Don't lose faith. Do your duty of state and wait patiently!


A question came up on a forum here (reproduced below).  It highlighted for me the need to hold fast to what the Catholic Church actually teaches as opposed to just what we prefer to think what it teaches.

This is necessary for both Trad and non-Trad Catholics alike - as it has been for centuries.

To deny this is simply to compromise like the modernists and others before them.

It is literally that simple. Don't make excuses and try to re-imagine Church Doctrine to suit your world-view / perspective / opinion.

If you do, you are simply following the example of a long line of Schismatics, Heretics, Liberal Catholics etc.


Quote from: Tradical
Popes to the end of the World: Suggest you Vatican 1 (also explained in Ott)

Dogmatic Facts: Universal acceptance of the Pope establishes an infallible dogmatic fact that there was no impediments to the election.

It is the end of the world.

And how does Universal Acceptance work when the majority of 'bishops', 'priests', 'cardinals' and practicing laity are Modernists and therefore either formal or material heretics?

Oh brother.

End of world: Look out your window (assuming you are not in a bunker).  The world is still there isn't it?  The last judgement hasn't happened yet eh?

Universal Acceptance: What makes a person a formal heretic???

The end isn't. an event. It's a process.

If retreating into nonsense gives you comfort.

I have too much experience to believe that descending into either insanity or denial of Catholic teaching is a good viable option.

And yet you believe that a heretic can be Pope!

First: You obviously do not know what I believe.  Next time rephrase it as a question.

Second: I know (following Church doctrine) that Cardinal Bergolio was legitimately elected and at that point in time was the Vicar of Christ.  As were Popes J23, P6, JP1,JP2, B16.

Third, Likewise, following Church Doctrine, I know that that until the Church issues the required admonitions , the Pope refuses to recant and those who hold the authority issue a "judgement" of heresy - Pope Francis remains the Vicar of Christ.    Because until that time it is all speculation as to the state of the Pope.

Now let's discuss a specific case.  Earlier you professed a type of rejection of the dogma that there will be successors of St. Peter until the end of the world. You further tried to side-step the dogma by stating that the end "is a process".

Congratulations, you have committed material heresy.  Recant or ... objectively unless you separate yourself from the Church no one has any objective evidence to reach a conclusion of heresy - let alone a formal declaration of such.

Likewise, you have NOTHING on Pope Francis.  If he has been so stupid as to explicitly state something heretical - please show it.

Keep in mind that we are talking about Heresy as in the denial or doubt of a De Fide (ie Dogma) of the Catholic Church.

I wish you luck, because if he had been explicit, this would have been over a long time ago!

PS. With respect to the 'judgement' of the Pope - there are a number of opinions as to the details - but when it comes to it that a Pope has fallen into heresy is the only time when he can be "judged" by his inferiors.  Please note the opinion is that it would fall to the College of Cardinals.

 First: Alright. Do you believe that a heretic can be Pope?

Second, you claim that Bergoglio was legitimately elected Pope.  Well, I've come to the conclusion that we've reached the stage predicted by St Cyril of Jerusalem - 'formerly the heretics were manifest, but now the Church is filled with heretics in disguise.' 

Which means that where you see a legitimate Papal election, I see Vatican II promoting Modernists pretending to be Catholic bishops electing one of their own as 'pope'.

Third, could you point to the Church doctrine which states that an heretical 'pope' remains the Vicar of Christ' until the process you describe has been completed.

And I'm not sure what you mean about my material heresy. What I meant by 'the end is a process, not an event' is that there's usually a build up of events that lead to an ending and that once those events take place the actual end is inevitable. St Paul describes events that will take place before Christ comes again. If those events are taking place now, as I think they are, then generally speaking it is the end of the world because, there's no turning back, we are in the process which will lead to the actual final ending.

And finally, I'm pretty certain that heretics can be identified by more than their explicit denial of de fide doctrine.

Here is my response:

How about we hit 'second' first and 'first' last.

The claim the " ... we've reached the stage predicted by...".  needs to be examined if it can be reconciled with Church Doctrine.  If it cannot  then it is obviously a false conclusion. 

The supporting statements provides are:

1. "modernists" pretending to be Catholic Bishops: When were the Cardinals / Bishops removed from their positions by a legitimate Church authority.  They were not.  Further if there were no Bishops, there would be no priests, there would be no Pope etc.  This contradicts Church Doctrine on no less than two points: Dogma (successors until the end of the world) and indefectibility of the Church itself.

2. "Doctrine" stating that a heretical 'pope' remains the Vicar of Christ until the process is completed.

Divine Revelation is the starting point.  In the bible it is stated that two warnings are required prior to avoidance.  From my reading this is the root of all theories, the two warnings are required in order for the authorities to reach the conclusion that the person being warned is pertinacious in their error.  I am not aware of any of the Popes, Cardinals, Bishops in question having been given such a warning during their life time.  NB. This does not preclude the Church from reviewing the cases at a later date and issuing a judgement - as has been done previously.

Regarding your material heresy. 

The Dogma is that there will be Successors of St. Peter until the end of the world.  This has a specific meaning with respect to the final act upon the face of the earth - the final judgement. That we are in the end-days is a matter of opinion, that we are not at the end of the world is a matter of fact.  The initial words written indicate a denial of the Dogma and the subsequent opinions expressed indicate an attempt to recast the Dogma so it doesn't apply. Attempts to conflate the end-times leading up to the end of the world are fallacious.

Regarding the examination of heretics:  Heresy is the doubt or disbelief of a de fide doctrine.  It is an internal action of the will that becomes objective in certain conditions.

If the doubt or disbelief is not of  a de fide doctrine, then there is no heresy.  Period end-stop.

If the doubt or disbelief is of a de fide doctrine, then it needs to move from the internal to the external. In other words it needs to be expressed. 

If the belief was expressed explicitly, then we would 'know' what that person is believing and be able to form a decision vs the objective reality of the de fide doctrines of the Catholic Church.   As lay people our decision would have no authority regarding any office held by the person within the Church.  It would be for the authority of the Church to examine, determine and inform the rest of the Church of the judgement. Hence the need for explicit warnings and a formal declaration.There are examples of this exact case being played out in Church history. For example, there was a bishop who, for a number of years, rejected V1's dogma of papal infallibility.  At no point was there any question of his having lost his episcopal see for his objective heresy and when he accepted he was not 'received' back into the Church as a repentant heretic.

If the belief was expressed implicitly, then we would not 'know' what the person is believing and be unable to form a decision vs the objective reality of the de fide doctrines of the Catholic Church.  In this case the Church, would inquire via discussions and examinations of writing / speeches etc in order to form an opinion as to the belief being held by the person in question. This opinion would then be examined vs the Dogma / Doctrine of the Catholic Church and if found to contradict said Dogma / Doctrine, a warning would be issued. 

However, it is only in the first case that the members of the Church easily reach a conclusion as to the belief of the individual in question.  In the other case, we have to wait and adhere to the doctrine of the Catholic Church in spite of what is being promoted by the prelate in question.

Now back to the first question: "Do I believe that a heretic can be Pope?"

It is an interesting 'loaded' question. 

Let's make it a little more specific:

Do I believe that, post-election, a Pope is maintained in his office ...

Q1: who internally doubts or denies a Dogma of the Catholic Church, is maintained in his office?
A1: Yes.

Q2:  who implicitly doubts or denies a Dogma of the Catholic Church, and is warned / admonished once by the Cardinals?
A: Yes.

Q3: who implicitly doubts or denies a Dogma of the Catholic Church, and is warned / admonished twice by the Cardinals?
A3: Yes.

Q4: who implicitly doubts or denies a Dogma of the Catholic Church, is warned / admonished twice by the Cardinals, after the Church issues a declaration and / or judgement that the Pope has committed heresy?
A4: No.

1. Regarding the issue of conciliarism - where a Church Council overturns a judgement of the Pope. I understand this does not apply in the case of personal heresy on the part of the Pontiff. Why not? Because the object of the judgement are the statements of the Pope on the topic of the faith / morals, not one of his judgements.

2. I specifically used the wording 'maintained in his office'.  Because it is necessary for him to be removed from his office by an explicit act of authority.


Popular Posts