There are three points in which the term sede vacante (sedevacantism) exists. They are when a pope dies, in which the longest time the seat was empty was nearly three years. When a pope resigns for whatever reason which occurred once at least in the history of the church. And the stumbling block of those who are anti-sedevacantists is when a pope who was a mason, heretic of formal or manifest heresy or falls into this heresy is no longer catholic, is ipso facto excommunicated and not a member of the church. There is nothing to figure out here. It is black and white. The indefectible church and the seat of Peter continue with or without a vicar of Christ sitting in that chair. The occupant is not Peter first of all, nor is he the one who can end or keep the church visible or continuing. It is Christ and the Spirit of God that breath life into the church not the man who occupies the office or chair to serve Christ.
If the new doctrines of Vatican II are still the indefectible and infallible church and the non-catholic liturgy and its prayers are what forms the new mass, then what is the Tridentine Mass, the Tridentine sacraments and the twenty previous councils that new church ignores, abrogates or contradicts? If the new church is the one true church then Christ changes and men don't. If new church is new she cannot be true, for Christ always was, is and will continue with or without the new church and its heretics. If the church has a body of heretics and its head is a heretic, then is Christ a heretic? One cannot be for they are opposed so what is of Christ that was must be the faith and the few in the Church He established. This church is not fallible or cannot be made to fit the requirements of the world. If the usurper of the seat of Peter is unfit to shepherd, he then is a thief and a robber. He steals souls from Christ. He is anti-christ. For those who say a pope or a prelate cannot be attacked they are wrong, for if they are heretics and in schism with Christ they are not His priests. I do not say attack priests including novus ordo. I do say if they are heretics and leading souls astray or an abomination to the true church they may be warned, we may fight verbally with them and we are given authority to fight and resist and let them be known from the rooftops. Let us not attack for issues that are not of the catholic faith and of the teachings of the church and Christ. Such as to attack in writing or word a priest because he is homosexual or slept with a woman is not our place for it is not the faith as an issue. Foolish people even in traditional chapels, you don't know what your talking about in many issues. If a true priest is in error, that is one who upholds the doctrines and has not sold out for the new church, they may be corrected and warned by others, for this is spiritual works of mercy, lest the priest fall and make a bad mistake such as uniting with the heretics in the Vatican II church. I tell you again whoever you are in traditional circles, you may not join or negotiate with the new church and be on her false ark. You better be on the one ark of salvation in the Roman Catholic Church or you shall die.
I have read enough
from the traditional sources on this to form a fact-finding
conclusion. None of us have all the answers. But if you want to
follow heretics in the Vatican and heretic popes, heretical
cardinals, bishops and clergy, you will be a heretic also and
a conspirator, accomplice or an accessory to mortal sins, an
attack of the true church which is not that visible to the world.
There are different levels of hell and if you follow heresies you
will end up in one of the levels of eternal damnation. You cannot
be loyal to heretics of any sort and since the post council
church is full of heretics and its heads are heretics you must
depart from them for being united with adulterers makes you an
accomplice to the adultery against Christ and His Church. The new
popes and new hierarchy did not keep their promise to the true
faith, to the oath against modernism or to the deposit of the faith
that we know. The new popes after Paul abrogating the papal oath
and the oath against modernism and enforcing new rites for all
clergy and laity is an anti-pope. That anti-pope is a child of the
devil and the offspring of the devil sits on the seat of Peter with
the new popes who know all these earlier truths. Is it possible to
be a sedevacantist and still be faithful to the Church? If I take a
position that says I am one of the sede vacante's for those who are
just learning the truth, in Latin the seat of Peter is vacant
because of heresies of the conclave since John XXIII, the college
of cardinals who joined in at Vatican II and prior that were already
heretics and masons are not valid but illegitimate, nor are they
children of God. Can any group of catholics or individuals make a
pope to replace the heretic pope?
No we cannot do that, but in the same time we can hold the office or
chair of Peter is vacant. St. Peter and the successor Popes would
not have done all the evil and masonic modern liberal things these
Vatican II popes did or do.
They lived by heresy and false doctrine, they died by it. They
separated themselves from the church of Christ, we who take a
position up to the level of saying the popes of Vatican II are not
licit and valid. We also can determine based on the Douay text
scriptures, not the New American Bible that novus ordo catholics
use in their "celebrations" and use. Our argument is supported.
We have the teachings of the church, real popes, saints, doctors of
the church to support this necessary position. We have the moral and
natural law to support it.
I
will attempt not to repeat my argument or point of view on this since in my websites I have given you facts from many sources to form the basis that I take.
So if a heretic pope does something good or right, we acknowledge he and a manifest heretical body of bishops and the manifest, material or formal heretics in the college of cardinals can be right on doctrines, issues of morality or whatever the issue, case or argument may be. That does not make them valid or licit. For you are no Catholic if you are a manifest or a material heretic, at least not a true catholic. The hierarchy that supported and continues to support heresies, masonry, ecumenism, religious freedom and modernism is not catholic. That must extend to the papacy. Christ and the Holy Ghost and His spirit cannot err or choose evil or anything contrary to His will. He gave no such authority to rebuild a new church or to contradict His church of pre-council times. He gave no such authority to teach a new gospel or new catholicism which is what V 2 and the novus ordo is. This magisterium is a false heretical church that sometimes uses the previous teachings of the church and sometimes does good. It is based on moral and natural law. So do the pagans and the heathens do such. Even Jews, atheists, protestants do good and obey the natural and moral law. If a heretic pope or heretic bishop says I teach you this from the doctors of the church I say listen but is he telling you anything already that is not there? Obey the church of 1958 and before and acknowledge the seat of Peter at the death of Pius XII. If something came later that was new but does not contradict earlier truths of the church obey, but if not in traditional teaching there is a new thing in the church about morality, church canon, law and doctrine, don't accept it. That is a sedevacantist position but not a rigorous position. I cannot agree to making my own pope who must be in Rome. I cannot agree to saying a pope was elected or put in the position from another traditional source who upholds the teaching of the church in doctrine and in the Mass but you cannot agree there has been a pope who is valid or licit since Pius XII. Why is John XXIII not the pope? I have pointed that out to you and so have many sites in what the magisterium consists of.
The post conciliar church are good at lying, deceiving and attacking traditionalists. Archbishop Lefebvre has always been one of their targets with their dirty ways to cover up the truth since he did not go along with them at Vatican II and later started the Society of St. Pius X. The Society and all the Latin Rite priests are attacked and criticized for upholding the true rites and Mass. Was Paul VI correct on Humanae Vitae? Mostly. Do I argue the moral and natural law of it? No, I agree but that does not mean the Holy Ghost guided him. But even then is it possible the Spirit of God can sometimes guide and at other times the spirit of the devil also guide? Surely, people including any pope or alleged pope in Rome can have the devil in them. Is Vatican II based on all the elements of the magisterium where it must be obeyed? The source of confusion started with Vatican II unlike any other council. This church of wolves in sheep's clothing has made every excuse to explain what the church is and what it can do. I have had to see what they do in many Vatican II churches in over 275 parishes by checking out some of the things they do in the novus ordo and its laity, the teachings of the new church, and it is not of the Holy Ghost. Most of what is being done is not catholic but elements of truth of catholicism still exists in many of these parishes. But can the Holy Ghost co-exist with the spirit of evil and of demons? No. The Spirit is not involved with error or evil. People including demonic popes are. Was Paul abducted? No probably not. He was one of a succession of anti-popes that was predicted to spread error. It is in line with Christ allowing evil and permitting the evil of men to choose Him or themselves. They have chosen many times the spirit of the world as most people have done. The church is living but she cannot err. She cannot update to form new teachings if they are not of faith and morals. She remains true to Christ. Popes or anti-popes do not. Paul was correct in issuing certain laws of the church. But those laws including birth control already existed. Protestants of some churches and other religions also believe and teach issues of faith and morals. You cannot be loyal to the Vatican II church and loyal to Christ at the same time since the evil and error over-rule the truth, the former church and the Mass of All Time for the new "mass" which embraces ideas of protestantism, Judaism or any other new concept the Tridentine Mass was built on. To deny the church prior to its infallible unmovable stance on morals, faith, doctrines is to not be catholic. All the popes of Vatican II did this, so they are not valid or licit popes. Lies and rumors went around declaring John Paul II was embraced by our heavenly mother. This new order deception is pathetic. After he was assassinated he knew he could have been killed. It was a warning from heaven for his errors, yet he did attempt to do some good but he also continued his heresies. He was a sneak and deceiver at Vatican II and so was Benedict XVI. John Paul looked like a trickster from his earlier days of being a priest, bishop and cardinal. Even in his days of being chosen as pope by heretic cardinals he was a wolf disguised more than his three predecessors.
When a lie or deception starts it can only get worse. It is now too late for the Vatican and the dogs in it including Benedict to stop the evil they started. Many of these bishops of Vatican II are conspirators. I note that many catholics will agree that there are many evil or bad bishops, bad priests and the problems are the people in the church. But nobody in the novus ordo church wants to say things about the popes or those who pretend to be the Pope in Rome. I do and many traditionalists do. Not so much just for the sake of tradition and the use of Latin either. Sure they are required. But it goes much further than those matters. As John XXIII and Paul VI were elected by evil conclaves and Siri was threatened to vacate his seat back then, the devil and his workers of iniquity were able to get these anti-popes elected and to reign on the seat of Peter. John Paul I died too quickly to issue an argument against him. Was he an anti-pope? Since he was a believer and obedient to Vatican II he was an anti-pope. Could things have changed? We don't know. John Paul II is always my main focus of the false pope of "hope". He was good at pretending, in fact he was good at most things. He spoke many languages, he excelled in many ways intellectually. He knew the true teachings of the church. He along with Benedict were theologians. All these false leaders prior to Paul VI removing the valid rites of the church, the sacraments in their earlier form, and the oaths that existed shows you that they started a new church and divorced the Bride of Christ. She was too pure, too good for them and if they didn't like her purity they married a new bride who was younger and new. This new bride wears high heels and puts on lipstick and makeup. She even uses hairpieces, perfume and wears nice dresses. The new church of false popes and false hopes that can lead the obedient faithful to hell in a spirit of denial and ignorance. Because they refuse to find out the truth and admit these popes and bishops were devils and not of God. All these leaders were taught one thing but tossed it away to teach a new doctrine and a new gospel contradicting the former one. So they have to make it look like the Holy Spirit wanted this and inspired them to do evil. It is a sin against the faith and against the Holy Ghost. So they give you lies and a new feel's and looks good enough church to keep you silent and obedient to them and claim you are lead by the Spirit. Those who resist and attack it are against the magisterium and the Holy Ghost. Are we really against the Holy Ghost or just the false leaders and false priests of the new order who certainly don't have the spirit of truth in them?
The ongoing scandal, schism, anti-church continue to lead many astray. We cannot be a part of it and must leave this new false church. It is not and can never be catholic since it denies too many truths and it denies the Mass. It does not focus on the Cross as the center of the faith but more on the redemption without sacrifice. Its leaders teach this. Do they still focus on the cross? Enough to keep some from being disobedient. I am one of many who are disobedient and will continue to be to this magisterium of Vatican II. I want the former church and the Tridentine rites back that I know are Catholic. I am not taking chances on what these dogs in Rome or in the new church forced on us. Can the Catholic Church exist for 48 years without a valid pope? Yes and these are the facts after the deceptions of 1958 and John opening the window up in 1959 to let some fresh air in the church; business continued as usual. It just is that anti-popes and anti-bishops have taken over now. The Holy Spirit no longer guides this church but despite the following 40 plus years of a new church that has forced its new authority on those who seek to stay with her new teachings it still exists since Christ as I have told you is loyal and remains with us even if we have no valid popes. They are the imposters the modernists and they are the enemy of the church. St. Pius X said it and the popes of the nineteenth century saw it coming and warned us.
The popes of the twentieth century prior to John in 1958 warned us and kept it out. Fresh air John XXIII changed it all since the holiness of the saints and the use of the Mass of the church and its doctrines were stale. "I like the new church because I am liberal, a modernist and a mason. I like novelties and new ideas. I have my own doctrine also and I justify my sins and I also don't need to go to confession. I don't even need to go to church. I am a novus ordo catholic and I am going to heaven". Lets tell everyone with love and fresh air its a nice day and you are also going to heaven, you can worship in your religions and don't have to join the catholic church. The pope of hope, he no lie. Everyone loves a charismatic pope who sells them what they want and not what Christ wants. Who are the faithful? You cannot follow this new church and be faithful to Christ. The truth of the gates of hell not prevailing against the Church consists of those who remain faithful to Christ, His teachings, His sacraments and His infallible unchangeable Bride. It is possible for the Church founded by Jesus Christ and given to Peter and the apostles to still exist without a hierarchy of devils or with heretics in authority in Rome, the chair of Peter and in high places in the many diocese'? It is in those who said we resist you false dogs and we will continue on with what has been given to us from the predecessors who upheld it. But we have no true pope presently to guide us so the only way we can go on is Christ and the Holy Ghost guiding us. Heaven and the saints will guide us. The angels will guide us. The infallible authority that existed at the time of Pius XII back to Peter is the True Church. We have that authority and we need no updates or newness and false teachers to guide us or tell us. I shall not be a heretic by obeying a heretic. Go and pray with the Jews and protestants with Benedict and the novus ordo. I will pray with other traditional catholics. At least we know even if we all die and even one still exists to carry this Church on there is a True Catholic Church that exists in its teaching truths. Its authority and its author is Jesus Christ who gave the authority to those who obey Him as Peter did. Don't take the position in word or in secret that you are loyal to Rome when Rome is now the center of deception in order to allow the devil to fool many in the world and in the Catholic Church on the traditional side as well as the new council new order church. It is anti-christ to pursue a harlot who says it is good to listen to false leaders and to obey them but not the historic truths which cannot be denied. That is impugning the known truth and there are eternal consequences for the many that follow after the harlot in the new order modern catholic church. You cannot negotiate with heretics, you can not associate with the hierarchy of devils and false priests. That is unfortunate we have to take a sedevacantist position and specify the church has not had a valid pope since 1958 or valid bishops if they followed this new leadership. Is Peter still the rock and the head, the first Pope? Yes, of course. Have there been bad popes and anti-popes in the history of the church? Yes. Is this different in Vatican II? Yes, because in the first time in history the church had always followed strict doctrines on faith and morals. Vatican II and the novus ordo are lax and not adhering to the predecessor popes, the bishops who held the truth, the saints and the doctors of the church and sacred scripture. The new church has cited scriptures with modernism or false interpretations and call out the names of saints, angels, venerables, holy priests such as John Neumann, Newman, Bosco, St. Louis de Montfort and many others but twisted their teachings and writings into their own. All the post council leaders and its popes did this and gave you enough to fool you since they also upheld some truths that were traditionally handed down to us through the Magisterium of the Holy Unchangeable Living Unflexible Body Of The Church. They have given you false hopes and proposition your souls.
If the prophecies are fulfilled they have already started and the winnowing fan of Christ shall certainly reap where it did not sow inside His Church. It must come to pass where the spirit of anti-christ takes place inside the church as well as the world to cause a division. One division will be false the other true and no middle ground will save the soul of the confused, obedient to false church authority. This same false church says obey civil authority. All authority is from God. So God in their terms has given authority to the governments, FBI to protect abortionists, protect pornography, protect evil politicians and judges, protect evil people and evil deeds but to punish those who fight evil. Vatican II and the new order want you to obey civil authority. But such authority is not of God. The Vatican and its loyal clergy and laity attack traditional teachings and the Latin Mass. They attack anyone that is against its idol pope, the spirit of the devil Vatican II and the masons modern new order mass of Paul VI. John Cardinal Henry Newman, St. John Vianney and the true holy catholics of long ago would have fought vigorously these devils inside the church. Even if they would have been murdered or imprisoned. If this false church and all it has done would have occurred in earlier times of the church these so called popes and bishops would have been excommunicated, lynched, thrown into dungeons or assassinated. Sedevacantism while is not something that seems apparent until Vatican II would actually have existed if such a diabolical plan and council took place. We say this would have never happened prior to its time. For there is a time and a place for evil to take place. That evil took place when they got their first anti-pope in to fulfill the mission of freemasonry and liberalism in the church in the fresh air church. How "refreshing" John, that is why you are probably burning in one of the hotter places in hell. If at the time of St. Joan of Arc or the Council of Trent this attempt would have been made, the saints and holy members would have killed St. Pius V or those who attempted to force such diabolical teachings.
Four Doctors of the Church regarding defection from the Faith by a
Pope.
St. Robert Bellarmine:"For, in the first place, it is proven with arguments from authority and from reason that the manifest heretic is "ipso facto" deposed."
St. Robert Bellarmine, "De Romano Pontifice", ("On the Roman Pontiff"), liber II, caput 30:
"For, in the first place, it is proven with arguments from authority and from reason that the manifest heretic is "ipso facto" deposed. The argument from authority is based on St. Paul (Titus, c. 3), who orders that the heretic be avoided after two warnings, that is, after showing himself to be manifestly obstinate - which means before any excommunication or judicial sentence. And this is what St. Jerome writes, adding that the other sinners are excluded from the Church by sentence of excommunication, but the heretics exile themselves and separate themselves by their own act from the body of Christ. Now, a Pope who remains Pope cannot be avoided, for how could we be required to avoid our own head? How can we separate ourselves from a member united to us?
"This principle is most certain. The non-Christian cannot in any way be Pope, as Cajetan himself admits (ib. c. 26). The reason for this is that he cannot be head of what he is not a member; now he who is not a Christian is not a member of the Church, and a manifest heretic is not a Christian, as is clearly taught by St. Cyprian (lib. 4, epist. 2), St. Athanasius (Scr. 2 cont. Arian.), St. Augustine (lib. de great. Christ. cap. 20), St. Jerome (contra Lucifer.) and others; therefore the manifest heretic cannot be Pope.
Est ergo quinta opinio vera, papam haereticum manifestum per se desinere esse papam et caput, sicut per se desinit esse christianus et membrum corporis Ecclesiae; quare ab, Ecclesia posse eum judicari et puniri. Haec est sententia omnium veterum Patrum, qui docent, haereticos manifestos mox amittere omnem jurisdictionem.
"Therefore, the true opinion is the fifth, according to which the Pope who is manifestly a heretic ceases by himself to be Pope and head, in the same way as he ceases to be a Christian and a member of the body of the Church; and for this reason he can be judged and punished by the Church. This is the opinion of all the ancient Fathers, who teach that manifest heretics immediately lose all jurisdiction.
Fundamentum hujus sententiae est. quoniam haereticus manifestos nullo modo est membrum Ecclesiae, idest, neque animo neque corpore, sive neque unione interna, neque externa.
"The foundation of this argument is that the manifest heretic is not in any way a member of the Church, that is, neither spiritually nor corporally, which signifies that he is not such by internal union nor by external union.
St. Alphonsus de Liguori on the fate of a heretical pope:
"Del resto, si Dio permettesse che un papa fosse notoriamente eretico e contumace, egli cesserebbe d'essere papa, e vacherebbe il pontificato."
--"Verita della Fede", part 3, ch. 8, no. 10.
In: Opere dommatiche di S. Alfonso de Liguori (Torino, G. Marietti,
1848), p. 720. (Opere di S. Alfonso Maria de Liguori, v. 8)
"For the rest, if God should permit that a Pope should become a notorious and contumacious heretic, he would cease to be Pope, and the pontificate would be vacant."
St. Francis de Sales on papal infallibility and heresy:
"En l'ancienne loy le grand pretre ne portait pas le rational si non quand il estoit revestu des habits pontificaux et qu'il entroit devant le Seigneur. Ainsi ne disons nous pas que le pape en ses opinions particulieres ne puisse errer comme fit Jean XXII, ou etre du tout heretique comme peut etre fut Honorius. Or quand il est heretique expres *ipso facto* il tombe de son grade hors de l'Eglise et l'Eglise le doit ou priver comme disent quelques uns, ou le declarer prive de son siege apostolique et dire comme fit St. Pierre: Episcopatum eius accipiat alter. Quand il erre en sa particuliere opinion il le faut enseigner, adviser, convaincre comme on fit a Jean XXII le quel tant s'en faut qu'il mourut opiniatre ou que pendant sa vie il determina aucune chose touchant son opinion, que pendant qu'il faysoit l'inquisition requise pour determiner en matiere de foy, il mourut, au recit de son successeur en l'Extravagante qui se commence Benedictus Deus."
St. Francis de Sales, The Catholic Controversy (Tan Books), p. 388 (part II, art. VI, ch. 14)
"Under the ancient law the High Priest did not wear the Rational except when he was vested in the pontifical robes and was entering before the Lord. Thus we do not say that the Pope cannot err in his private opinions, as did John XXII; or be altogether a heretic, as perhaps Honorius was. Now when he is explicitly a heretic, he falls ipso facto from his dignity out of the Church, and the Church must either deprive him, as some say, or declare him deprived, of his Apostolic See, and must say as St. Peter did: Let another take his bishopric (Acts I). When he errs in his private opinion he must be instructed, advised, convinced; as happened with John XXII, who was so far from dying obstinate or from determining anything during his life concerning his opinion, that he died whilest he was making the examination which is necessary for determining in a matter of faith, as his successor declared in the Extravagantes which begins Benedictus Deus." (Ib. p. 305-306)
St. Thomas Aquinas on loss of jurisdiction by heretics:
Summa, 2a 2ae, q. 39, art. 3. (Utrum schismatici habeant
aliquam potestatem)
"...Potestas autem iurisdictionis est quae ex simplici iniunctione hominis confertur; et talis potestas non immobiliter adhaeret; unde in schismaticis et haereticis non manet; unde non possunt nec absolvere, nec excommunicare, nec indulgentias facere, aut aliquid huiusmodi; quod si fecerint, nihil est actum."
(Whether schismatics have any power.)
"...The power of jurisdiction, however [as opposed to the power of Orders,
which he has just discussed], is that [power] which is conferred simply
by the injunction of man; and this power does not adhere immovably; therefore
it does not remain in schismatics and heretics. Hence they can neither
absolve, nor excommunicate, nor grant indulgences, or anything of
this sort. If they do this, the act is null."
Sedevacantist.com/bellarm.htm has indicated what I copied below.
"The fourth opinion is that of Cajetan, for whom (de auctor. papae et con., cap. 20 et 21) the manifestly heretical Pope is not "ipso facto" deposed, but can and must be deposed by the Church. To my judgment, this opinion cannot be defended. For, in the first place, it is proven with arguments from authority and from reason that the manifest heretic is "ipso facto" deposed. The argument from authority is based on St. Paul (Titus, c. 3), who orders that the heretic be avoided after two warnings, that is, after showing himself to be manifestly obstinate - which means before any excommunication or judicial sentence. And this is what St. Jerome writes, adding that the other sinners are excluded from the Church by sentence of excommunication, but the heretics exile themselves and separate themselves by their own act from the body of Christ. Now, a Pope who remains Pope cannot be avoided, for how could we be required to avoid our own head? How can we separate ourselves from a member united to us?
"This principle is most certain. The non-Christian cannot in any way be Pope, as Cajetan himself admits (ib. c. 26). The reason for this is that he cannot be head of what he is not a member; now he who is not a Christian is not a member of the Church, and a manifest heretic is not a Christian, as is clearly taught by St. Cyprian (lib. 4, epist. 2), St. Athanasius (Scr. 2 cont. Arian.), St. Augustine (lib. de great. Christ. cap. 20), St. Jerome (contra Lucifer.) and others; therefore the manifest heretic cannot be Pope.
"To this Cajetan responds (in Apol. pro tract. praedicto cap. 25 et in ipso tract. cap. 22) that the heretic is not a Christian "simpliciter" [i.e. without qualification, or absolutely], but is one "secundum quid" [i.e. in a qualified or relative sense]. For, granted that two things constitute the Christian - the faith and the [baptismal] character - the heretic, having lost the faith, is still in some way united to the Church and is capable of jurisdiction; therefore, he is also Pope, but ought to be removed, since he is disposed, with ultimate disposition, to cease to be Pope: as the man who is still not dead but is "in extremis" [at the point of death].
"Against this: in the first place, if the heretic remained, "in actu" [actually], united to the Church in virtue of the character, he would never be able to be cut or separated from her "in actu", for the character is indelible. But there is no one who denies that some people may be separated "in actu" from the Church.
Therefore, the character
does not make the heretic be "in actu" in the Church,
but is only a sign that he was in the Church and that he must
return to her. Analogously, when a sheep wanders lost in the
mountains, the mark impressed on it does not make it be in the
fold, but indicates from which fold it had fled and to which fold
it ought to be brought back. This truth has a confirmation in
St. Thomas who says (Summ. Theol. III, q. 8, a. 3) that those
who do not have the faith are not united "in actu" to
Christ, but only potentially - and St. Thomas here refers to the
internal union, and not to the external which is produced by the
confession of faith and visible signs. Therefore, as the character
is something internal, and not external, according to St. Thomas
the character alone does not unite a man, "in actu,"
to Christ."Further against the argument of Cajetan: either faith is a disposition necessary "simpliciter" for someone to be Pope, or it is only necessary for someone to be a good Pope ["ad bene esse," to exist well, to be good, as opposed to simply existing]. In the first hypothesis, in case this disposition be eliminated by the contrary disposition, which is heresy, the Pope immediately ceases to be Pope: for the form cannot maintain itself without the necessary dispositions. In the second hypothesis, the Pope cannot be deposed by reason of heresy, for otherwise he would also have to be deposed for ignorance, immorality, and other similar causes, which impede the knowledge, the morality, and the other dispositions necessary for him to be a good Pope ("ad bene esse papae"). In addition to this, Cajetan recognises (tract. praed., ca. 26) that the Pope cannot be deposed for the lack of dispositions necessary, not "simpliciter", but only "ad bene esse."
"To this, Cajetan responds that faith is a disposition necessary "simpliciter", but partial, and not total; and that, therefore, even if his faith disappears he can still continue being Pope, by reason of the other part of the disposition, the character, which still endures.
"Against this argument: either the total disposition, constituted by the character and by faith, is necessary "simpliciter," or it is not, the partial disposition then being sufficient. In the first hypothesis, the faith disappearing there no longer remains the disposition "simpliciter" necessary, for the disposition "simpliciter" necessary was the total, and the total no longer exists. In the second hypothesis, the faith is only necessary "ad bene esse", and therefore its absence does not justify the deposition of the Pope. In addition to this, what finds itself in the ultimate disposition to death, immediately thereafter ceases to exist, without the intervention of any other external force, as is obvious; therefore, also the Pope heretic ceases to be Pope by himself, without any deposition.
"Finally, the Holy Fathers teach unanimously not only that heretics are outside of the Church, but also that they are "ipso facto" deprived of all ecclesiastical jurisdiction and dignity. St. Cyprian (lib. 2, epist. 6) says: 'We affirm that absolutely no heretic or schismatic has any power or right'; and he also teaches (lib. 2, epist. 1) that the heretics who return to the Church must be received as laymen, even though they have been formerly priests or bishops in the Church. St. Optatus (lib. 1 cont. Parmen.) teaches that heretics and schismatics cannot have the keys of the kingdom of heaven, nor bind nor loose. St. Ambrose (lib. 1 de poenit., ca. 2), St. Augustine (in Enchir., cap 65), St. Jerome (lib. cont. Lucifer.) teach the same.
"Pope St. Celestine I (epist. ad Jo. Antioch., which appears in Conc. Ephes., tom. I, cap. 19) wrote: 'It is evident that he [who has been excommunicated by Nestorius] has remained and remains in communion with us, and that we do not consider destituted [i.e. deprived of office, by judgment of Nestorius], anyone who has been excommunicated or deprived of his charge, either episcopal or clerical, by Bishop Nestorius or by the others who followed him, after they commenced preaching heresy. For he who had already shown himself as deserving to be excommunicated, could not excommunicate anyone by his sentence.'
"And in a letter to the clergy of Constantinople, Pope St. Celestine I says: 'The authority of Our Apostolic See has determined that the bishop, cleric, or simple Christian who had been deposed or excommunicated by Nestorius or his followers, after the latter began to preach heresy shall not be considered deposed or excommunicated. For he who had defected from the faith with such preachings, cannot depose or remove anyone whatsoever.'
"St. Nicholas I (epist. ad Michael) repeats and confirms the same. Finally, St. Thomas also teaches (S. Theol., II-II, q. 39, a. 3) that schismatics immediately lose all jurisdiction, and that anything they try to do on the basis of any jurisdiction will be null.
"There is no basis for that which some respond to this: that these Fathers based themselves on ancient law, while nowadays, by decree of the Council of Constance, they alone lose their jurisdiction who are excommunicated by name or who assault clerics. This argument, I say, has no value at all, for those Fathers, in affirming that heretics lose jurisdiction, did not cite any human law, which furthermore perhaps did not exist in relation to the matter, but argued on the basis of the very nature of heresy. The Council of Constance only deals with the excommunicated, that is, those who have lost jurisdiction by sentence of the Church, while heretics already before being excommunicated are outside the Church and deprived of all jurisdiction. For they have already been condemned by their own sentence, as the Apostle teaches (Tit. 3:10-11), that is, they have been cut off from the body of the Church without excommunication, as St. Jerome affirms.
"Besides that, the second affirmation of Cajetan, that the Pope heretic can be truly and authoritatively deposed by the Church, is no less false than the first. For if the Church deposes the Pope against his will it is certainly above the Pope; however, Cajetan himself defends, in the same treatise, the contrary of this. Cajetan responds that the Church, in deposing the Pope, does not have authority over the Pope, but only over the link that unites the person to the pontificate. In the same way that the Church in uniting the pontificate to such a person, is not, because of this, above the Pontiff, so also the Church can separate the pontificate from such a person in case of heresy, without saying that it is above the Pope.
"But contrary to this it must be observed in the first place that, from the fact that the Pope deposes bishops, it is deduced that the Pope is above all the bishops, though the Pope on deposing a bishop does not destroy the episcopal jurisdiction, but only separates it from that person. In the second place, to depose anyone from the pontificate against the will of the deposed, is without doubt punishing him; however, to punish is proper to a superior or to a judge. In the third place, given that according to Cajetan and the other Thomists, in reality the whole and the parts taken as a whole are the same thing, he who has authority over the parts taken as a whole, being able to separate them one from another, has also authority over the whole itself which is constituted by those parts.
"The example of the electors, who have the power to designate a certain person for the pontificate, without however having power over the Pope, given by Cajetan, is also destitute of value. For when something is being made, the action is exercised over the matter of the future thing, and not over the composite, which does not yet exist, but when a thing is destroyed, the action is exercised over the composite, as becomes patent on consideration of the things of nature. Therefore, on creating the Pontiff, the Cardinals do not exercise their authority over the Pontiff for he does not yet exist, but over the matter, that is, over the person who by the election becomes disposed to receive the pontificate from God. But if they deposed the Pontiff, they would necessarily exercise authority over the composite, that is, over the person endowed with the pontifical power, that is, over the Pontiff.
"Therefore, the true opinion is the fifth, according to which the Pope who is manifestly a heretic ceases by himself to be Pope and head, in the same way as he ceases to be a Christian and a member of the body of the Church; and for this reason he can be judged and punished by the Church. This is the opinion of all the ancient Fathers, who teach that manifest heretics immediately lose all jurisdiction, and outstandingly that of St. Cyprian (lib. 4, epist. 2) who speaks as follows of Novatian, who was Pope [i.e. antipope] in the schism which occurred during the pontificate of St. Cornelius: 'He would not be able to retain the episcopate [i.e. of Rome], and, if he was made bishop before, he separated himself from the body of those who were, like him, bishops, and from the unity of the Church.'
According to what St. Cyprian affirms in this passage, even had Novatian been the true and legitimate Pope, he would have automatically fallen from the pontificate, if he separated himself from the Church.
"This is the opinion of great recent doctors, as John Driedo (lib. 4 de Script. et dogmat. Eccles., cap. 2, par. 2, sent. 2), who teaches that only they separate themselves from the Church who are expelled, like the excommunicated, and those who depart by themselves from her or oppose her, as heretics and schismatics. And in his seventh affirmation, he maintains that in those who turn away from the Church, there remains absolutely no spiritual power over those who are in the Church. Melchior Cano says the same (lib. 4 de loc., cap. 2), teaching that heretics are neither parts nor members of the Church, and that it cannot even be conceived that anyone could be head and Pope, without being member and part (cap. ult. ad argument. 12). And he teaches in the same place, in plain words, that occult heretics are still of the Church, they are parts and members, and that therefore the Pope who is an occult heretic is still Pope. This is also the opinion of the other authors whom we cite in book I De Ecclesia.
"The foundation of this argument is that the manifest heretic is not in any way a member of the Church, that is, neither spiritually nor corporally, which signifies that he is not such by internal union nor by external union. For even bad Catholics [i.e. who are not heretics] are united and are members, spiritually by faith, corporally by confession of faith and by participation in the visible sacraments; the occult heretics are united and are members although only by external union; on the contrary, the good catechumens belong to the Church only by an internal union, not by the external; but manifest heretics do not pertain in any manner, as we have already proved."
Comments by Jim Larrabee: As to the case of Liberius, which Bellarmine treats in book IV, chapter IX at considerable length, he is there concerned not to prove that Liberius was not deposed, and lawfully deposed (both of which he fully admits), but that the Liberius case does not argue against infallibility, nor was Liberius personally a heretic. This involves various distinctions which people now are failing to make, but are evident to any theologian. Perhaps I could quote this at length in future, but for now, let it be said that, while Liberius resisted heresy both before and after the period of his lapse and deposition (and that is what the quote from a later Pope undoubtedly refers to), he failed to do so for a given time. During this time the Roman clergy "deposed" him, i.e. they considered the papacy to be vacant, and accepted St. Felix as Pope.
For example (Bellarmine): "In addition, unless
we are to admit that Liberius defected for a time from constancy
in defending the Faith, we are compelled to exclude Felix II,
who held the pontificate while Liberius was alive, from the number
of the Popes: but the Catholic Church venerates this very Felix
as Pope and martyr. However this may be, Liberius neither taught
heresy, nor was a heretic, but only sinned by external act
[emphasis in original Latin], as did St. Marcellinus, and
unless I am mistaken, sinned less than St. Marcellinus."
(lib. IV, c. 9, no. 5)Further, after explaining that Felix was for a time an antipope, he continues (no. 15): "Then two years later came the lapse of Liberius, of which we have spoken above. Then indeed the Roman clergy, stripping Liberius of his pontifical dignity, went over to Felix, whom they knew [then] to be a Catholic. From that time, Felix began to be the true Pontiff. For although Liberius was not a heretic, nevertheless he was considered one, on account of the peace he made with the Arians, and by that presumption the pontificate could rightly [merito] be taken from him: for men are not bound, or able to read hearts; but when they see that someone is a heretic by his external works, they judge him to be a heretic pure and simple [simpliciter], and condemn him as a heretic. More sites on heretic popes and what they are not from their heresies. Wandea.org.pl Billot, Vaticaninexile.com. Above photos show John XXIII and Paul VI as a cardinal doing a masonic handshake. John XXIII signing Pacem In Terris which regards the masonic view of modern man and his dignity and his rights. He allied with the United Nations and gives specific mention of the U.N., the Communists also in that he said the church would be silent on the evils of Communism. You can see in the blurred photo Vincent Auriol a socialist and grand mason 33rd degree putting the hat on Roncalli as a cardinal. Ed Herriot with John. Herriot was a radical party Socialist.
Pope Saint Agatho, crowned as Successor of Saint Peter in 678 A.D., is believed to be the first pope to swear to the following plain words in Papal Coronation Oath: I VOW to change nothing of the received tradition, and nothing thereof I have found before me guarded by my God-pleasing predecessors, to encroach, to alter [change], or to permit any innovation therein; To the contrary; with glowing affection as Her truly faithful student and successor, to reverently safeguard the passed on good, with my whole strength and utmost effort; To cleanse all that is in contradiction with canonical order that may surface; To guard the holy canons and decrees of our Popes likewise as Divine Ordinances of Heaven, because I am conscious of Thee, Whose place I take through the grace of God, Whose Vicarship I possess with Thy support, being subject to severest accounting before Thy Divine tribunal over all that I confess. If I should undertake to act in anything of contrary sense, or should permit that it will be executed, Thou willst not be merciful to me on the dreadful day of Divine Justice. Accordingly, without exclusion, we subject to severest excommunication anyone-----be it our self or be it another-----who would dare to undertake anything new in contradiction to this constituted evangelic tradition and the purity of the Orthodox Faith and the Christian Religion, or [who] would seek to change anything by his opposing efforts, or [who] would concur with those who undertake such blasphemous venture.
Vatican I, the Council of Trent, the Syllabus of Errors are all ignored by Vatican II and its church of modern catholics. The Tridentine Profession of Faith is not binding on them either. It appears that new church Vatican II and its popes and minipopes can abolish anything they want in their revised catholic belief. Not only can the new hierarchal structure and its "infallible" new popes abolish the defined dogmas of the Church, they can pretend they never existed, they put the encyclicals, bulls, councils and anything else previously by the outdated popes under a rug and walk on it. Such as what they do to Christ. Therefore I do condemn by order and decree of Christ that the new church, its new popes, new rites, new mass and all they do are completely invalid, not to be obeyed, followed or given any degree of respect. On this day of April 19, 2006.
