius’ death in 1958.

    4) None of the traditional clergy use your arguments. They obviously don’t think that what’s on your list suffices as examples that would prove the case against Roncalli. Again, where is Fr. Cekada’s article clearly showing that Roncalli was a false pope?

    Introibo: “I really don’t see how he can escape the charge of heresy and either lost office or never attained it.”

    Again, we need a minimum of ONE example where it can be CLEARLY shown WHAT crime Roncalli committed and HOW that crime caused him to lose the faith/cease to be a Catholic.

    I simply don’t know whether Roncalli was an impostor or not. Therefore I can’t declare him to definitely be an usurper.

  15. Even if I concede we don’t know if he’s an imposter or not, the fact remains that there is enough evidence TO SUSPECT his election.
    Teaching occult theories and being removed from a teaching post are FACTS. What was written in Pacem in Terris is religious liberty.

    Is this enough (plus the white smoke and verified reports from American intelligence) to be SUSPICIOUS of his election? Yes. It is enough to refuse obedience and treat him as a non-pope, even if he were valid.

    —-Introibo

  16. “verified reports from American intelligence”

    Are you talking about the story that the FBI or CIA had documents that Siri was elected? That story is extremely questionable. I believe the only source for it is an anti-Catholic book by someone whom I heard was an apostate from being a trad. He made that claim in his book, citing a document in the archives of the CIA. Several people have filed Freedom of Information requests for the document cited in the footnote, and the response has always been that no such document exists.

    Contrary to popular belief, the author who made this claim was never a federal agent, but only a journalist, and thus did not have special access to the CIA archives. The footnote that cited a specific CIA document was changed in subsequent editions of the book and replaced with a vague reference to “CIA sources” or something equally vague. Numerous people have contacted this author requesting more information about this whole situation, and he refuses to discuss it.

    All in all it looks pretty bogus to me.

  17. Introibo,

    Geocentrism is not a dogma, as it was not solemnly defined. However, it was determined by the Holy See to be the correct interpretation of Scripture. On what grounds, then, would any obedient Catholic deny it to be the correct interpretation? On no good grounds, that’s for sure. And yet, not merely some, but absolutely ALL of the theologians of the 19th and 20th centuries did in fact deny it. And here we are in the Great Apostasy. Coincidence? I don’t think so.

    You say that Salaverri considered the Galileo decision to be fallible. Of course, he would have to say that, since he obviously had no intention of assenting to it. Show me a theologian that is willing to assent to the decisions of the Holy See, and I will listen to him. The rest aren’t worth too much.

    As for the decisions of the Biblical Commission, Question #7 is not to the point, as none of the Fathers (nor anyone else, for that matter) ever considered themselves “strictly and always bound, when interpreting these chapters to seek for scientific exactitude of expression?”

    On the other hand, Question #8 merely allowed (for the time being) the opinion that yom may mean a certain period of time, rather than a single 24-hour day. This question doesn’t bind the Catholic conscience to anything. Moreover, we are still bound to follow the common interpretation of the Fathers on Scripture, and ALL the Fathers interpreted yom to be a 24-hour day, except for St. Augustine, who believed that God created all things in a single instant, and the “days” were symbolic. Not a single Father considered yom to mean “a certain space of time,” and neither should we.

    But my main point is that the Modernists were not a sufficient cause to destroy the institutional Church.

    Reply

  18. George,
    The Church can never be destroyed, it was just driven underground—and I’m sure that’s what you meant.

    I hope you see where the problems lie:

    1. The Church defected as She was unable to prevent Her approved theologians from teaching something (geocentrism) that an obedient Catholic has “no good grounds” to reject. Yet all the popes allowed this to go unchecked.

    2. Show you a theologian Willing to assent to the decisions of the Holy See? Van Noort, Salaverri, Dorsch, Tanquerey, McHugh and Callan, etc. If they weren’t willing to submit to decisions of the Holy See, they would have been censured. Obviously, even St Pius X was a Modernist sympathizer and a weak pope since he did nothing to correct the theologians of his day.

    3. You claim:
    “Moreover, we are still bound to follow the common interpretation of the Fathers on Scripture, and ALL the Fathers interpreted yom to be a 24-hour day, except for St. Augustine, who believed that God created all things in a single instant, and the “days” were symbolic. Not a single Father considered yom to mean “a certain space of time,” and neither should we.”

    Yet, why would Pope St Pius X approve a decree that would allow you to contradict the common teaching of the Fathers on Scripture, something you say we are “bound” to do. Does this not make the decision of the Pontifical Biblical Commission and its approval by Pope St Pius X wrong??

    —-Introibo

  19. Not exactly relevant, but the term “institutional Church” makes me very uncomfortable in the way it seems designed to create a distinction between the Catholic Church and an institution called the “institutional Church”. Obviously for a Catholic there is no distinction between the two. Creating new terms to make a distinction between two things that our Faith teaches are identical seems like a bad idea.

  20. The institutional Church is merely an aspect of the One, Holy Catholic Church, which I have thought up to illustrate that part of the Church that has defected. It can be defined as the Catholic Church in its aspect as a unified and coherent network of diverse ecclesiastical communities subject to a hierarchy that possesses from God the authority to teach and govern it. Since it is clear that this aspect of the Church no longer exists, it can be rightly said that the institutional Church has been destroyed.

  21. Introibo,

    Again, thanks.

    There is enough evidence to suspect his election IF, as I said before, one is allowed to suspect based purely on a wealth of rumor, innuendo, unverified facts, etc. Are we?

    Teaching occult theories and being removed from a teaching post are NOT FACTS. The first is a story that was retailed by Dr. Coomaraswamy, and the second is a FACT, but it’s ALSO a FACT that Roncalli remained in place as a Cardinal under Pope Pius XII, and is therefore presumed to be papabile.

    No. What was in Pacem and Terris was NOT religious liberty, and I pointed it out last time we discussed this. I think you need to review that exchange and your responses.

    Since when do Catholics rely on the CIA and FBI to learn when their new pope has been elected? I’ll grant that something unusual happened with the smoke, but none of the Cardinals came out at the time and denied John XXIII’s election.

    Introibo: “Yes. It is enough to refuse obedience and treat him as a non-pope, even if he were valid.”

    Who says that you can declare that suspicions based on this, particular, set of flimsy “evidence” is enough to refuse obedience and treat him as a non-pope, even if he were valid? No one. That’s “Introibo’s Law.”

    Sedevacantists recognize Paul VI onwards as pseudo-popes based on SOLID, IRREFUTABLE EVIDENCE. For some reason you’re not applying this standard to Roncalli.

    Again, Fr. Cekada and other clerics aren’t using your reasons. Fr. Cekada avoids John XXIII for precisely the same reason he avoids Pius XII’s liturgical changes. He hasn’t taken the huge bundle of rumors, false ideas about Pacem in Terris etc., and then declared that they create suspicion to enable one to definitively declare Roncalli an usurper.

    Again, I don’t know if Roncalli was an usurper. Neither do you, so perhaps you should pull back on DECLARING him a pseudo-pope, and instead just state that YOU believe he was problematic to the point that YOU have your doubts that he was genuine.

    Reply

  22. I have an excellent memory but I don’t remember every exchange I’ve had with readers over the course of nine years. I believe Pacem in Terris to promote religious liberty. If you wish to argue it go right ahead.

    When do Catholics rely on the FBI and CIA for information about a conclave? Since the information is now public and declassified and casts a serious doubt over the election. A specific cardinal with a specific papal name was mentioned.
    See https://novusordowatch.org/fbi-consultant-cardinal-siri-elected-pope-1958/

    That is real credible FACT that there is serious concerns over the 1958 conclave. None of the Cardinals denied Roncalli’s election because if the resignation of the other elected cardinal was coerced, its invalid. Later, Siri may have genuinely resigned with no duress but that has no retroactive Force with regard to Roncalli.

    Fr Cekada And the other Traditionalist clerics don’t use this line of reasoning. Who cares? They have no ordinary jurisdiction and none were approved pre-V2 theologians or canonists as was my spiritual father, Fr Gommar A DePauw, JCD. The SSPV denies the validity of Thuc bishops. Fr Cekada would have us believe an Una Cum Mass is mortal sin, but you can freely avail yourself of elderly V2 apostate priests with valid orders for Confession outside the danger of death. I follow no one blindly in this age of the Great Apostasy.

    If Roncalli is not an objectively doubtful pope as per Theologian Szal, you must submit to him.

    Therefore,
    The 1962 Missal with the name of St Joseph in the Canon and the elimination of the people’s Confiteor, the Misereatur, and Indulgentium must be the only Mass for you. (Ironically, SSPX refuses to eliminate those prayers). Do you attend the Mass of 1962 and acknowledge it as the normative Mass?

    Frs. Congar, de Lubac, Hans Küng and other censured heretics were all rehabilitated by Roncalli without abjuration of heresy. Do you accept them as approved Theologians?

    The whole group of theologians implicitly condemned by the Encyclical Humani Generis in 1950 had been called to Rome at the behest of John XXIII and also rehabilitated. Do you accept them?

    He rehabilitated Montini. All the cardinals he appointed are valid. Paul VI should therefore be accepted until November 21, 1964 when he signed Lumen Gentium. You might want to update your Mass to the first steps of the Novus Bogus in January 1964.

    A doubtful Sacrament is treated as no Sacrament in the practical order. Ditto for a dubiously elected pope. If there is no objective doubt, one must submit.

    If you want to consider him pope, go ahead. You might want to rethink that while you read approved Theologian Kung.

    —-Introibo

  23. Introibo,

    Thanks, yet again.

    We debated recently, about a year ago or so. I did argue successfully against your notion that Pacem in Terris contains heresy. You’ve forgotten. But it’s there in one of the threads.

    Go read the NOW article again. There’s no probative value. It’s admitted that the information cannot be verified. For all we know it could’ve been completely fabricated. Therefore all else you say that flows from it (the report) is inadmissible.

    Do you exclusively attend Pian Masses? Have you dictated to the SSPV that they must use the 1958 Missal because you believe Pius XII was the last true Pope? If not, do you stay home alone?

    As for all the rest:

    Introibo: “A doubtful Sacrament is treated as no Sacrament in the practical order. Ditto for a dubiously elected pope. If there is no objective doubt, one must submit.”

    Excuse me, but you haven’t even proved he was a “dubiously elected pope.” Therefore it looks like you must submit. Time to dust off your copy of Theologian Kung’s manual?

    You’ve proved nothing other than Roncalli was a bad pope. (I wish you could prove otherwise.)

    Tell me Introibo, did Fr Gommar A DePauw, JCD, approved theologian and canonist, ever write a formal theological opinion, laying down the proof that Roncalli was a false pope? Did he, perchance, use Roncalli’s poor taste in rehabilitated theologians as a reason why he ceased to be a Catholic? If he (your authority and spiritual father) didn’t, are you bound to accept Roncalli and his theologians? It works both ways. Btw, did Fr. DePauw even give an informal opinion on John XXIII? His informal opinion is as good as anyone else’s, so if he had one I’d like to hear it. By the way, was Fr. DePauw a sedevacantist? If so, when did he come to the sedevacantist conclusion?

    Last time we spoke, you said you were going to go away and do some research. This is what I was asking for this time: A minimum of ONE example where it can be CLEARLY shown WHAT crime Roncalli committed and HOW that crime caused him to lose the faith/cease to be a Catholic.

    You haven’t supplied.

    I’m uncertain about John XXIII. I simply don’t know. I look for solid evidence. You’re certain without having solid evidence. That’s the difference between us.

    But only God knows for certain.

    On that basis I prefer not to definitively declare Roncalli was an usurper.

    P.S. One moment it’s high praise from you for Fr. Cekada, next moment it’s “Who cares about him!” Fr. Cekada is a prolific writer. It IS significant that he hasn’t written condemning John XXIII, whether you think so or not.

  24. You: We debated recently, about a year ago or so. I did argue successfully against your notion that Pacem in Terris contains heresy. You’ve forgotten. But it’s there in one of the threads.

    Reply: With a 90 hr. plus work week and a family, I have a hard time believing I can do this much, so please don’t expect me to go looking for an exchange a year ago. If you want to debate it hear fine. Roncalli took a line right from John Courtney Murray’s heretical religious freedom.

    You: Go read the NOW article again. There’s no probative value. It’s admitted that the information cannot be verified. For all we know it could’ve been completely fabricated. Therefore all else you say that flows from it (the report) is inadmissible.

    Reply: Did you read the following?
    Such are the claims of Paul Williams, former consultant of the FBI, researcher, and author. Despite Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) requests made to the United States government, we have so far been unable to get copies of the cited declassified intelligence documents, and thus we cannot verify whether Williams’ claims about what these documents say are accurate. However, the mix-up in smoke signals of the conclave of 1958 is verifiable historical fact, recorded in the newspapers which reported on the conclave day of October 26, 1958, such as the New York Times and the Houston Post.

    As proof of this, we are producing below in PDF format the front pages of two American newspapers that reported on the conclave. Both of them mention the white smoke and the official announcement of a successful election on October 26 (two days before John XXIII), with everybody expecting the appearance of the new Pope, who, however, never did appear (keep in mind that white smoke is not produced until the Pope-elect has accepted his election):

    Download PDF: “New Pope: False Signals: [Vatican] Radio tells of election, bells sounded in error”, The Daily Gleaner, Oct. 27, 1958, p. 1
    Download PDF: “Cardinals Cast 8 Ballots Without Choosing Pope”, Newport Daily News, Oct. 27, 1958, p. 1
    So, at the very least we know that the conclave had indicated the election of a true Pope two days before Angelo Roncalli claimed the pontificate.

    Dr. Williams’ claims regarding the election of Cardinal Siri as Pope Gregory XVII and its subsequent suppression, are very significant for the Catholic Church because it is not possible for anyone, including “French cardinals,” to “annul” an accepted papal election. Nobody is able to take a valid papal election away from the Pope — only the Pope himself can resign, and even then there are restrictions as to the validity of a resignation: “Resignation is invalid by law if it was made out of grave fear unjustly inflicted, fraud, substantial error, or simony” (1917 Code of Canon Law, Canon 185). It is not possible to validly elect another Pope if a true Pope is already reigning.

    If, then, a true Pope — whether Cardinal Siri or anyone else, for that matter — was already reigning when Cardinal Roncalli was chosen, this would guarantee, per divine law, the invalidity of the election of John XXIII, no matter how many people recognized him as the true Pope afterwards.

    To prevent any misunderstanding, please note that Novus Ordo Watch does not endorse or recommend Dr. Williams’ book The Vatican Exposed, which is anti-Catholic to a large extent. We make reference to it only because the information it shares regarding the conclave of 1958 appears to be based on the OBJECTIVE FINDINGS of the U.S. intelligence community and hence would seem to be sufficiently reliable. (Emphasis in Original)

    (Continued below)

  25. Remember that we need not have proof beyond a reasonable doubt (moral certainty) but SUSPICION. A reasonable suspicion in civil law is seen as more than a guess or hunch but less than probable cause. It is based on “specific and articulable facts”, “taken together with rational inferences from the circumstances. Even a 1L would concede reasonable suspicion under these facts and circumstances.

    You:Do you exclusively attend Pian Masses? Have you dictated to the SSPV that they must use the 1958 Missal because you believe Pius XII was the last true Pope? If not, do you stay home alone?

    Reply: Yes, Pian Masses ARE NORMATIVE. It should be followed, but it is not heretical to follow pre-1955. I asked if you believed they are normative. You deflected answering. Have I mentioned this to the SSPV. YES. To SEVERAL PRIESTS AND A BISHOP. I cannot “command them” into doing otherwise.

    You:Excuse me, but you haven’t even proved he was a “dubiously elected pope.” Therefore it looks like you must submit. Time to dust off your copy of Theologian Kung’s manual?

    You’ve proved nothing other than Roncalli was a bad pope. (I wish you could prove otherwise.)

    Reply: Your wish came true> I’ve proven reasonable suspicion. If you don’t think rehabilitating hard-core Modernists, combined with all the other articulated facts and circumstances raises a reasonable suspicion, you need to dust off a law book and some books on basic logic–Bayesian probability would be a good place to start.

    You: Tell me Introibo, did Fr Gommar A DePauw, JCD, approved theologian and canonist, ever write a formal theological opinion, laying down the proof that Roncalli was a false pope? Did he, perchance, use Roncalli’s poor taste in rehabilitated theologians as a reason why he ceased to be a Catholic? If he (your authority and spiritual father) didn’t, are you bound to accept Roncalli and his theologians? It works both ways. Btw, did Fr. DePauw even give an informal opinion on John XXIII? His informal opinion is as good as anyone else’s, so if he had one I’d like to hear it. By the way, was Fr. DePauw a sedevacantist? If so, when did he come to the sedevacantist conclusion?

    Reply: You missed my point entirely (no surprise). Traditionalist clergy are not approved theologians or canonists. They have the minimum training, and no one has Ordinary Jurisdiction. Fr. DePauw’s was at least a canonist. There is currently no infallible head so don’t cite to e.g., Fr Cekada as a stand alone authority. Capiche?

    I submit he taught religious liberty, he was suspect of Modernism, he was removed from his teaching post, and we have strange circumstances surrounding his election (to say the least). All of this gives reasonable suspicion because the conclave gave the white signal, withdrew it, and the man who emerged wasted no time rehabilitating Modernist theologians along with other actions that a pope would not do. If you can cite another pope who rehabilitated large numbers of censured theologians in one fell swoop, I’d like to see it.

    You:You’re certain without having solid evidence. That’s the difference between us.

    Reply: I’m certain there is reasonable suspicion, that is enough.

    You: One moment it’s high praise from you for Fr. Cekada, next moment it’s “Who cares about him!” Fr. Cekada is a prolific writer. It IS significant that he hasn’t written condemning John XXIII, whether you think so or not.

    Reply: I give praise when it’s due, and castigate when necessary. He’s a prolific writer, conceded. He hasn’t written on Roncalli–that’s all it proves, unless you can read minds or he has told you otherwise. Interesting that what you find significant becomes so. but all the evidence surrounding Roncalli doesn’t even add up to reasonable suspicion. Hopefully, you’ll never need to sit on a jury.

    —Introibo

  26. Introibo,

    Thanks for all that.

    Introibo: “Could the Siri Theory be true? Possibly. I don’t buy it, but I try to follow the evidence where it leads.”

    Neither do I, and unlike you I don’t think it raises reasonable suspicion. The white smoke is mysterious but not enough to definitively declare Roncalli a papal usurper. But suddenly a theory you “don’t buy” is used to apply a secular law definition of “reasonable suspicion” to Roncalli’s election. Here are the FACTS -No one in the actual conclave raised the alarm at the time. None had a reasonable suspicion/raised doubts about the election result. We’re talking about Cardinals whom were actually present versus a lawyer from NY opining about “reasonable suspicion” decades later/second guessing these Cardinals and the election that not one of them raised the alarm about. Explain that?

    Of course I read the article. It’s full of the usual speculation, and it’s admitted that it’s not been verified. Anonymous sources told anonymous sources that Siri was elected. (Told the Americans fairytales for all we know).

    No deflection. You’re the one who ignores your opponents’ points. Let’s say I thought that the Mass of John XXIII was the normative Mass. (Btw, it may be.) I’d be in no position to force clergy into saying it. The Pian Mass is not heretical. Should I attend SSPV or CMRI or just stay home alone? You’re the one who misses points.

    I don’t have time to continue at the moment. I’ll get back to you later.

  27. The Siri Theory —-that Siri remained pope, and has a successor somewhere, I don’t buy. That he (or another) could have been elected and forced to resign is a possibility.

    No one raised the alarm as to Roncalli’s election. Explanation: it is possible that the one elected resigned under duress, but they thought it to be legitimate.

    Facts: Roncalli was under suspicion of Modernism, was a Socialist sympathizer, and was removed from his teaching position.

    Facts: There was a strange conclave where it seemed a pope was elected, then it changed, then Roncalli appears. There is evidence that American intelligence thought Siri had been elected.

    Fact: Roncalli begins to rehabilitate ALL THE MODERNIST AND CENSURED THEOLOGIANS. Something a real pope would not do. Combine that with Pacem in Terris and all the rest and you’ve got a reasonable suspicion.

    You don’t need a law degree to figure THAT ONE OUT.

    —-Introibo

  28. How is this passage from Pacem in Terris heretical: “Also among man’s rights is that of being able to worship God in accordance with the right dictates of his own conscience, and to profess his religion both in private and in public.”? Notice it says “right dictates”. This qualification of “right” saves it from heresy; if the passage had left “dictates” undefined then a case could be
    made against its orthodoxy. I have doubts about Roncalli’s being a pope; I have no doubts that Montini and successors were/are non-popes.

    Regarding Cardinal Siri: he openly accepted Roncalli, Montini, Luciani and Wojtyła as Vicars of Christ as well as Vatican 2 and the Bogus Ordo, so, regardless of what happened at the 1958 conclave, he wasn’t a pope either.

    I read the following on Novus Ordo Watch some time back:
    “As we all struggle to explain fully what has happened to the Catholic Church since the death of Pope Pius XII, it would behoove us to acknowledge that we simply do not have all the facts; that is, we do not know everything that has transpired, for example, with regard to the conclave of 1958. This is where the whole Novus Ordo Sect mess started, and right from the beginning New York’s Cardinal Francis Spellman had a choice remark to make about the new “Pope”, Angelo Roncalli, who had assumed the name of John XXIII: “He’s no Pope. He should be selling bananas” (John Cooney, The American Pope: The Life and Times of Francis Cardinal Spellman [New York, NY: Times Books, 1984], p. 261). If only he had!

    Interestingly enough, Spellman “refused to place John XXIII’s coat of arms either at St. Patrick’s [cathedral] or the chancery” and instead “had a life-size wax figure made of Pius XII” (ibid.). Did Spellman, who of course had participated in the secret conclave, know something we can only speculate about? This is the same Cardinal Spellman about whom Mgr. Joseph Clifford Fenton wrote in his personal diary that he was “coming out of the [1958] conclave looking white and shaken” (Fenton, Personal Diary: “My 1960 Trip to Rome”, entry for Nov. 2, 1960). Whatever transpired in that most fateful conclave, we know from the results that it was not of the Holy Ghost.”
    In connection with the above, see also https://novusordowatch.org/wp-content/uploads/fatima-2018-like-sheep-without-shepherd-derksen.pdf .

    Reply

  29. Leo,
    I agree with much of what you say; you make salient points. As to Pacem in Terris, according to the Pontifical Academy Of Social Sciences, “Interestingly, it was along this latter front that the move was made directly toward the subject of religious liberty during the first session of the Council (11 October to 8 December 1962). Only eleven days after his opening al- locution, Pope John raised the Secretariat for the Promotion of Christian Unity to the same rank as the Council Commissions, thus empowering it to submit schemata. In the preparatory phase to the first session, two draft texts on the Church (Scheme Constitutionis de Ecclesia) included a chapter entitled ‘On the Relations Between Church and State’. Had the issue re- mained in that context, it would have been considered solely in the light of ecclesiastical public law. Now, having been empowered to submit schemata, Cardinal Bea’s Secretariat produced a document that was first en- titled ‘Freedom of Cult’, and a few months later,‘On Religious Freedom’.6
    Second, in December of 1962, shortly after learning from his physicians that he had a terminal cancer, Pope John instructed Msgr. Pietro Pavan of the Lateran to draft a new encyclical, which would be called Pacem in terris. The drafting committee understood that one sentence in particular would have a direct effect on the schemata being drawn by the commissioners – ‘Also among man’s rights is that of being able to worship God in accordance with the right dictates of his own conscience, and to profess his religion both in private and in public’.7 (§14) But, in order to allow the Council to exercise its full deliberative weight, these sentences on religious liberty were carefully, even somewhat ambiguously, written.
    Published on MaundyThursday,Pope John christened Pacem in terris his ‘Easter gift’.8 It was also called his ‘last will and testament’, because he died on 3 June 1963. For our purposes, it was his own, indirect schema for a number of issues that would come before the second session of the Council (29 September to 4 December 1963), including religious liberty. (See http://www.pass.va/content/dam/scienzesociali/pdf/acta17/acta17-hittinger.pdf).

    That encyclical helped the enemies of the Church and under Canon 2315, that puts one under suspicion of heresy. That’s my take. In any event I thank you for adding to the evidence that we have REASONABLE SUSPICION as regards Roncalli’s election—-and that’s good enough!

    God Bless,

    —-Introibo

  30. Introibo,

    Introibo: “Your wish came true> I’ve proven reasonable suspicion. If you don’t think…”

    Wrong. You THINK my wish came true. Big difference. You’ve proven nothing. Every traditional Catholic ALREADY knows that Roncalli was a bad egg. We don’t need you to prove that. There are two aspects to this which you convenient leave enjoined. 1) Solid evidence that the election was invalid. 2) Solid evidence that Roncalli was a heretic/apostate/non-Catholic. As far as 1: You have confusing smoke signals at the beginning of the 1958 conclave followed by unfounded “possibilities.” That’s it. That’s the sole reason for your “unreasonable suspicion” regarding the legitimacy of the election. Confusing smoke signals and an unverified US intelligence report which, if it were verified, has every “possibilty” of being riddled with disinformation.

    But confusing smoke signals have apparently occurred previously.

    https://en.metapedia.org/wiki/Hutton_Gibson

    “In the early 1990s, Gibson and Tom Costello hosted a video called Catholics, Where Has Our Church Gone?[26] which is critical of the changes made to the Catholic Church by the Second Vatican Council and espouses the Siri Thesis that in 1958, after the death of Pope Pius XII, the man originally elected pope was not Angelo Roncalli, but another cardinal, “probably Cardinal Siri of Genoa” (a staunch conservative candidate and first papabile). Gibson stated that the white smoke which emanated from a chimney in the Sistine Chapel to announce a new pope’s election was done in error; black smoke signifying that the papacy was still vacant was quickly created and the public was not informed of the reason for the initial white smoke. A still photograph of a newspaper story about this event is shown. “Had our church gone up in smoke”? asked Gibson. He stated that the new pope was forced to resign under duress and two days later, the “modernist Roncalli” was elected pope and took the name “John XXIII”. In 1962, Roncalli, as Pope John XXIII convened the Second Vatican Council.[26] In 2006, Hutton Gibson reversed his position on the Siri Thesis, asserting that this theory was based on a mistranslation of an article written on October 27, 1958 by Silvio Negro for the evening edition of the Milan-based Corriere della Sera.[27] A similar event also happened in 1939; in that case a confusing mixture of white and black smoke emanated from the Sistine Chapel chimney. In a note to Vatican Radio, the secretary of the Papal conclave at the time, a monsignor named Santoro said that a new pope, Eugenio Pacelli, had been properly elected regardless of the color of the smoke. Pacelli took the name Pius XII.[28]”

    As for 2: The Catholic Church doesn’t excommunicate people due to “reasonable suspicion.” One is not declared a heretic due to suspicions. We don’t decide that such and such a bidhop is a heretic based merely on a suspicion. There was plenty of opportunity to deal with Roncalli IF the Church had any real evidence against him. Instead, he ended up Cardinal and Patriarch of Venice under Pope Pius XII. By the way, Roncalli banished Bugnini. He didn’t resurface until after his death. The fact is that your secular law definition of “reasonable suspicion” (of Roncalli being a heretic) is NOT enough for you to definitively declare Roncalli an usurper. Thank God these matters don’t rely on secular lawyers arbitrarily deciding that there’s “reasonable suspicion,” and therefore “X bishop is no bishop at all!”

    To be continued…

    Reply

  31. Your ignorance shows. Reasonable suspicion regarding an election allows one to consider the one elected a dubious pope. You don’t need moral certitude.

    Hutton Gibson’s assertions do not jibe with the objective facts put forth since; and which I cited from NOW above.
    Let me give another example:
    if your neighbor had been Michael Jackson would you allow your child to spend the night there with a friend? Why not? He was never convicted of child molestation. However, he thought there was nothing wrong with a 44 year old sharing a bed with children because “nothing sexual went on” and all he does is give them hot milk and cookies before sleeping in the same bed with them, which he believed “the whole world should do.” Combine this with all his other bizarre behavior, and It would be reasonable to suspect he might be a child molester.

    Not enough to convict of anything but enough to be suspicious! That’s all I need and what I’ve got!

    —-Introibo

  32. Introibo,

    Your ignorance is astoumding.

    Your so-called “reasonable suspicion” is unfounded. Unfounded in terms of the election, as I’ve just shown, and unfounded as far as suspecting Roncalli and then using that to definitively declare him a heretic. Reasonable suspicion cannot be used to declare prelates heretics. That’s the point. What, precisely, don’t you understand about that? It’s not the principle that’s the problem, it’s your application of it that’s problematic. So spare me your recycled Michael Jackson examples. And for, I hope, the last time: the US security agency report is UNVERIFIED. Hutton Gibson’s presentation of FACTS obviously trumps your suite of “ifs,” “possibilities” and unverified reports which could be a whole lot of disinformation. See, it works both ways. Even if you can manage to dig up the report, I’ve already cast doubt on it due to it coming from an anonymous source/s to an anonymous sources/s in US intelligence; everyone knows that disinformation is a large part of spycraft.

    Btw, you missed my point when I referenced Fr. DrPauw. Am I surprised?

    1) I was not using Fr. Cekada as a Church authority.(I subsequently explained why I referenced him.) You assumed I was, then went on a little tear. But, oddly, you threw Fr. DePauw in as an example of a true canonist and theologian, so my questions relating to Fr. DePauw still stand. You deflected. Now, I’ve got another question re: Fr. DePauw.

    First. Do you now admit you were wrong about Roncalli preaching heresy in Pacem in Terris? If you still cling to your error, do you acknowledge that you are, stubbornly, almost on your own with that? But far more impottantly, DID Fr. DePauw object to Pacem in Terris at the time, declaring it was heretical? Did the learned theologian Guerard des Lauriers? How about Cardinal Ottaviani? Any of the distinguished, conservative churchmen of the time? Anyone? Anyone at all? (Why not? It’s obvious heresy, right?) Answer: No. Just the lawyer from NY in 2019.

    I rest my case.

    I’m uncertain about Roncalli. The difference between us is that you think you can definitively declare people to be heretics purely on your suspicions which you (erroneously) deem to be “reasonable.” I don’t.

    In charity. When you make comments along the lines of praising Fr. Cekada when it’s warranted and castigating him when necessary, you sound capricious, atbitrary and narcissistic. Just sayin’…

    And I noticed that your Lenten resolution went out the window. I was very polite, but you started to become rude, so I retaliated. Will you now go back to following your own rules, please?

    Reply

  33. 1. Hutton Gibson’s report is verified? Yeah. I suggest you reread NOW article. The papers reported FACTS about the conclave and the mix up. Gibson also has plenty of citations that Roncalli was a Freemason including Theologian Arriaga. But since it doesn’t meet you manufactured requirements for “proof” you will conveniently discount it.

    2. The facts remain that Roncalli was censured, there was a mix-up of smoke at the conclave, and Roncalli appears rehabilitating ALL the censured theologians alive from Pope Pius XII. Something unprecedented and no pope would do. Read the proof offered by Leo above regarding the actions and sayings of Cardinal Spellman WHO WAS THERE. Is that good enough for you? How about the fact that Cardinal Ottaviani was so sure of his election he even had his names picked out as Pope Pius XIII. Ottaviani told Fr. DePauw, “There was something seriously wrong.” (With the conclave).

    Did Fr object to Pacem at the time? Yes. He said it was “offensive to pious ears.” See also my reply to Leo.

    I’m glad you rested your case. I just wish you were a lawyer opposing me. You’d make my work so much easier and my lawsuits so much easier to win.

    Finally, how about this quote from Roncalli:
    “Catholics and Orthodox are not enemies, but brothers. We have the same faith; we share the same sacraments, and especially the Eucharist. We are divided by some disagreements concerning the divine constitution of the Church of Jesus Christ. The persons who were the cause of these disagreements have been dead for centuries. Let us abandon the old disputes and, each in his own domain, let us work to make our brothers good, by giving them good example. Later on, though traveling along different paths, we shall achieve union among the churches to form together the true and unique Church of our Lord Jesus Christ.”
    (See Luigi Accattoli, When A Pope Asks Forgiveness, New York: Alba House and Daughters of St. Paul, 1998, pp. 18-19.)

    Do you believe that the Eastern Schismatics and the True Church have “the same Faith”?

    Is this not heresy? Or does it not constitute evidence?

    Finally, if you don’t like the way I come off sounding, please don’t interact with me and presume to tell me how to run my blog. I have been more than charitable.

    —-Introibo

  34. Introibo,

    1. I suggest you actually read the Gibson report again. It references an Italian newspaper report that rolled off the presses during the 1958 conclave. It’s verifiable history. It has far more credence than the fairytale you’re using to claim “reasonable suspicion” about the election. I haven’t manufactured any requirements for proof. The Church doesn’t allow one to declare prelates heretics based on reasonable suspicions which are based on fairytales. That’s what you’re doing. Yes, I’ll discount all hearsay or similiar evidence. This isn’t a cruddy, civil case in a New York court with low evidentiary requirements.

    2. So Roncalli was censured. That automatically makes him a heretic; but if it doesn’t, don’t worry, a mix up with the smoke – just like what happened at the election of Pius XII – is enough to reasonably suspect the election. Yeah. What Leo relayed was interesting, but in NO WAY DOES IT SUFFICE AS HARD EVIDENCE AGAINST THE VALIDITY OF THE ELECTION. I wouldn’t even doubt it on the strength of that information.
    It’s merely stories from books written by people about other people using third hand information. Zero guarantee of accuracy. Do you believe every story you read? And Spellman’s banana remark sounds like it was made due to a personal dislike of Roncalli. Again, what’s missing are the firsthand accounts from those present that there was something seriously wrong with the election – threats, violence, coercion, duress. There’s none. Just unspecific “he said, she said” “evidence.” Cardinal Ottaviani seems very confident, but so were others, including Cardinal Siri, according to the popular stories. What a PITY that Ottaviani didn’t ELABORATE when he spoke to Fr. DePauw. It’s ALWAYS the way. No real evidence. But tell me, did Fr. DePauw opine that Roncalli was ipso facto excommunicated for “rehabilitating” those theologians, or is just you unsuccessfully trying to establish the false and novel corollary that no true pope would do that?

    3. You still haven’t answered my questions about Fr. DePauw. Did Fr. DePauw publicly or even privately state that Pacem in Terris was heretical, and as a result John XIII was a heretic and no pope at all?

    4. You reopened my case. I only wish I could oppose you in court. I’d never lose a case.

    5. Wow! I agree that that quote from Roncalli sounds bad. I found it on the Dimond Bros. Feeneyite website, along with all their hearsay “evidence” about Roncalli being a Freemason. Its authenticity is immediately dubious. Thing is, and what you can’t seem to grasp, Roncalli was never brought to trial for heresy, tried and convicted. He was “suspected of Modernism” in 1925, and then went on to become a Cardinal and Patriarch of Venice under Pope Pius XII.

    What I’m still after is a minimum of one example where it can be clearly shown what crime Roncalli committed, when he committed it, and how that crime caused him to lose the faith/cease to be a Catholic.

    Finally. No, I like interacting with you. I just thought you were sounding a bit unfriendly. I realize now that I was obviously just imagining it. My bad.

    Reply

  35. 1. Please read the newspaper reports embedded in the NOW report that is HISTORY. Not speculation.

    2. You’re conflating two separate issues. (A) Roncalli being a heretic and (b) being invalidly elected. If Siri had been elected and coerced into resigning and Ottaviani was elected, his election would be invalid, although he was definitely not a heretic.

    So, if we have reasonable suspicion that the election may be invalid that is enough to cast him a dubious pope. Remember that the standard is SUSPICION. That does not require proof beyond a reasonable doubt.

    2. Now let’s see what we have:
    A censured cleric removed from his teaching position. His friends are Socialists and Freemasons. There is suspicious smoke and reports from American intelligence that another cardinal was elected. There are two Cardinals present at the conclave who thought something was wrong. Roncalli begins rehabilitating all the censured heretics.

    Taken together, is there reason to suspect that Roncalli was not validly elected given the circumstances and his behavior—especially after he became “pope”? You bet.

    Consider reasonable doubt is a low standard of proof. It cannot be arbitrary and capricious.

    3. Fr DePauw was sede since at least 1999, and would not discuss details. I answered what he thought of Pacem at the time and the document was praised by the Masonic Lodge.

    4. Before you could even hope to compete you’d need to learn evidentiary standards and not conflate issues.

    5. I have the book. The quote is legitimate. This is the genetic fallacy, something is wrong or dubious because of its origin. The National Enquirer is a rag, but they correctly reported John Edwards was cheating on his wife. Interesting too, is that you don’t immediately find Hutton Gibson automatically suspect. Do you deny the Holocaust too? Not enough evidence? Everything bad in the world is the result of Jews?

    Never brought up on trial for heresy. Neither was de Lubac, or sodomite Baum. Neither was Montini. How did HE lose office if there was no trial?

    There is reasonable suspicion such that we may hold Roncalli as a dubious pope, which is no pope in the practical order.

    —-Introibo

  36. Introibo,

    Firstly. YOU, in fact, were the one who was conflating the two issues -election/heresy. I pulled you up on it in a previous post. I distincly separated the two because you were combining them.

    Did you carefully read anon @ 8:22’s post? I did. It confirms all I said about your use of a fairytale to claim reasonable suspicion. You can’t claim reasonable suspicion using the NOW fairytale about the FALSE story from the fraudulent anti-Catholic author about the supposed US intelligence reports claiming Siri was elected. Anon @ 8:22 put paid to your reasonable suspicion claims using that nonsense as a reason. NOW had old NEWS reports about the smoke confusion. So what? There were similiar reports in 1939 when there were similar problems with the smoke at the election of Pope Pius XII.

    I don’t have time at the moment to answer your entire post, but I will later.

    In the meantime, when fif you first formulate your “argument” about “reasonable suspicion” and put it in writing here?

  37. I want to thank you for inspiring me. If you would be so kind, I’m doing my next post on John XXIII, and we may pick up in the comments on Monday where we leave off today.

    I’ve always said I’ve learned a lot from my readers and I mean it. Had it not been for you coming back again about Roncalli, I wouldn’t have started my research into him again, and see things from a fresh perspective.

    Thank you my friend for challenging me. The unchallenged mind can’t grow. We may not agree, but I respect your intellectual pugnacious proclivity. It’s a good thing to have! Until Monday!

    God Bless,

    —-Introibo

  38. Anonymous May 15, 2019 at 12:28 PM:
    You said: “Spellman’s banana remark sounds like it was made due to a personal dislike of Roncalli.” Note that Cardinal Spellman also stated: “He’s [Roncalli] no Pope.” This sounds more than an affirmation of a personal dislike. Pacem in Terris was an unfortunate encyclical, but it can’t be convicted of explicit heresy. What Roncalli said about the “Eastern Orthodox” looks heretical to me!
    By the way, when you said, “We know that John Salza demolished a facile argument put forth by Bp. Sanborn”, what were you referring to?

    Reply

  39. Hello Leo,

    Thanks for your post, but most of all for your correct assessment of Pacem in Terris not being heretical. Not unlike yourself I have my personal doubts about John XXIII, but they certainly don’t warrant me declaring he’s a heretic based on what’s in Pacem in Terris. That wouldn’t be just.

    Leo: ‘Note that Cardinal Spellman also stated: “He’s [Roncalli] no Pope.” This sounds more than an affirmation of a personal dislike.’

    I agree that it’s a positive assertion. It could easily be merely an affirmation of a personal dislike and distrust of Roncalli’s overall abilities. Just as is the following affirmation made by a sales manager of a car dealership: “He [Fred] is no car salesman. He should be on an assembly line in a cannery.” This speaks to Fred’s ability/suitability/skillset etc.

    But let’s say this [Spellman’s] comment was somehow meant to mean Roncalli wasn’t legitimate. Where’s the followup from Spellman? He was a Catholic Cardinal. If he had the solid evidence that Roncalli was an usurper – for whatever, legitimate reason – why did he just make a cryptic comment; an (alluring, nowadays) allusion to Roncalli being a fraud and then just leave it at that?
    Again, what’s missing are the firsthand accounts from those present that there was something seriously wrong with the election – threats, violence, coercion, duress. There’s none. Just assorted cryptic comments posing as evidence. But one thing seems to be beyond any doubt – Spellman was no fan of Roncalli. And unless or until we get a clarification of the statement, it must be interpreted as I’ve indicated, else we do gross INJUSTICE to both Spellman and Roncalli.

    I was referring to the article by Salza on their website. I assumed Introibo had seen it. Although Salza concludes correctly, he does it in his usual dodgy manner. From memory, Salza – big advocate of not using hearsay evidence to prove religious points (I agree) – ends with using the old, recycled statement Roncalli SUPPOSEDLY made on his deathbed when he SUPPOSEDLY learned that the Council was taking a wrong turn, to wit: “Stop the Council! Tell them to stop the Council!” – or words to that effect.

    Young Johnny Salza is an insufferable hypocrite, no doubt about that!

    Reply

  40. Knowing now what we know about Roncalli, would any of you let him teach the Faith to your children? I wouldn’t because from what I know about him now, he seems to have a different idea as to what the Catholic Faith entails then his predecessors. For that doubt alone, I would avoid any of his teachings.

    Reply

  41. PS-you can substitute any conciliar claimant to the Papacy in the place of Roncalli and you would get the same answer. NO

The Open Letter accusing Francis of Heresy: A Sedevacantist Analysis

What to do with a “heretical Pope”?

The Open Letter accusing Francis of Heresy:
A Sedevacantist Analysis

More than a week has now passed since the publication of the “Open Letter to the Bishops of the Catholic Church” released on Apr. 30 by nineteen Novus Ordo clergymen and academics accusing “Pope” Francis of being a pertinacious heretic and asking the addressees to declare him such and thereby remove him from office. Since then, many more academics and clerics have added their names to the Open Letter, and at the time of this writing, the total is up to 81 (see updates here).

While countless Novus Ordo web sites have covered the fallout from this so far and will continue to do so in the days to come, it is time for some sedevacantist analysis and commentary — the kind of assessment that you won’t get from most other sources, since Sedevacantism is the ugly duckling, the enfant terrible for those in the Vatican II Sect who consider themselves traditional Catholics. So far, only Fr. Anthony Cekada has weighed in briefly on the matter.

Before we begin, a clarifying reminder may be in order: We sedevacantists do not believe that Francis has lost the Papacy, either due to heresy or for any other reason. Rather, we believe that he never attained the Papacy in the first place, for the simple reason that, as a public heretic even before the 2013 conclave, he was simply not eligible for the Papacy or for any other office in the Catholic Church. That’s it in a nutshell.

There is another important point of which our readers should be aware: There are (at least) twoways to demonstrate that Francis is not a valid Pope: (a) by demonstrating he is not a Catholic and therefore cannot be the head of the Catholic Church — this is the argument from the cause(personal heresy); (b) by demonstrating that in his capacity as “Pope”, he has done things which, by divine law, are impossible for a Pope to do (for example, canonize notorious sinners as saints, establish disciplinary laws for the whole Church that are in themselves evil, heretical, impious, immoral, or otherwise harmful) — this is the argument from the effect (impossible actions).

Between these two different lines of argumentation, the argument from the effect is by far the more compelling, as it totally avoids the thorny issue of having to “judge” that someone claiming to be Pope is guilty of the personal sin of pertinacious (=willful) heresy, which a lot of people are uncomfortable doing because they mistakenly fear that this would necessarily mean they are engaging in “private judgment” or that they would be usurping authority they do not have (this too is inaccurate because no one is asking them to make a legal judgment, which would bind other consciences, but only a cognitive judgment concerning a manifest state of affairs; cf. 1 Cor 2:15).

Introductory Comments

But now on to the Open Letter. Perhaps one can characterize it, first and foremost, as a sincere but desperate attempt by a number of conservative Novus Ordos who are at their wits’ end with Francis to do something — anything — about the pink elephant in St. Peter’s Basilica. However flawed or insufficient the document and the approach may be, there is at least this one thing one can definitely give them credit for: At least they’re trying to do something! They can see that the situation is intolerable and is threatening to gradually destroy even every bit of what they believe Catholicism to be (namely, the Vatican II religion with a conservative spin); and so, as a drowning man tries to hold on to anything within reach, they are trying in their anguish to do whatever appears to be within their means to get the ball rolling in order to put an end to this disaster.

As regards the evidence for heresy and pertinacity on Francis’ part that is presented in the Open Letter, it will not be evaluated or discussed in this post. In the last 6+ years, Jorge Bergoglio has proved himself a public pertinacious heretic in so many ways and on so many occasions, that one might as well ask for proof that McDonald’s sells French fries. Francis is not a Catholic and is guilty as sin of public heresy and apostasy, and this is objectively manifest. Readers who are not familiar with the evidence may wish to take a look at this page:

We will now proceed to analyze and comment on the salient points of the Apr. 30 letter accusing Bergoglio of being a pertinacious heretic.

Addressed to the Wrong People

The Open Letter is addressed to the “bishops of the Catholic Church”, in other words, to the world’s Novus Ordo bishops. This is puzzling already because it’s not like that college of Modernist pretend-bishops has recently distinguished itself as being particularly concerned about orthodoxy. In fact, only a handful of names come to mind when one thinks of who among “Catholic bishops” in the Vatican II religion shows any genuine concern for the importance of Catholic Faith and the purity of doctrine — even the Novus Ordo version thereof.

On the other hand, it does not take long to think of a whole list of pseudo-episcopal scoundrels who are infamous for working to undermine Catholic Faith or morals, or what’s left of either in the Vatican II Church. Names like Mahony, Tobin, Cupich, Maradiaga, Baldisseri, Woelki, Stowe, Paglia, Muller, Farrell, Schonborn, Tagle, Wuerl, Kasper, Gumbleton, Lynch, Nichols, Ravasi, Kohlgraf, Marx, and Favalora may be known for a lot of things, but concern for orthodoxy is not one of them. In fact, with very rare exceptions these people cannot even so much as refuse “Holy Communion” to scandalous politicians, which they are required to do by their own canon law; much less do they penalize them with an excommunication. Are these people now going to excommunicate, as it were, the man they believe to be the Pope? Fat chance!

Already at the outset, then, the authors’ endeavor is doomed to failure: They’re simply addressing the wrong people. Heretics don’t generally care much for orthodoxy. Then again, to whom were they going to appeal instead? Who else is there? And that is the crux of the matter: What recourse can be had concerning the problem of a “heretical Pope”, if such a thing can exist? Who can be appealed to? Thankfully, the question simply does not present itself, for a heretical Pope — that is, someone who is at the same time a public non-Catholic and also the head of the Catholic Church — is an impossibility. One might as well ask what to do about a four-sided triangle or how to cope with a married bachelor. But more on that later.

Heresy as Canonical Delict

In their first paragraph, the signatories of the Open Letter say they are writing “to accuse Pope Francis of the canonical delict of heresy”. Notice they are not accusing him simply of heresy but of “the canonical delict.” Heresy can be looked at from the moral point of view (as a sin against God, dealt with by moral theology), and it can be looked at from the canonical point of view (as a crime or delict against Church law, dealt with by canon law). Clearly, the authors are accusing Francis of the canonical crime, which, however, presumes the personal sin as well, according to the defintion given in canon law: “By the term delict in ecclesiastical law is understood an external and morally imputable violation of a law to which a canonical sanction, at least an indeterminate one, is attached” (1917 Code of Canon Law, Canon 2195 §1; underlining added).

By accusing Francis of the canonical delict rather than simply of the public sin, the authors have shot themselves in the foot. Canon law is absolutely clear — and this is really just a restatement of Catholic dogma — that the Pope cannot be judged by any mortal: “The First See is judged by no one” (Canon 1556).

Nor, in fact, can he incur any canonical penalty, for Canon 2227 states:

§1. A penalty cannot be imposed or declared against those mentioned in Canon 1557 §1, except by the Roman Pontiff.

§2. Unless expressly named, Cardinals of the H. R. C. [Holy Roman Church] are not included under penal law, nor are Bishops [liable] to the penalty of automatic suspension and interdict.

The people “mentioned in Canon 1557 §1” include all heads of state (n. 1), all cardinals (n. 2), all legates of the Holy See, and, “in criminal cases, Bishops, even titular ones” (n. 3). Since, then, even cardinals are exempt from the penalties of canon law and are judged by the Roman Pontiff directly, what were the authors of the Open Letter thinking in asking the “Pope’s” inferiors to apply canonical penalties against him who “is judged by no one”? (All this, by the way, is also contained in the Novus Ordo 1983 Code of Canon Law; see Canons 1321; 1404-1405.)

A Heresy Trial for the Pope?

After listing copious documentation to support their accusation that Francis denies Catholic dogma and does so pertinaciously, the accusers state: “Despite the evidence that we have put forward in this letter, we recognise that it does not belong to us to declare the pope guilty of the delict of heresy in a way that would have canonical consequences for Catholics” (p. 15).

This is an interesting admission. If Francis is Pope, then indeed they do not have the power to “declare the pope guilty of heresy” — because they are his inferiors, and an accused person can only be declared guilty in a legally valid and binding way by a superior whose subject he is:

The Supreme Pontiff has the highest legislative, administrative and judicial power in the Church. The Code [of Canon Law] states that the Roman Pontiff cannot be brought to trial by anyone. The very idea of the trial of a person supposes that the court conducting the trial has jurisdiction over the person, but the Pope has no superior, wherefore no court has power to subject him to judicial trial.

(Rev. Stanislaus Woywod, A Practical Commentary on the Code of Canon Law, rev. by Rev. Callistus Smith [New York: Joseph F. Wagner, 1952], n. 1549, p. 225; underlining added.)

The Roman Pontiff has received from Christ supreme authority over the whole Church, and it follows from this very fact that he, in the direction of the faithful to eternal salvation, possesses full jurisdiction and all its attributes. He alone, or together with a Council called by him, can make laws for the universal Church, abrogate them or derogate from them, grant privileges, appoint, depose, judge or punish Bishops. He is the supreme judge by whom all causes are to be tried; he is the supreme judge whom no one may try.

…It is not becoming that the supreme legislator should be subject to other laws, except to those which emanate from the Sovereign Pontificate; it is not becoming that he who constitutes the tribunal of appeal for all men, rulers as well as subjects, should be judged by his inferiors.

…The reason why the Pope can be judged by no one is evident. No one can be judged by another unless he is subject to that person, at least with respect to the subject matter of the trial. Now, the Roman Pontiff is the Vicar of Jesus Christ, who is the King of Kings and the Lord of Lords, and to him has been entrusted the commission to feed His lambs and His sheep. In no way, therefore, can he be subjected to any man or to any forum, but is entirely immune from any human judgment. This principle, whether taken juridically or dogmatically suffers no exception.

(Rev. Thomas Joseph Burke, Competence in Ecclesiastical Tribunals [Washington, D.C.: Catholic University of America Press, 1922], pp. 85-87; underlining added.)

Strangely enough, however, although they recognize their own powerlessness to legally judge, convict, punish, or depose the “Pope” for heresy, the signatories have nevertheless decided that somehow the “bishops” they are addressing are competent to do these things, when they too, of course, are but Francis’ inferiors:

We therefore appeal to you as our spiritual fathers, vicars of Christ within your own jurisdictions and not vicars of the Roman pontiff, publicly to admonish Pope Francis to abjure the heresies that he has professed. Even prescinding from the question of his personal adherence to these heretical beliefs, the Pope’s behaviour in regard to the seven propositions contradicting divinely revealed truth, mentioned at the beginning of this Letter, justifies the accusation of the delict of heresy. It is beyond a doubt that he promotes and spreads heretical views on these points. Promoting and spreading heresy provides sufficient grounds in itself for an accusation of the delict of heresy. There is, therefore, superabundant reason for the bishops to take the accusation of heresy seriously and to try to remedy the situation.

(“Open Letter to the Bishops of the Catholic Church”, Easter Week, 2019, p. 15)

Here the authors state that they want the Novus Ordo bishops they are addressing to “admonish Pope Francis to abjure the heresies that he has professed.” In the very next paragraph, they elaborate:

Since Pope Francis has manifested heresy by his actions as well as by his words, any abjuration must involve repudiating and reversing these actions, including his nomination of bishops and cardinals who have supported these heresies by their words or actions. Such an admonition is a duty of fraternal charity to the Pope, as well as a duty to the Church. If – which God forbid! – Pope Francis does not bear the fruit of true repentance in response to these admonitions, we request that you carry out your duty of office to declare that he has committed the canonical delict of heresy and that he must suffer the canonical consequences of this crime.

(“Open Letter”, p. 15)

This passage is fraught with problems.

First, by what authority do the signatories think they can specify what the “bishops” must do, and even more so, how Francis must react, in order for him not to lose the pontificate they believe him to be holding? Second, what kind of theology underlies this demand? If the Pope has no superior and therefore cannot be tried or judged by anyone, then no one can threaten him with canonical consequences if he should fail to act in a certain way.

The only way bishops could declare that a Pope has lost his office is if he is already not Pope and this is manifest. What is impossible is that he should remain Pope until such time as a declaration should come. For if he is Pope before the declaration, then the declaration cannot be made, for it would amount to judging the Pope, which is impossible. But if a declaration can be issued, then it must be manifest that he is already not Pope even before the declaration, for which reasons the bishops can issue it.

Given these considerations, it simply makes no sense for the authors of the Letter to give Francis a chance to recant (abjure) in order for him not to cease to be Pope. The accusers have been very clear that Francis is already a manifest pertinacious heretic, on account of which they have taken the liberty of asking the Novus Ordo bishops to declare him to have forfeited his office. Their accusation is precisely that he professes heresy and is pertinacious in it, and that this is manifest.

What, then, would repentance accomplish as far as the papal office he supposedly holds is concerned? All it could do is make a heretical pseudo-Pope into a repentant and formerly heretical pseudo-Pope, nothing more. It could not prevent him from having committed pertinacious heresy already, nor could it keep him from losing the pontificate they believe him to hold, since that is lost by public pertinacious heresy alone, as we will see, and not by public-pertinacious-heresy-if-he-doesn’t-do-what-his-inferiors-tell-him-to.

A ‘Faithful Minority’ can depose a Pope?

The Open Letter gets more problematic still:

These actions do not need to be taken by all the bishops of the Catholic Church, or even by a majority of them. A substantial and representative part of the faithful bishops of the Church would have the power to take these actions. Given the open, comprehensive and devastating nature of the heresy of Pope Francis, willingness publicly to admonish Pope Francis for heresy appears now to be a necessary condition for being a faithful bishop of the Catholic Church.

(“Open Letter”, pp. 15-16)

This is just indefensible. If the actions the authors believe their addressees must take need not be taken “by a majority of them”, much less all of them, then how is this supposed to work? What criterion will suffice then as having established that the “Pope” is a heretic and no longer holds his office? A minority of bishops? Then what about the majority that disagrees?

The authors offer a handy standard, though without any justification: The deed is to be done by a “substantial and representative part of the faithful bishops of the Church.” Note well — it’s not just a substantial and representative part of the bishops but of the faithful bishops! And you can probably guess who has already determined who counts as a faithful bishop — precisely, the authors of the Open Letter! And so in the same breath they offer yet another gratuitous criterion for identifying just who is faithful: why, those who are willing to do what they’re being told in the Letter, of course! By that definition, it looks like the verdict will be unanimous after all….

An Attempt at Theological Justification

On p. 16 of the document, the accusers maintain that their “course of action is supported and required by canon law and the tradition of the Church”, and they append an attempt at theological justification for it, entitled “Canon law and Catholic theology concerning the situation of a heretical pope”.

Of course the appendix begins by mentioning the seventh-century Pope Honorius I, a case concerning which enough has been written in the past so that there is no need to repeat it here. We simply ask our readers to review the following links:

Regarding the possibility of a “heretical Pope” (Papa haereticus), that is, the possibility of a true Pope becoming a heretic in his private capacity (as a private person and not as part the exercise of his magisterium, as will be explained later; cf. Denz. 1837) and what would have to be done in such a case, theologians are divided and the Church has never made a definitive pronouncement either way. Theologians have therefore addressed the question at least hypothetically.

After the First Vatican Council (1870), whose dogmatic constitution Pastor Aeternus contains copious teaching about the Papacy, we find theologians treating of the Papa haereticus scenario only minimally. The canonist Fr. Charles Augustine Bachofen, for example, considered it a “purely academical question”, that is, the question “whether a Pope coud be deposed if he became a heretic or a schismatic.” His response: “Nego suppositum“, meaning, “I deny the supposition” (Rev. Chas. Augustine, A Commentary on the New Code of Canon Law, vol. II [London: B. Herder Book Co., 1918], p. 211).

The renowned canonist Fr. Matthaeus Conte a Coronata summarizes the state of the question thus:

…it cannot be proved that the Roman Pontiff, as a private teacher [!], cannot become a heretic, for example, if he contumaciously denies a dogma previously defined; this impeccability was nowhere promised to him by God. On the contrary, [Pope] Innocent III expressly admits that the case can be conceded. But if the case should take place, he falls from office by divine law, without any sentence, not even a declaratory one. For he who openly professes heresy places his very self outside the Church, and it is not probable that Christ preserves the Primacy of His Church with such an unworthy individual. Consequently, if the Roman Pontiff professes heresy, he is deprived of his authority before any whatsoever sentence, which [sentence] is impossible.

(Rev. Matthaeus Conte a Coronata, Institutiones Iuris Canonici, vol. I, 4th ed. [Rome: Marietti, 1950], n. 316c; our translation; underlining added.)

Fr. Joachim Salaverri, in his comprehensive treatise on the Church of Christ, devotes only one short paragraph to the question of the heretical Pope:

Whether or not the Pope as a private person [!] can fall into heresy?Theologians dispute about this question. It seems to us “more pious and probable” to hold that God in his providence will see to it “that the Pope will never be a heretic.” For, this opinion, which was held by Bellarmine and Suarez, also was praised at Vatican Council I by Bishop Zinelli, Secretary for the Faith, when he said: “Because we rely on supernatural Providence, we think it is sufficiently probably that this will never happen. For God is not lacking in essentials, and therefore, if He were to permit such an evil, there would not be lacking the means to provide for it.”

(Rev. Joachim Salaverri, Sacrae Theologiae Summa IB: On the Church of Christ, trans. by Rev. Kenneth Baker [original Latin published by BAC, 1955; English published by Keep the Faith, 2015], n. 657; italics in original.)

The celebrated Cardinal Louis Billot treats of the question of the Papa haereticus more elaborately in Question XIV, Thesis XXIX of his Tractatus De Ecclesia Christi (“Treatise on the Church of Christ”), which is well worth a read. He concludes, similary to Fr. Augustine, that “although there is justification for the hypothesis of a Pontiff who might become notoriously heretical, God would never allow it even to be a-priori believable for the Church to land in so many troubles of such kind”.

The canonist Fr. Matthew Ramstein, too, does not have too much to say on the topic of a heretical Pope. His only paragraph dealing with the topic ends with the words: “How the fact of heresy and of consequent vacancy of the papal chair would be determined is difficult to understand” (A Manual of Canon Law [Hoboken, NJ: Terminal Printing & Publishing Co., 1948], p. 193).

Far from there being some “course of action [that] is supported and required by canon law and the tradition of the Church”, as the authors of the Open Letter would have it, the fact is that the consensus of theologians after Vatican I is that, since the Pope cannot be brought to trial by anyone, nor judged or deposed by anyone, if he ever should become a public heretic in his private capacity, he would immediately and by that fact alone cease to be Pope, having, as it were, removed himself from the Papacy. A declaratory sentence is neither required nor possiblefor such self-deposition to occur.

This is echoed by the Novus Ordo theologian “Abp.” John Michael Miller, who, after giving the historical background to the debate over the Papa haereticus, writes:

At present, the Church has no canonical norms for dealing with a heretical pope. On the one hand, the pope is obviously in the Church, belonging to the community of faith. Like any Catholic who publicly professes heresy, a pope would place himself outside her communion and by that very fact loses his ministry….

It is difficult to imagine what specific juridical procedures could be drawn up to deal with the situation should it arise…. Because it concerns a question of fact rather than law, there can be no set legal procedure for this process.

(J. Michael Miller, The Shepherd and the Rock [Huntington, IN: Our Sunday Visitor, 1995], p. 293)

Thus everyone can see that the position of the automatic and immediate self-deposition of a Pope who becomes a heretic is not some idea crazy sedevacantists have cooked up but is thoroughly grounded in Catholic theology as informed by the teachings of the First Vatican Council, and it is retained even in Novus Ordo theology.

Speaking of Vatican I, the question of what ought to be done with a Pope who defects into heresy actually came up during the proceedings of that council. Abp. John Purcell of Cincinnati, United States, relates how it was answered by the doctrinal commission:

The question was also raised by a Cardinal, “What is to be done with the Pope if he becomes a heretic?” It was answered that there has never been such a case; the Council of Bishops could depose him for heresy, for from the moment he becomes a heretic he is not the head or even a member of the Church. The Church would not be, for a moment, obliged to listen to him when he begins to teach a doctrine the Church knows to be a false doctrine, and he would cease to be Pope, being deposed by God Himself.

If the Pope, for instance, were to say that the belief in God is false, you would not be obliged to believe him, or if he were to deny the rest of the creed, “I believe in Christ,” etc. The supposition is injurious to the Holy Father in the very idea, but serves to show you the fullness with which the subject has been considered and the ample thought given to every possibility. If he denies any dogma of the Church held by every true believer, he is no more Pope than either you or I; and so in this respect the dogma of infallibility amounts to nothing as an article of temporal government or cover for heresy.

(Abp. John B. Purcell, quoted in Rev. James J. McGovern, Life and Life Work of Pope Leo XIII [Chicago, IL: Allied Printing, 1903], p. 241; imprimatur by Abp. James Quigley of Chicago; underlining added.)

More information on this historical tidbit can be found here.

The Pope is judged by No One — except in case of Heresy?

The authors of the Open Letter are quite aware, of course, that a true Pope cannot be judged or removed from office by anyone, even for heresy, and they state as much: “It is agreed that the Church does not have jurisdiction over the pope, and hence that the Church cannot remove a pope from office by an exercise of superior authority, even for the crime of heresy” (p. 17). And yet, they attempt to relativize this principle on the next page with specious argumentation:

The first canon to give explicit consideration to the possibility of papal heresy is found in the Decretum of Gratian. Distinctio XL, canon 6 of the Decretum states that the pope can be judged by no-one, unless he is found to have deviated from the faith…

The canonical assertion that the pope can be judged for heresy came into being as an explication of the canonical principle that the pope is judged by no-one. The statement in this canon is an enunciation of a privilege; its object is to assert that the pope has the widest possible exemption from judgement by others.

This canon was included, along with the rest of the Decretum of Gratian, in the Corpus iuris canonici, which formed the basis of canon law in the Latin Church until 1917. Its authority is supported by papal authority itself, since the canon law of the Church is upheld by papal authority. It was taught by Pope Innocent III, who asserted in his sermon on the consecration of the Supreme Pontiff that “God was his sole judge for other sins, and that he could be judged by the Church only for sins committed against the faith”…. Rejection of the canon in the Decretum would undermine the canonical foundation for papal primacy itself, since this canon forms part of the legal basis for the principle that the Pope is judged by no-one.

(“Open Letter”, pp. 18-19)

The signatories of the Open Letter seem to think that the expression that a Pope can be judged when it comes to heresy expresses a qualification, restriction, relativization, or exception to the general rule that the Pope cannot be judged by anyone, but this is not so. Rather, the simple truth is that the only reason why a Pope — so to speak — can be judged for heresy is that he is no longer Pope if he is a heretic. This fact alone explains why judgment is licit in that case.

This position was first enunciated, it seems, by Cardinal Juan de Torquemada and later adopted by St. Robert Bellarmine, Doctor of the Church:

In the Summa de Ecclesia, one of the earliest and most influential ecclesiological treatises of the late Middle Ages, John of Torquemada (+1468), for example, admitted that a heretical pope could, in a certain sense, be “judged” by a council. Even so, the council would not be judging a true pope. Precisely because he was heretical, he would already have ceased, by that very fact, to hold the papal office. Jesus’ words, “He who does not believe is condemned already” (Jn 3:18), provided a bilical proof text which justified the automatic loss of office if a pope fell into heresy.

After the Council of Trent, Robert Bellarmine (+1621) and others took up the theory of John of Torquemada: a pope who falls into heresy forfeits his office. No formal deposition is required since divine law already put the pope outside the Church. A kind of direct divine deposition took place, stripping the pope of his primacy. Whatever juridical body “judged” the pope would simply declare the fact of the pope’s heresy, making public that he was no longer in communion with the Church. Theologians frequently compared such a declaration to a death certificate, which publicly makes the death known but does not cause it. With regard to heresy, this judgment would, however, have legal consequences. The Church would be free to elect a new pope. Because these theologians did not give an ecumenical council the right to depose a pope, their theory avoids the pitfalls of [the heresy of] conciliarism.

(Miller, The Shepherd and the Rock, p. 292; underlining added.)

Thus, to say that the Pope cannot be judged “except in the case of heresy” is not to say that there is an exception to the impossibility of judging a Pope — rather, it is to say that a public heretic is already not Pope and therefore can be judged. This is the only way to understand this qualification in accordance with Church teaching.

In his treatise on the Church, Cardinal Billot addressed these very objections made by the signers of the Open Letter, as follows:

The authorities who object on the opposite side of the question do not prove anything. First they cite the statement of Innocent III, in his Sermon 2 on the consecration of the Supreme Pontiff, where, speaking about himself, he says: “Faith is necessary to me to such a degree that, although I have God alone as judge of [my] other sins, I could be judged by the Church only by reason of a sin that is committed in the faith.” But surely Innocent does not affirm the case as simply possible, but, praising the necessity of faith, he says that it is so great that if, whether or not it is in the realm of possibility, a Pontiff should be found deviant from the faith, he would already be subject to the judgment of the Church by the reason that was stated above. And indeed it is a manner of speaking similar to that which the Apostle uses when wishing to show the unalterable truth of the Gospel: 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.For Innocent had said earlier: “If I were not made firm in the faith, how could I strengthen others in the faith? That is what is recognized as pertaining especially to my office, as the Lord witnesses: I have prayed for thee, Peter, that thy faith not fail; and thou being once converted, confirm thy brethren. He prayed and He brought it to pass, since He was heard in all things out of reverence for Him. And therefore the faith of the apostolic see has never failed in any disturbance, but has always remained whole and unimpaired in order that the privilege of Peter should persist unshaken.” Consequently, that statement is rather in opposition to adversaries, unless they should say that by it Innocent actually means he can sometimes lack that which the Lord procured for Peter as necessary for the office to which he appointed him.

They also cite the statement of Hadrian II in the third address read in Ecumenical Council VIII, Action 7: “We read that the Roman Pontiff has judged the bishops of all the churches; but we do not read of anyone who has judged him. For although after his death the Eastern churches anathematized Honorius, nevertheless it must be recognized that he had been accused of heresy, by reason of which alone inferiors may resist the initiatives of their superiors or freely reject the wicked senses. Although even in that case it would not have been ever so much lawful for any of the patriarchs or other bishops to carry out the sentence against him unless the approval of the concurrence of the Pontiff of the same first see had preceded.” But what does this matter, since it is well known that Honorius by no means fell into heresy, but only negatively favored the same by not using the supreme authority to root out the incipient error, and in this sense he is said to have been accused in the matter of heresy?Accordingly, in the same Ecumenical Council VIII, Action 1, a formula sent by the same Hadrian had been appended, in which, with no restriction attached, one reads the following: “In view of the fact that the Catholic religion has always been preserved in the apostolic see, and holy doctrine has been proclaimed.” If on the other hand the sense of Hadrian is not that Honorius fell into heresy, those who use that statement to argue that the Roman Pontiff can become a heretic have no ground to stand upon.

Lastly they advance a point of canon law, Distinction 40, canon 6 Si papa: “No mortal on earth presumes to prove the (pope) guilty of faults, since he who is to judge all men must not be judged by any man, unless he be discovered to be deviant from the faith.” But, above all else, one must bear in mind that this citation is taken from the Decretum of Gratian, in which there is no authority except the intrinsic authority of the documents that are found collected in it. Moreover, there is no one at all who would deny that those documents, some indeed authentic and others apocryphal, are of unequal value. Finally, it is more than highly likely that the previously cited canon under the name of the martyr Boniface must be considered to be included among the apocryphal documents. However, Bellarmine in this case also replies: “Those canons do not mean to say that the Pontiff as a private person can err (heretically), but only that the Pontiff cannot be judged. Nevertheless since it is not wholly certain whether a Pontiff can or cannot be a heretic, for this reason they add out of an abundance of caution [the following] condition: unless he become a heretic” [Bellarmine, Book 4, De Romano Pontifice, chapter 7].

(Cardinal Louis Billot, Tractatus De Ecclesia Christi, 5th ed., q. XIV, th. XXIX [Rome: Gregorian Pontifical University, 1927], pp. 633-635; italics given; underlining added; our translation.)

It is unfortunate that the signatories of the Open Letter spent so much time worrying about theological opinions on these questions expressed before the First Vatican Council but not afterwards.

Canonical Warnings needed to prevent Chaos?

All the examples the signatories of the Open Letter give with regard to warnings having to be issued to the “heretical Pope” are irrelevant because, unlike what theological positions may have been permitted in “the early canonical tradition”, the Church has long clarified that the Pope cannot be brought to trial or judged by anyone, and warnings — if they are to be canonically significant — can only be issued by a human superior, of which the Pope has none.

The idea that inferiors could issue warnings that bind a Pope’s conscience is downright silly. How do the authors envision this in the case of Francis? Shall “Cardinals” Burke and Sarah together with “Bishops” Schneider and Gracida send a letter to Francis warning him that they will “remove the papacy” from him? Do they not think that Francis would respond by removing something from them? In any case, what will they do if “Cardinals” Maradiaga, Cupich, and Marx then join “Archbishops” Paglia and Wester in support of Bergoglio, denouncing his opponents? Which of these putative bishops would a Catholic then be obliged — or even permitted — to follow?

Alas, the Open Letter gets stranger still as it goes on. After pointing out that they disagree with “Sedevacantist authors” concerning this matter, the signatories declare that if it were true that “a pope automatically loses the papal office as the result of public heresy, with no intervention by the Church being required or permissible”, then this “would throw the Church into chaos in the event of a pope embracing heresy….”

Now this is just rich. Ladies and gentlemen, which creates the greater chaos? The idea that Francis is Pope or that he isn’t Pope? To ask the question is to answer it. It cannot and need not be denied that of course a Pope becoming a heretic and immediately/automatically ceasing to be Pope would create a chaotic scene and be a grave hardship for the Church — Cardinal Billot referred to “so many troubles of such kind” this would bring about — but by no means would it lead to more or even as much chaos as what the Novus Ordo Sect currently has on display. After all, Francis is able to do so much damage to souls precisely because he is accepted as Pope by practically the whole world.

Let’s have a look at how the canonist Fr. Gerald McDevitt assesses the issue of spiritual harm with regard to loss of office:

Since it is not only incongruous that one who has publicly defected from the faith should remain in an ecclesiastical office, but since such a condition might also be the source of serious spiritual harm when the care of souls in concerned, the Code [of Canon Law] prescribes [in Canon 188 n. 4] that a cleric tacitly renounces his office by public defection from the faith.

(Rev. Gerald V. McDevitt, The Renunciation of an Ecclesiastical Office [Washington, D.C.: The Catholic University of America Press, 1946], p. 136; underlining added.)

In other words, the immediate and automatic loss of office for heresy is precisely what prevents or at least lessens serious spiritual harm.

The idea that any bishop — not just the Pope — forfeits his office as soon as it becomes public that he is a pertinacious heretic, is easily confirmed just by consulting the pertinent literature on the question. Instead of digging up theories held by some in the early Church or in the eleventh century, the authors of the Open Letter should have simply looked more closely at the past century:

This crime [public heresy or apostasy] 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…. 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 [by that very fact] becomes vacant.

(Rev. Leo Arnold Jaeger, The Administration of Vacant and Quasi-Vacant Dioceses in the United States [Washington, D.C.: The Catholic University of America Press, 1932], p. 82; underlining added.)

Note well: Even in the case of a simple bishop, who has a clear superior in the Pope and can easily be judged by him, the bishop loses his office for heresy as soon as that heresy and its pertinacity are public (defined in canon 2197 n. 1 as “already known or [committed] in such circumstances that it can be and must be prudently judged that it will easily become known”) — even before the judgment by the Holy See. This is confirmed even more explicitly by the same author a few pages later:

…when a bishop tacitly resigns, as in the case of apostacy [sic], heresy, etc., the see becomes fully vacant the moment the crime becomes public. According to a strict interpretation of the law, the jurisdiction of the bishop passes at that moment to the Board [of Diocesan Consultors], who may validly and licitly begin to exercise its power, as long as there is certainty that the crime has become public. In practice, however, it would probably be more prudent on the part of the Board, instead of assuming the governance of the see immediately, to notify the Holy See without delay, and await for such provisions which the Supreme Authority might choose to make.

(Jaeger, Administration, p. 98; underlining added.)

It is simply a matter of practical prudence that, ordinarily, it will probably be better to wait for the Apostolic See to issue a judgment against a manifestly heretical bishop — but this is not necessary, strictly speaking. And if this be so with the case of a mere bishop, who can easily be brought to trial and to whom warnings can be issued, etc. — how much more does this have to be true for the Pope himself, who has no superior and cannot be judged by any man?

Although the authors of the Open Letter go out of their way to assert that “the pope cannot fall from office without action by the bishops of the Church” (p. 19) — while at the same time maintaining, of course, that “the Church does not have jurisdiction over the pope, and hence … the Church cannot remove a pope from office by an exercise of superior authority, even for the crime of heresy” (p. 17) — they also add a little footnote to hedge their bet: “We do not reject the possibility that a pope who publicly rejected the Catholic faith and publicly converted to a non-Catholic religion could thereby lose the papal office.” But this disclaimer overturns their entire thesis because it admits in principle that the Pope does lose his pontificate automatically as soon as his rejection of the Catholic Faith is sufficiently manifest. The only question that remains, then, is one of degree — how manifest is manifest enough? — and not of kind.

When a Pope can — and cannot — become a Heretic

Another critical point to note — one that the Open Letter does not address at all — is that it is utterly impossible for a Pope to defect into heresy in his capacity as Pope, that is, in the exercise of his magisterium. All the controversy concerning the Papa haereticus that theologians even consider as a possiblity is that of a Pope becoming a public heretic in his private capacity, not as the head of the Church, as we have already seen in some of the quotes above. On this point, Fr. Ramstein is emphatic:

If the Pope should happen to fall into heresy, he is no longer a member of the Church, much less its head. It is understood that the Pope cannot be guilty of heresy when he speaks infallibly ex cathedra. The supposition is only possible should the Pope teach heretical doctrine in a private capacity.

(Ramstein, A Manual of Canon Law, p. 193; underlining added.)

But this distinction is not only not drawn by the signatories of the Open Letter; on the contrary, they maintain precisely that Francis has taught heresy in his magisterium, especially as found in the exhortation Amoris Laetitia but also in other Novus Ordo magisterial sources from which they draw data as evidence for his heretical depravity. Thus they have themselves violated Catholic dogma:

…in the Apostolic See the Catholic religion has always been preserved untainted, and holy doctrine celebrated…. For, the Holy Spirit was not promised to the successors of Peter that by His revelation they might disclose new doctrine, but that by His help they might guard sacredly the revelation transmitted through the apostles and the deposit of faith, and might faithfully set it forth. Indeed, all the venerable fathers have embraced their apostolic doctrine, and the holy orthodox Doctors have venerated and followed it, knowing full well that the See of St. Peter always remains unimpaired by any error, according to the divine promise of our Lord the Savior made to the chief of His disciples: “I have prayed for thee, that thy faith fail not: and thou, being once converted, confirm thy brethren” [Luke 22:32].

(Vatican I, Dogmatic Constitution Pastor Aeternus, Ch. 4; Denz. 1833, 1836; underlining added.)

…it can never be that the church committed to the care of Peter shall succumb or in any wise fail. “For the Church, as the edifice of Christ who has wisely built ‘His house upon a rock,’ cannot be conquered by the gates of Hell, which may prevail over any man who shall be off the rock and outside the Church, but shall be powerless against it”. Therefore God confided His Church to Peter so that he might safely guard it with his unconquerable power.

(Pope Leo XIII, Encyclical Satis Cognitum, n. 12)

Many more quotes on God’s guarantees for the Papacy can be found here.

The authors might respond to this argument by quoting from p. 1 of their Open Letter: “We do not claim that [Francis] has denied truths of the faith in pronouncements that satisfy the conditions for an infallible papal teaching. We assert that this would be impossible, since it would be incompatible with the guidance given to the Church by the Holy Spirit.”

But here the authors have misunderstood something: The Pope cannot be a heretic at all, not only not in his ex cathedra statements. Heresy is more than simple error — it is the denial of dogma, and willful public adherence to it makes one a non-Catholic, not just a bad Catholic. If the Pope could teach heresy in his non-infallible teachings, then he simply would and could not be the rock against which the gates of hell cannot prevail (cf. Mt 16:18).

Not always Infallible, but always Safe

A Pope’s non-infallible teaching, by definition, does not come with the guarantee of infallible truth, but it does come with the guarantee of infallible safety:

The Holy Apostolic See, to which the safeguarding of the deposit of faith and the attendant duty and office of feeding the universal Church for the salvation of souls have been divinely entrusted, can prescribe theological pronouncements — or even pronouncements to the extent they are connected with ones that are theological — as teachings to be followed, or it can censure them as teachings not to be followed, not solely with the intention of infallibly determining truth by a definitive pronouncement, but also necessarily and designedly apart from that aim, either without qualification or by way of limited supplements, to provide for the safety of Catholic doctrine (cf. Zaccaria, Antifebronius vindicatus, vol. II, diss. V, chap. 2, no. 1). Although infallible truth of doctrine may not be present in declarations of this kind (because, presumably, the intention of determining infallible truth is not present), nevertheless, infallible safety is present. I speak of both the objective safety of declared doctrine (either without qualification or by way of limited supplements, as mentioned) and the subjective safety of declared doctrine, insofar as it is safe for everyone to adopt it, and it is unsafe and impossible for anyone to refuse to adopt it without a violation of due submission towards the divinely established magisterium.

(Cardinal John Baptist Franzelin, Tractatus de Divina Traditione et Scriptura, 2nd ed. [Rome: Ex Typ. S.C. de Propaganda Fide, 1875], Thesis XII, Principle VII; our translation; italics removed; underlining added. The entire work is available in English, translated by Ryan Grant, as On Divine Tradition [Sensus Traditionis Press, 2016].)

This explains why the Church requires us to submit to all papal teaching, not just to that which is infallible. If it were not guaranteed to be safe, then submission would be downright dangerous — even if it were merely optional! Yes, Catholicism demands Faith (cf. 2 Cor 5:7), and here we can see who really believes in the Papacy — it is us sedevacantists!

That papal teaching is always perfectly safe also agrees with common sense: It is one thing for a non-infallible teaching to contain an innocuous error but quite another still for it to contain heresy, which is a very denial of the Faith, poison for souls! A simple analogy from daily life helps to illustrate that: It is one thing for the doctor not to be able to guarantee that the patient is in perfect health; but this does not imply that therefore the patient might be suffering from stage IV brain cancer.

For further details on this issue, please see the following links:

Quite simply, a Pope (or Church) who can teach heresy at any point except in rare ex cathedrapronouncements is not credible as a divinely instituted authority, one God Himself calls “the pillar and ground of the truth” (1 Tim 3:15) and against which He guarantees that “the gates of hell shall not prevail” (Mt 16:18).

Concluding Observations

Reading the Open Letter and the different reactions to it from the authors’ co-religionists — those that are sympathetic, those that are hostile, and those who fall in between — one will discover that each side makes some good points, and yet each side also says things that are unacceptable. There is one simple reason for that: It’s because each side is partially correct — and partically in error.

Those who denounce Francis as a manifest heretic are right in doing so; those who point out that a Pope cannot be judged or deposed, are correct as well; and so are those who say each believer has an obligation to assent even to a Pope’s non-infallible teaching. All this is true — but if you put it all together, you get the sedevacantist conclusion: There is no way Bergoglio could possibly be Pope. But because all sides are hell-bent on avoiding that very inference, they necessarily all err in some respect or another.

One thing is always important to keep in mind: The only — or at least the ultimate — reason why the signatories of the Open Letter take the luxury of still considering Francis to be a true Pope until the “bishops” — at least the faithful ones; wink, wink — declare otherwise, is that they reserve the right to simply refuse him submission in the meantime. It’s a kind of best-of-both-worlds scenario for them: It has all the advantages of Sedevacantism — the refusal of Bergoglian garbage — and none of the disadvantages. The only problem is: It runs afoul of Catholic teaching on the Papacy.

Interestingly enough, however, this aspect of their position is never much dwelt upon or justified — it is always tacitly assumed that of course a heretical Pope need not or cannot be submitted to. After all, we are not permitted to submit to heresy. But then, by the same token, we are required to submit to any valid Pope — not just the “non-heretical” ones. How is this possible? It is possible because, at worst, the Pope can become a heretic in his capacity as a private individual — it is totally impossible that any such privately held heresy could infect his Magisterium (regardless of whether we’re talking about the infallible or fallible kind). We challenge the Novus Ordo scholars and clergy in question to produce even one approved Catholic theologian after the First Vatican Council who taught that a Pope can teach heresy in any of his magisterial acts. Good luck.

While we wait, all readers of this blog who have not done so already, are invited to take the Francis Papacy Test to verify for themselves the intrinsic impossibility of Francis being a true Pope, regardless of whether he is personally guilty of the sin or delict of heresy.

To sum up our assessment of the Open Letter in a single sentence: The signatories are using heretical theology to ask heretics to accuse their “Pope” of heresy.

It doesn’t take a rocket scientist to predict: This isn’t going to work, fellows.

 

in Novus Ordo Wire    

¿Quis ut Deus? Veritas Vincit

Defensor Blog ⚜️ Tradicionalni Katolicizam ⚜️ Apostolica Sedes Vacans

¿Quis ut Deus? Stat Veritas

Defensor Blog ⚜️ Tradicionalni Katolicizam ⚜️ Apostolica Sedes Vacans

Traditional Catholic Education

A Traditional Catholic(Sedevacantist) Site.

Call Me Jorge...

Defensor Blog ⚜️ Tradicionalni Katolicizam ⚜️ Apostolica Sedes Vacans

AMOR DE LA VERDAD

que preserva de las seducciones del error” (II Tesal. II-10).

Ecclesia Militans

Defensor Blog ⚜️ Tradicionalni Katolicizam ⚜️ Apostolica Sedes Vacans

St. Gertrude the Great

Defensor Blog ⚜️ Tradicionalni Katolicizam ⚜️ Apostolica Sedes Vacans

Speray's Catholicism in a Nutshell

Apologia for Sedevacantism and Catholic Doctrine

SCATURREX

Defensor Blog ⚜️ Tradicionalni Katolicizam ⚜️ Apostolica Sedes Vacans

St. Anthony of Padua - Hammer of Heretics

Defensor Blog ⚜️ Tradicionalni Katolicizam ⚜️ Apostolica Sedes Vacans

Introibo Ad Altare Dei

Defensor Blog ⚜️ Tradicionalni Katolicizam ⚜️ Apostolica Sedes Vacans

: Quidlibet :

Defensor Blog ⚜️ Tradicionalni Katolicizam ⚜️ Apostolica Sedes Vacans

TraditionalMass.org Articles

Defensor Blog ⚜️ Tradicionalni Katolicizam ⚜️ Apostolica Sedes Vacans

TRADITIO.COM: The Traditional Roman Catholic Network

Defensor Blog ⚜️ Tradicionalni Katolicizam ⚜️ Apostolica Sedes Vacans

True Restoration

Defensor Blog ⚜️ Tradicionalni Katolicizam ⚜️ Apostolica Sedes Vacans

Homunizam

homoseksualizacija društva - politička korektnost - totalitarizam - za roditelje: prevencija homoseksualnosti - svjedočanstva izlaska iz homoseksualnosti

¿Quis ut Deus? Veritas Vincit

Defensor Blog ⚜️ Tradicionalni Katolicizam ⚜️ Apostolica Sedes Vacans

¿Quis ut Deus? Stat Veritas

Defensor Blog ⚜️ Tradicionalni Katolicizam ⚜️ Apostolica Sedes Vacans

Traditional Catholic Education

A Traditional Catholic(Sedevacantist) Site.

Call Me Jorge...

Defensor Blog ⚜️ Tradicionalni Katolicizam ⚜️ Apostolica Sedes Vacans

AMOR DE LA VERDAD

que preserva de las seducciones del error” (II Tesal. II-10).

Ecclesia Militans

Defensor Blog ⚜️ Tradicionalni Katolicizam ⚜️ Apostolica Sedes Vacans

St. Gertrude the Great

Defensor Blog ⚜️ Tradicionalni Katolicizam ⚜️ Apostolica Sedes Vacans

Speray's Catholicism in a Nutshell

Apologia for Sedevacantism and Catholic Doctrine

SCATURREX

Defensor Blog ⚜️ Tradicionalni Katolicizam ⚜️ Apostolica Sedes Vacans

St. Anthony of Padua - Hammer of Heretics

Defensor Blog ⚜️ Tradicionalni Katolicizam ⚜️ Apostolica Sedes Vacans

Introibo Ad Altare Dei

Defensor Blog ⚜️ Tradicionalni Katolicizam ⚜️ Apostolica Sedes Vacans

: Quidlibet :

Defensor Blog ⚜️ Tradicionalni Katolicizam ⚜️ Apostolica Sedes Vacans

TraditionalMass.org Articles

Defensor Blog ⚜️ Tradicionalni Katolicizam ⚜️ Apostolica Sedes Vacans

TRADITIO.COM: The Traditional Roman Catholic Network

Defensor Blog ⚜️ Tradicionalni Katolicizam ⚜️ Apostolica Sedes Vacans

True Restoration

Defensor Blog ⚜️ Tradicionalni Katolicizam ⚜️ Apostolica Sedes Vacans

Homunizam

homoseksualizacija društva - politička korektnost - totalitarizam - za roditelje: prevencija homoseksualnosti - svjedočanstva izlaska iz homoseksualnosti

%d bloggers like this: