[Re-posted]
Unfortunately, I don’t see how anyone who is aware of the facts can deny that Pope Francis is pertinacious in rejecting various doctrines that are proposed by the Church as truths of divine faith. Despite being urged by many people to do so, he refuses to express his adhesion to the Church’s teaching on matters of general and special morality, and on justification. He continues to promote the errors contrary to these teachings, by word and by deed.
How do we respond to a pope pertinacious in heresy? Unlike the sedevacantists, I don’t believe that the individual Catholic has the right to declare that a pope, or bishop, has lost his office for heresy, and that a new pope needs to be appointed. To have legal force, such a declaration has to come from a body with sufficient legal standing within the Church: the college of bishops or the sanior pars thereof, or the college of cardinals, or perhaps the other patriarchs.
Before such a declaration occurs, does a heretical pope have the right to act as pope? Hardly: a heretic does not have the right to be head of the Catholic Church. In this sense we might perhaps say that such a pope has lost his office ‘before God’, though not yet ‘before the Church’; but I am not sure what authority for such a phrase exists.
Does that mean we have the right to disobey his laws and precepts? No, not as such. Until a proper legal declaration of a pope’s loss of office has been made, the public life of the Church, which is a society governed by law, must surely proceed on the basis that he still holds his office. It may be that if some future pope or council condemns Pope Francis for heresy, that pope or council may also declare that he lost his office from the moment that he began to manifest pertinacity, i.e. from the moment that he began to assert things which he knew to be contrary to what the Church teaches as revealed (and let us remember that he has promoted Holy Communion for the invalidly married from his first Angelus address.)
In that case, the future pope or council would have to decide which of Pope Francis’s actions had been legally valid. I suppose that they would say that jurisdiction had been supplied to him by Christ, Supreme Head of the Church, whenever he had posited an act which pertained directly to the salvation of souls. For example, his episcopal appointments would be judged valid, for if the diocesan bishops were not duly in possession of their sees, they could not give faculties to priests, and so penitents would not have been validly absolved. On the other hand, they could judge that the acts of Pope Francis which did not pertain directly to the salvation of souls had been invalid or at least doubtful: for example, canonisations.
The public life of the Church, then, must be based on that which legally obtains. The private life of Catholics seems like a different matter. If a person is convinced that Pope Francis is pertinacious, and therefore does not have the right to act as head of the Church, I am not sure that he need give any kind of assent to his teachings (I mean, even those teachings which are not open to some other obvious objection.)
Laodicea 
April 28, 2019 at 11:50 am
The beatification discussed here would seem to be an example of an act that might be nullified by a future pope, as having proceeded from someone who had lost his right to govern:
https://rorate-caeli.blogspot.com/2019/04/the-beatification-of-satanelli-patron.html#more
April 29, 2019 at 8:26 am
I found a passage from the ‘Sayings of the Desert Fathers’ which refutes our modern slavish understanding of obedience to authority. Like the ‘Sayings’ in general it is subtle and requires some interpretation.
–
It was said that Abba Saius and Abba Moue lived together. Abba Saius was very obedient, but he was very rigid. To test him, the old man said to him, ‘Go and steal.’ Through obedience Abba Saius went to steal from the brethren, giving thanks to the Lord in everything. Abba Moue took the things and returned them secretly. Now once when they were on the road, Abba Saius was overcome with weakness and the old man left him there exhausted and went to say to the brethren, ‘Go and carry Saius, because he is lying there helpless.’ So they went and brought him in.
April 30, 2019 at 1:46 pm
I have been thinking about his but can’t see how it relates to the original post.
May 1, 2019 at 7:14 am
The passage cited teaches that correct obedience is not a simple surrender to positive commands, but requires a properly formed conscience. The exhaustion & collapse of the rigidly obedient monk signifies that this sort of obedience leads to a kind of spiritual paralysis, that it prevents one from walking “the way” to its end. This paralysis is present in the Church, especially in the episcopate. Greater than the refusal of the pope to teach is the refusal of the entire Catholic episcopate to teach, particularly out of fear of the pope or fear of being disobedient.
“The private life of Catholics seems like a different matter. If a person is convinced that Pope Francis is pertinacious, and therefore does not have the right to act as head of the Church, I am not sure that he need give any kind of assent to his teachings.”
Personally, I don’t think that the pope can be deposed for heresy; I think Abp. Athanasius Schneider is right that it would lead to conciliarism. I think it’s much more likely that Benedict’s resignation was invalid and that the reason Francis has been such a disaster from start to finish is that he does not have the charism of pope.
November 27, 2020 at 4:42 pm
“Unfortunately, I don’t see how anyone who is aware of the facts can deny that Pope Francis is pertinacious in rejecting various doctrines that are proposed by the Church as truths of divine faith. ”
On the contrary, laymen can’t assess even whether a cleric is pertinacious.
Canonist Fr. John Heneghan writes,
The determination of the existence of notoriety in relation to a particular delict no longer depends upon the fact that the delict was committed in the presence of a major part of the community or upon the duration of time that is has existed. According to the law of the [1917] Code it is very appropriately left to the judge who must decide the case to estimate the notoriety which may be present.58 However, the mere assertion of notoriety does not shift the burden of proof upon the defendant until it has been judicially established that the alleged notoriety has actually been achieved,59 that it is still current,60 and that the alleged and achieved notoriety are co-extensive.61 The judge must be careful not to assume as notorious any facts which are known to him but which are not known commonly.
Footnotes:
58 Francesco Roberiti: “… hodie opportunissime notorietas arbitrio iudicis aestimatur.” (My translation: Today [according to the 1917 CIC] the judge is deemed most fit to decide [notorious cases] and estimate the notoriety [which may be present).” – De Delictis et Poenis, n. 44. Cf. also canons 2293, § 3; 2295.
59 Pope Alexander III (1159-1181) cautioned a judge: “Cum multa dicantur notoria quae non sunt, providere debes, ne quod dubium est pro notorio videaris habere.” (n.b. The quotation actually comes from the Decretals of Gregory IX [Second Book, Chapter 14, 28 (De Appellationibus, Recusationibus, et Relationibus)]). http://www.intratext.com/ixt/lat0833/_PLX.HTM
60 Factual notoriety of things which are of their nature transitory is frequently transient, and hence such things cannot be assumed as notorious but must be proved. Cf. Wernz-Vidal, Iius Canonicum, VI, Pars I (De Processibus), n. 437; Noval, Commentarium Codicis, IV (De Processibus, Pars I, De Iudiciis), n. 444; Coronata, Institutiones, III (De Processibus), n. 1273.
61 For example, the alleged notoriety of an act of illegal alienation [selling of property] may extend to the fact of alienation but not to its illegality [i.e., criminal intent].cf. Lega-Bartoccetti, Commentarius in Iudicia Ecclesiastica iuxta Codicem Iuris Canonici (3 Vols., Romae: Anonima Libreria Catholica Italiana, 1938-1941), II, 634.
November 27, 2020 at 4:43 pm
https://contrasedevacantism.blogspot.com/2020/10/contra-sedevacantism-definitive_30.html
May 2, 2019 at 9:03 am
You seem to adopt the position of Cajetan and John of St. Thomas, that a pope remains in office until a formal declaration from the church.
Yet St. Robert Bellarmine rejects this thesis, and for good reason. The pope is ipso facto deposed after he becomes a manifest (i.e., obstinate) heretic by divine law.
By declaring that the pope is a formal heretic (which the aforementioned authors have no authority to do), they have committed an act of schism.
The pope has not been corrected twice by the required competent authorities (i.e. the college of cardinals), to establish pertinacity of the will, thus he can not be a *manifest* heretic.
I think aelianus would agree with this assessment also.
May 21, 2019 at 1:06 am
Can u provide Canonical quotes to prove your points?
If the “pope” is ipso facto deposed by Divine law, then the aforementioned authors could not have committed schism, at least schism per se.
How can the Church depose a Pope if the Pope is Her leader?
For Greater Glory of God
Long Life Christ the King and Our Lady of Guadalupe.
May 22, 2019 at 4:16 am
The church can depose a pope for heresy. This is what St. Bellarmine taught. The judgement itself would not effect the loss of office, but a declaration of fact is still needed. The laity can’t decide for themselves that such and such a pope is no longer pope.
In any event, for one to be guilty of the delict of heresy there must be previous corrections within the context of a canonical trial.
Since the pope can’t be subject to a canonical trial, he would have to be corrected twice by the college of cardinals, without a formal trial.
If he failed to renounce his heresy, then the college of cardinals would still need to make a declaration of fact that the pope was no longer the pope as a result of notorious heresy.
May 22, 2019 at 5:22 am
I´m sorry a but you should add a quotation. You are dealing with Theology. It is not enough to say “St. Bellarmine believed this” if you don´t give evidence.
I´m waiting
For Greater Glory of God
Long Life Christ the King and Our Lady of Guadalupe.
May 23, 2019 at 3:25 am
“A Pope can be judged and deposed by the Church in the case of heresy; as is clear from Dist. 40, can. Si Papa: therefore, the Pontiff is subject to human judgment, at least in some case.”
“Firstly, that a heretical Pope can be judged is expressly held in Can. Si Papa dist. 40, and by Innocent III (Serm. II de Consec. Pontif.) Furthermore, in the 8th Council, (act. 7) the acts of the Roman Council under Pope Hadrian are recited, in which one finds that Pope Honorius appears to be justly anathematized, because he had been convicted of heresy…” (De Romano Pontifice, bk. 2, ch. 30).
“It is certain, whatever one or another might think, an occult heretic, if he might be a Bishop, or even the Supreme Pontiff, does not lose jurisdiction, nor dignity, or the name of the head in the Church, until either he separates himself publicly from the Church, or being convicted of heresy, is separated against his will”.
Pope Benedict IV said, “a sentence declaratory of the offence is always necessary in the external forum, since in this tribunal no one is presumed to be excommunicated unless convicted of a crime that entails such a penalty.”
The following is taken from Elements of Ecclesiastic Law by Sebastian B. Smith, D.D., Professor of canon law.
“Question: Is a Pope who falls into heresy deprived, ipso jure, of the Pontificate?
Answer: There are two opinions: one holds that he is by virtue of divine appointment, divested ipso facto, of the Pontificate; the other, that he is, jure divino, only removable. Both opinions agree that he must at least be declared guilty of heresy by the church, i.e., by an ecumenical council or the College of Cardinals. The question is hypothetical rather than practical”.
On the Roman Pontiff, Bk III, Ch I, “He ought to have shown into what errors the Roman Pontiffs have fallen, as well as both when and by whom they were condemned.”
“that oath [of fidelity to the Pope] does not take away the freedom of the Bishops, which is necessary in Councils, for they swear they will be obedient to the supreme Pontiff, which is understood as long as he is Pope, and provided he commands these things which, according to God and the sacred canons he can command; but they do not swear that they are not going to say what they think in the Council, or that they are not going to depose him if they were to clearly prove that he is a heretic (Sed non jurant, se non dicturos, quod sentuint in Concilio, vel se non deposituros eum, si haeretcum esse convincant).”
“[It is] unjust because inferiors ought not be free from the obedience to superiors, unless first he were legitimately deposed or declared not to be the superior…”
Ballerini writes,
“Is it not true that, confronted with such a danger to the faith [a Pope teaching heresy], any subject can, by fraternal correction, warn their superior, resist him to his face, refute him and, if necessary, summon him and press him to repent? The Cardinals, who are his counselors, can do this; or the Roman Clergy, or the Roman Synod, if, being met, they judge this opportune. For any person, even a private person, the words of Saint Paul to Titus hold: ‘Avoid the heretic, after a first and second correction, knowing that such a man is perverted and sins, since he is condemned by his own judgment’ (Tit. 3, 10-11). For the person, who, admonished once or twice, does not repent, but continues pertinacious in an opinion contrary to a manifest or defined dogma – not being able, on account of this public pertinacity to be excused, by any means, of heresy properly so called, which requires pertinacity – this person declares himself openly a heretic. He reveals that by his own will he has turned away from the Catholic Faith and the Church, in such a way that now no declaration or sentence of anyone whatsoever is necessary to cut him from the body of the Church. Therefore the Pontiff who after such a solemn and public warning by the Cardinals, by the Roman Clergy or even by the Synod, would remain himself hardened in heresy and openly turn himself away from the Church, would have to be avoided, according to the precept of Saint Paul. So that he might not cause damage to the rest, he would have to have his heresy and contumacy publicly proclaimed, so that all might be able to be equally on guard in relation to him. Thus, the sentence which he had pronounced against himself would be made known to all the Church, making clear that by his own will he had turned away and separated himself from the body of the Church, and that in a certain way he had abdicated the Pontificate…” De Potestate Ecclesiastica, (Monasterii Westphalorum, Deiters, 1847) ch. 6, sec. 2, pp. 124-125 (emphasis added).
Fr. Ballerini, who was cited at length above with respect to warning a heretical Pope, made this very point. He said “whatever would be done against him [a heretical Pope] before the declaration of his contumacy and heresy, in order to call him to reason, would constitute an obligation of charity, not of jurisdiction.”[1] (emphasis added)
“Jurisdiction is certainly given to the Pontiff by God, but with the agreement of men [who elect him], as is obvious; because this man, who beforehand was not Pope, has from men that he would begin to be Pope; therefore, he is not removed by God unless it is through men. But a secret heretic cannot be judged by men, nor would such wish to relinquish that power by his own will. Add, that the foundation of this opinion is that secret heretics are outside the Church, which is false, and we will amply demonstrate this in our tract de Ecclesia, bk 1.”
“Turrecremata in the aforementioned citation relates and refutes this opinion, and rightly so, for it is exceedingly improbable. Firstly, because that a heretical Pope can be judged is expressly held in the Canon, Si Papa, dist. 40, and with Innocent. And what is more, in the Fourth Council of Constantinople, Act 7, the acts of the Roman Council under Hadrian are recited, and in those it was contained that Pope Honorius appeared to be legally anathematized, because he had been convicted of heresy, the only reason where it is lawful for inferiors to judge superiors. Here the fact must be remarked upon that, although it is probable that Honorius was not a heretic, and that Pope Hadrian II was deceived by corrupted copies of the Sixth Council,[4] which falsely reckoned Honorius was a heretic, we still cannot deny that [Pope] Hadrian, with the Roman Council, and the whole Eighth Synod sensed that in the case of heresy, a Roman Pontiff can be judged. Add, that it would be the most miserable condition of the Church, if she should be compelled to recognize a wolf, manifestly prowling, for a shepherd.”
“The Third opinion is on another extreme [just like the second], that the Pope is not and cannot be deposed either by secret or manifest heresy. Turrecremata in the aforementioned citation relates and refutes this opinion, and rightly so, for it is exceedingly improbable. Firstly, because that a heretical Pope can be judged is expressly held in the Canon, Si Papa, dist. 40, and with Innocent. And what is more, in the Fourth Council of Constantinople, Act 7, the acts of the Roman Council under Hadrian are recited, and in those it was contained that Pope Honorius appeared to be legally anathematized, because he had been convicted of heresy, the only reason where it is lawful for inferiors [the Church] to judge superiors [the pope]. Here the fact must be remarked upon that, although it is probable that Honorius was not a heretic… we still cannot deny that Hadrian, with the Roman Council, and the whole Eighth Synod sensed that in the case of heresy, a Roman Pontiff can be judged. Add, that it would be the most miserable condition of the Church, if she should be compelled to recognize a wolf, manifestly prowling, for a shepherd.
“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 Saint Paul (Titus, 3:10), who orders that the heretic be avoided after two warnings, that is, after showing himself to be manifestly obstinate…”
“Given that, as a private person, the Pontiff could indeed become a public, notorious, and obstinate heretic… only a Council would have the right to declare his see vacant so that the usual electors could safely proceed to an election” (Manuale Theologiae Dogmaticae, Hervé, 1943).
May 25, 2019 at 6:52 pm
Sorry for answering late. Now, do you have quotes from Vatican I?
Knowledge is power.
For greater Glory of God,
Long Life Christ the King and Our Lady from Guadalupe.
May 27, 2019 at 6:21 pm
You can read bishop Gasser’s relatio, which is an interpretation of Vatican I. You can read post Vatican I theologians and how they interpret the decrees concerning papal infallibility (e.g., Van Noort). None of them interpret the decree on papal infallibility as excluding the possibility of a pope being a public formal heretic.
June 2, 2019 at 1:47 am
Hey there,
What about apostasy?
With Bellarmine it is quite confusing because he also says:“The Pope is the Teacher and Shepherd of the whole Church, thus, the whole Church is so bound to hear and follow him that if he would err, the whole Church would err. Now our adversaries respond that the Church ought to hear him as long as he teches correctly, for God must be heard more than men. On the other hand, who will judge whether the Pope has taught rightly or no? For it is not for the sheer ti judge whether the shepherds wander off, not even and especially on those matter which are truly doubtful. Nor do Christian sheep have any greater judge or teacher to whom they can have recourse. As we showed above, from the whole Church one can appeal to the Pope yet, from him no one is able to appeal; therefore necessarily the whole Church will err if the Pontiff would err. “
“The Romano Pontífice vol IV chapter 3”
St Robert Bellarmine
For the Greater Glory of God,
Long Life Christ the King and Our Lady of Guadalupe
June 4, 2019 at 3:22 am
Bellarmine clearly teaches that a Pope can become a formal heretic in several places.
On Councils: Their Nature and Authority (chapter 9).
d) The fourth reason is suspicion of heresy in the Roman Pontiff, if perhaps it might happen, or if he were an incorrigible tyrant; for then a general Council ought to be gathered either to depose the Pope if he should be found to be a heretic, or certainly to admonish him if he seemed incorrigible in morals. As it is related in the 8th Council, act. ult. can. 21, general Councils ought to impose judgment on controversies arising in regard to the Roman Pontiff—albeit not rashly. For this reason we read that the Council of Sinvessano in the case of St. Marcellinus, as well as Roman Councils in the cases of Pope Damasus, Sixtus III, and Symmachus, as well as Leo III and IV, none of whom were condemned by a Council; Marcellinus enjoined penance upon himself in the presence of the Council, and the rest purged themselves (See Platina and the volumes of Councils).
June 4, 2019 at 3:23 am
the quote you cite has nothing to do with apostasy but heresy.
June 7, 2019 at 4:31 am
O i was talking about apostasy as a different matter. I had investigated and Frankie is only and apostate if he rejects ALL dogmas.