Reason for Sedevacantism

REASONS FOR sedevacantisti





In this article we want to refute the arguments put forward in the No. 52 de The Catholic Tradition devoted exclusively to criticism of sedevacantism. The author mixes the sedevacantisti with those arguments advanced by members of the thesis that Cassiciacum (1) who admit the validity of the conclaves of Paul VI and John Paul II, while recognizing the elected popes only as material and non-formal, occupants of law the Roman See.

Without wishing to give rise to a sterile polemic, but to clarify the terms of the problem, we feel obliged to respond to the objections and arguments made in relation to that number sedevacantism. Do not re-present here sull'eresia demonstrations of the "conciliar popes" but we will just deal with the issues proposed by the author of the article Catholic Tradition.

Firstly we must consider that the entire article was prepared aseptically and completely divorced from reality.

The anonymous author or authors do not take into account the least two main arguments that allow sedevacantisti to support their position is:

1) Due submission to the Roman Pontiff; obligation is already defined by Boniface VIII in the Bull "Unam Sanctam" which states that: "... It is absolutely necessary for salvation for every human creature be subjected to the Roman Pontiff" (DS. 875)

2) The infallibility of the Church and the pope's secondary object of the Magisterium; Part of this object, among other things: the infallibility of the universal laws, disciplinary and liturgical promulgated by the supreme ecclesiastical authority and duties to the whole Church, and yet the canonization of saints (2).

Relatively secondary object of the Magisterium, to include confirmation of the claims some excerpts from the Magisterium of the Church and the Roman Pontiffs, who teach that the infallibility should not be restricted only to the solemn definitions of the Church or the definitions ex cathedra. Such acts of the Magisterium also condemn those who claim to want to explore the teaching of the Roman Pontiff. Following confirmation of the claim in the footsteps of some theologians Key:



The Magisterium


The First Vatican Council, Apostolic Constitution Pastor Aeternus condemns those who say that the Roman Pontiff: "The Roman pontiff the supreme power of jurisdiction not only in matters concerning faith and morals, but also in what concerns the discipline and government of the Church spread throughout the land." (DS 3064) (3).

Pious VI, Bubble Auctorem fidei 28 August 1794 (Pistoia condemnation of confabulation), DS. 2678: The 78th proposition of the Synod of Pistoia is qualified "As for the generality of hugs and words described above for discussion with the discipline established and approved by the Church, as if the Church is led by the Spirit of God, could establish a discipline, not only useless and more burdensome than Christian freedom can endure, but also dangerous, harmful, and that leads to superstition and materialism " and condemned as "False, rash, scandalous, harmful, offensive to pious ears, insulting to the Church and the Spirit of God from which it is conducted, at least erroneous' (4).

Leo XII Encyclical Quo gravioraOf March 13, 1825, teaches in this regard"Perhaps the Church, which is the pillar and foundation of truth and manifestly received without interruption by the Holy Spirit to teach all truth, may order, grant, permit something that was directed at the detriment to salvation souls and contempt and ruin of a sacrament instituted by our Lord Jesus Christ? ".

Pious IX Encyclical Quae in patriachatuOf September 1, 1876 states: "What is, in fact, proclaimed the Catholic dogma of the primacy of blessed Peter and his successors, and have released many statements of Catholic faith ed'ubbidienza to the Apostolic See, then when the facts clearly contradict the words? Becomes even less excusable perhaps stubbornness, as it recognizes the obligation of dutiful obedience? And yet, perhaps the authority of the Apostolic See does not extend enough to decree that has been prepared by us? Or maybe just have faith in communion with it, without submission and obedience? These things can not be attained if you want to consider saving the Catholic faith. (...)

And this, Venerable Brothers and beloved sons, that obedience must pay or deny the Apostolic See is to recognize its supreme authority even in your churches, not only for what concerns the faith, but also with regard to discipline, those who have denied he is a heretic (Quam negaverit here, haereticus east) but those who have refused, and stubbornly refuse to obey, is worthy of anathema anathema (agnoverit true here, eique obey contumaciter detrectet, Anathema dignus) ".

Leo XIII stated in the letter Testem benevolentiae 22 January 1899 "And witness the history of all past ages that this Apostolic See, which was given not only the teaching but also the supreme government of the whole Church, but remained constant during the same dogma, in the same direction and same opinion "(Const. Dei Filius), and was always used to adjust the way of living like this, except that the divine law, customs, and never neglected the needs of such diversity of peoples, which it embraces. And, if the salvation of souls requires it, who will doubt that even now will not make the same? It is true that this decision is not for the arbitrariness of individual men, who mostly are deceived by an appearance of righteousness, but Church is for the judge, and judged the Church requires that anyone who does not want to comply incur the censure of our predecessor Pius VI " .

St. Pius X Address With great satisfactionTo the participants of the Congress Catholic University of Rome, 10 maggio1909:

"I recommend only to be strong to keep there children devotees of the Church of Jesus Christ, when many unfortunately, perhaps without knowing it, you show the rebels, because the first and greatest test of faith, the supreme rule, and unswerving orthodoxy is obedience the ever living and infallible Magisterium of the Church, established by Christ "columna et fundamentum veritatis" (pillar and ground of truth).

Jesus Christ knew our weakness that came into this world to evangelize especially the humble, has chosen for the spread of Christianity a very simple means, adapted to the capacity of each and every time, a medium that requires neither learning, or research, nor culture, nor reasoning, but only good ears to hear and a good heart to obey. For this reason Saint Paul says, "Fides ex auditu" faith is not their eyes but ears, the living Magisterium of the Church visible society composed of masters and disciples, administrators and subjects, shepherds, sheep ed'agnelli. Jesus Christ himself ordered his disciples to listen to the lessons of teachers, their subjects to live subservient to their leaders, the sheep and lambs, to walk obediently behind their pastors, pastors, rulers, and the owners said: "Docete omnes gentes. Spiritus veritatis docebit vos omnem veritatem. Ecce ego vobiscum sum usque ad consummationem saeculi.

And then, with a system of sophistry ed'inganni, insinuate the false notion of obedience taught by the Church claim the right to judge the actions of even ridiculed; attributed a mission that they have neither by God nor by any authority to impose reforms, only obedience only to external acts, though not to resist and rebel against that authority, opposing the fallacious opinion of some influential person without expertise or their own private conscience deluded by vain subtleties, the proceedings and the precept of the divine command who is the legitimate judge, teacher and pastor.

Nor be deceived by the subtle statements of others, protesting repeatedly will be with the Church, to love the Church, to fight for the people not to walk away from it, to work for the Church, including the times, the people riaccosti and recover. But judge them by their works. If you despise and mistreat the Pastors of the Church and even the Pope if they try every means to escape their authority to circumvent their directions and their measures, if you hesitate to raise the flag of rebellion, which means these Church talk? Not, certainly, that established: super fundamentum Apostolorum Prophetarum and, ipso summo Christo Jesu Angularia stones'.

Pious XII also in the encyclical Mystici Corporis ChristiOf June 29, 1943 notes:

"Yes, certainly, without any patches shines the pia mater in the sacraments with which with which generates and feeds the children, who still has faith in the pristine, the holy laws with which commands ...."



Theologians


We will now mention some theologians who all repeat the same doctrine sull'infallibilità laws. Will be enough to mention a few:

"Possessing all the infallibility of the pope entrusted by Jesus Christ to his Church must, therefore, conclude the same extent and under the same conditions, teaching dogmatic or moral infallibility practically included in laws or decrees promulgated by the pope for Church Universal (C. D. T. VII, 1706) (5).

"The Pontiff (And the Church, N.d.R.) are infallible in the development of universal laws concerning ecclesiastical discipline (liturgy and law), so that they can never establish anything that could in any way be contrary to faith and morals' (6)In which case "The Church - As, among other things, the theologian Hervé - Cease to be Santa and cease therefore to be the true Church of Christ " (7).

"The thesis that we propose is at least" some theologica "Many doctors think are serious, not without reason, that view has to be considered" de fide divina "as something that is revealed by God. However, this truth is not yet defined or proposed by the Magisterium of the Church as a dogma of faith to believe. However I was ready in the Vatican the following canon: "If someone restricts the infallibility of the Church only what is contained in divine revelation and not also extends to other truths which are necessary to preserve intact the deposit of revelation" anathema sit "' (8). The same theologian devotes all paragraph IV exercise of infallibility in the promulgation of 'General ecclesiastical discipline " (9).

Sisto Cartechini S.J. says:

"... since then those truths which are not proposed as disclosed, are all to be considered at least as Catholic doctrine. Even in their respect the pope's exercise of infallibility, and it is theologically certain that these are infallible, but is not defined.

If the encyclical, the Pope does not exercise his infallibility - this must appear from the material, state of the question and words used - even in this case the propositions must be accepted proposals, and also for serious obligation on serious, with consent also internal, not as defined as in the case of infallible truth, but as a doctrine to be held and teach. Those who deny what serious a doctrine taught by the Pope (Catholic doctrine) in an encyclical is at least grossly reckless' (10).



THE canonization of saints



The claim canonization of Escriva de Balaguer is also the problem of infallibility of the canonization of saints (11) which is also part of this secondary object of the Magisterium.

All theologians argue that the act of canonization, the pope exercises his power of infallible teaching.

Louis in October he wrote: "The object of infallibility belong secondary (Inter alia): The canonization of saints, which is the final review and announce that a member of the Church entered into heavenly bliss and may be subject to public worship. The worship of the saints is, as St. Thomas teaches, "a profession of faith to believe in the eternal glory of the saints." (Quodlib., IX, 16). If the Church could err in his opinion it would be irreconcilable with the consequences of his holiness " (12).

Sisto Cartechini so comment on:

"Saints and blessed. The real object that is defined by the Church in the canonization of saints, is that a person specifically, for example, John Bosco is a saint and deserves that worship which is imposed on all faithful to him. From this necessarily follows that this is already holy in heaven. But at the same time, the Church proposes in his ordinary magisterium, the same saint as eminent example of Christian life. A martyr instead, as such, is proposed as an example in itself of fortitude and love for Christ's death supported.

The canonization of saints is theologically certain that the Church is infallible, It's not theologically certain that it is also in beatifications ". "The canonization of saints.

It is merely the practical application of two articles of faith, that the cult of saints and the other of the communion of saints. It is Catholic doctrine, or theologically certain that the life of the saint is canonized is distinguished example and model of Christian life and perfect virtue. Of course that is enshrined in the complex of the general life of the saint and the value of individual acts and the imitated much less the same, namely the ability to be imitated by all. So do not because something is said or done by a saint, this is the only reason for it to be by all. So St. Paul is opposed in the face of St. Peter because he was worthy of censure, but would be very dangerous if everyone wanted to imitate him in this' (13).



THE FACT DOGMA election of Paul VI



Count as dogmatic fact the election of Paul VI is an obvious inaccuracy incurred when the author of the article: "But it is a dogmatic fact, that is a fact that must be accepted as absolutely certain because of its direct connections with the dogma that Pope Paul VI was the day of his election to the Papacy. The formal reason underlying this dogmatic fact is that a new pope, recognized as such by the whole Church, dispersed throughout the world, is certainly the pope. Like it or not, is what happened June 21, 1963 by Cardinal Montini, who also - ironically - had one of the most solemn ceremonies of coronation of History. " (The Catholic Tradition p. 30)

It should be noted that the fact dogmatic scricte sense, not is the acceptance by the Church (clergy and believers) of a particular pope, but in official recognition of the legitimacy of a pope by the Church. Possibly the acceptance of a pope by the Church can only be a sign of its legitimacy.

The above-mentioned theologian Timothy Zapelena reads as follows: "And the Church can not err in defining or declaring the legality of a particular pope. The value of the dogmatic definitions promulgated by the pope, depend on historical truth of this fact known for certain: if the pope is not legitimate, it is not true successor of Peter and therefore not infallible. So if the Church could err in declaring the legality of a particular pope would accept as a dogma revealed by God, those things that by themselves are not likely ' (14).

The legitimacy of a pope, therefore, is intimately connected with the exercise of infallibility, something which the author of the article Catholic Tradition no mention.

The article quotes anonymous author, but in its support for Cardinal Law Billot: "Whatever one may think of the possibility or impossibility of that hypothesis (The reference is to the hypothesis - considered "Impossible" Billot himself - the Pope who fell into heresy and then lost the papacy) (15). At least one element must be maintained as a steadfast and absolutely certain: the accession of the universal Church will always be, simply in itself, an infallible sign of the legitimacy of the person of the Pope and also the existence of all conditions to the same legitimacy. The reason for this truth does not need long arguments. Fact is immediately certified as dall'infallibile promise of Christ and His providence "The gates of hell shall not prevail against it ", and again: Here I am with you always. From this it follows that if the Church adhered to a false pontiff would be like if adhered to erroneous rule of faith, the Pope being the norm living in believing that the Church must always follow and in fact follows, as appears clearly from what we say later. So God may sometimes allow the vacancy of the Apostolic See to be maintained longer. It can also allow for the emergence of a doubt about this or elected. But can not afford the whole Church to recognize him as pope they would not be a true and legitimate Pope. From the moment that is recognized and joined the Church as the head of the body, must not be raised any question about a possible anomaly in the election process or about the lack of any necessary condition for legitimacy, as the mentioned recognition healthy part of the Church in root any anomaly in the election, and shows unmistakably the presence of all conditions' (16).

The Catholic Tradition, Cites an incomplete text of Cardinal Billot, who reports directly after, as a practical example, the case of Alexander VI, whose legitimacy was questioned by Savonarola. The acceptance by the Church healed the vice of simony, (17) that occurred at the time of his election. Our "forgets" to mention the final period of capital importance, which shows what the true thought of the Jesuit theologian. The Billot, in fact, continues: "And this is said against those schismatic intent at the time of Alexander VI wanted to emphasize certain facts that he made and repeated often that the ereticità of Alexander VI was to be proved with certainty in a general council. But in truth, omitting the other arguments with which this opinion can be easily refuted, since one argument is enough: composed no doubt that at the time when Savonarola wrote letters to his principles, adhered to and obeyed all of Christianity as true to Alexander Pope. So the fact that Alexander Pope was not a fake, but legitimate. So it was not a heretic, at least such a heresy that was sufficient to place it outside the church members, and therefore no, the very fact of papal authority or any other ordinary jurisdiction ' (18).

Thus, it is true that Cardinal Billot, acceptance of the Church is the sign that all conditions of eligibility, including the catholicity of the elect, are present. But it is also true that Cardinal Billot this acceptance includes submission and obedience of the whole Church. How can we rely on this subject of Billot himself when he likes it or not, with all the traditionalists, it is not obliged to be obedient and to not obey Paul VI and then John Paul II to stay Catholic? Accept the pope without being submissive and obey is a Gallican error, not least condemned by Pius IX in the encyclical cited Quae in Patriarchatu, taken from the Society of Saint Pius X.-

Cardinal Billot, also in the same chapter, just before the quoted text says that a pope falling into heresy loses, ipso facto declaration sine ullaThe pontificate. In this respect, the author of Catholic Tradition inserted in the text, as we have seen this phrase: "The reference is to the hypothesis - Considered "impossible" by the same Billot - the pope who falls into heresy and then lost the pontificate ". Cardinal Billot instead argues that it is not impossible, but explained: "So if it makes the assumption that a pope known to become a heretic, without hesitation (incunctanter), we must concede that" ipso facto lose the papal power, because of his own volition arises outside the body of the Church, becoming unfaithful as well the authors say that it seems wrong to be refuted by Gaetano. I said if the hypothesis is realized. But this hypothesis is a hypothesis that can not be achieved is far more likely, as Luke says 22, 32 ' (19). It is therefore clear that, in the same words of the Jesuit theologian, the hypothesis is by no means impossible, but unlikely (20).

What is clear is that Cardinal Billot there is incompatibility between heresy and papal jurisdiction. The canon Sipos exposes very well what the people who may be elected to the papacy and those unsuitable: "He can be elected no matter what man male who has the use of reason and that is a member of the Church. They therefore invalidly elected women, children, the insane, the non-baptized heretics and schismatics " (21). The canon Sipos and others most likely had knowledge of the writings of Jesuit Cardinal.

In any case, any light you want to interpret the text of the Jesuit cardinal, this must be added in the historical context in which the theologian wrote. It should be noted that Cardinal Billot try to upstage each topic that may conflict with the target task in his book exalt the papacy el'infallibilità of papal teaching, to counter the resurgence of the old Gallican Catholics who continued to doubt and deny papal infallibility, therefore, in his example of evidence does not provide data about the heresy of which he was accused Alexander VI. However, this was the view of the fact dogmatic Cardinal Billot, interpreted differently by other theologians (see text above Timothy Zapelena).

The Bull of Pope Paul IV, irrespective of its legal value, subject to be dealt with in another context, is part of the Magisterium of the Church. This bubble shows the incompatibility between heresy and supreme pontificate. The quoted text of Paul IV said that they might find that despite the obedience paid to the elected by the conclave of all the elected might not be committed heresy and was until then no complaint and this may become evident only after all 'election (22). This same argument was used by Julius II in the Bull "Cum tam divine" against simony and sanctioned the invalidity of the election took place in simony of a pope, although the acceptance of the universal Church.

Using the same criterion (universal acceptance) it could be argued that all documents of Vatican II (23) Catholics are legitimate and, because universally accepted by the whole Church and approved by the pope. On December 7, 1965, in fact, no bishop rose during the final session of Vatican II, charging publicly that some documents contained heresies approved and / or errors, all the bishops, by contrast, accepted the promulgation of the conciliar documents, including Archbishop Lefebvre as reported by his official biographer Bishop B. Tissier de Mallerais. Applying the arguments of awkwardly Billot, Cardinal Siri, after fierce criticism of the conciliar theology, came to say that the same council documents "Should be read in knee" as approved by the Church and the Pope. (See the book of Cardinal Giuseppe Siri: Gethsemane)

This argument that the author of the article published in Catholic Tradition considers basic, must necessarily also scaled according to the claims of other theologians and the current reality of the facts that no theologian could then imagine.

To end this section is to propose a striking event in Church history where a pope for some time ceased to be considered legitimate question that after the Church spoke out a few centuries after the legality of popes and councils. This applies to elected Pope Alexander V by the Council of Pisa at the time of the Great Western Schism, in fact although not accepted by the whole Church, it was implied by a pope, Alexander VI, assuming that name, implicitly accepted the legitimacy Alexander V. During the Counter (24) the Church is expressed instead in favor of Gregory XII, who was recognized even by a few bishops and the faithful few, and not Alexander V, who was counted among the anti-popes, although at that time was recognized by the majority of the Catholic Episcopate. So is this statement that the Church must be seen as dogmatic and did not accept the Church.



WHO IS MAKING THE FREE TEST?



The Catholic Tradition on page 34, reads as follows: "The absurd thing is (that the test of faith is the only determine the legitimacy of a pope) and makes one think immediately free examination Protestant under which all the faithful, precisely because faith is illuminated directly by God in need to know the truth without the mediation of the Church: the origin of faith is no longer to be found in the preaching of Peter, but a principle inherent in allowing me to understand who my true Peter in this way a pope can no longer be, not de jure, objective rule of faith of the Church but becomes an expression of my faith " It is possible that the author does not realize that improperly trying to defend the legitimacy of Paul VI as a theological fact, to use a colorful and popular "Yes to in the foot"? It is the Society of Saint Pius X, the first to use of free examination, examining every document in the Vatican. Pronounced, in fact, the contents of a particular encyclical or a document deciding what is right according to the faith or not. This contradicts the fully expressed by Pius XII in Vos omnesOf September 10, 1957 stating: "Who among you has no place for the pride of the" free examination "that detects a mindset rather than a heterodox Catholic spirit, and according to which individuals do not hesitate to weigh the weight of their opinion, what comes by the Apostolic See ".

The author continues in his "reasoning":

"... If (...) we have absolute certainty that Pope Pius XII was really, this is based on the fact that we listened to teach things that we consider fair and then we recognized the true Pope: in reality, however, such certainty has nothing to objective and absolute ".

If they can not cast doubt on the legitimacy of Pius XII, not because he said things that may seem fair, but that's because Pope has never really being promulgated acts where there are objectively and doctrinal errors that involve the infallibility also only secondary object of the Magisterium. No true pope, in fact, can enact a ritual that is harmful to faith and even though indirectly lead to heresy.

The article published by the body of the Fraternity in Italy, is also of Paul VI as a question of Pius IX and Pius XII.

The author, in fact, takes no account of the past Monsignor Montini, then Cardinal, his intrigues with the Soviets, his problems with Cardinal Marchetti Selvaggiani about the celebration of Mass. coram populo with the youth of FUCI., of his speeches. Particularly pronounced when the Cardinal was on a visit to Turin Industrial Union in short disregards its modern training that has permeated all the years that preceded his election to the papacy.

Much would then objected to the coronation ceremony. Montini, in fact, was the first to change from eight hours before the ceremony provided by "Romans Odines" reduced to six hours and celebrated in every part of St. Peter's Square rather than inside the Basilica, with the exception of the coronation itself, which previously was solemnized on the central balcony.

The participation of several heads of state, finally, is a further demonstration that an advocate of liberal ideas that could not be recognized and acclaimed by many of his like.



A strange Ecclesiology



The arguments cited by the author of Catholic Tradition fail since it addresses the position of Paul VI concerning the object of teaching secondary and due obedience to his authority. The signature art. 7 of Novus Ordo Missae the promulgation of Dignitate Humanae personae and NAThe signing of the various liturgical books and that changed all the rites of the sacraments, are a stumbling block to any further exposure.

The modernists themselves, who are so modernist, but know Catholic doctrine, they do notice. Do the correspondence between Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre and the Roman Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, then represented by the "cardinal" Seper.

French prelate of the rightful objections concerning the New Mass, the "card." Seper so responded in an annex to the letter of 16 March 1978:

1. About the Ordo Missae:

a) a faithful not entitled to doubt compliance with the doctrine of Faith a sacramental rite promulgated by the Supreme Pastor (p. A3);

b) the nature and sacrifice of the Mass is propitiatory absolutely reaffirmed, in accordance with the Council of Trent, in the Institutio Generalis Missal Roman (p. A 4);

c) your statements about Horde Missae and His opposition use of same spread mistrust, and confusion, namely rebellion among the faithful (Ibid.).

2. His general statements (On authority With thecilio Vatican II and Pope Paul VI) join a practice inducing wondering if there is are before a schismatic movement (p. A 6). She, in fact, orders of priests against the will of the Pope and without the formal "litterae dimissoriae" requests by Canon Law - and that she has continued to do so also after His suspension a divinis; She send these priests priories in which exercise the ministry without the permission of the local, she keeps speech acts to spread his ideas in the diocese where the bishop refuses to consent, with priests ordained by you, she starts - like it or not - to form a group capable of becoming a dissident ecclesial communities (pp. 7-8).

3. She believes that you have ordered the priests have the jurisdiction provided by Canon Law for the case of necessity. This is not a legitimate reason as if the hierarchy had ceased to exist? (P. A8).

4. The Pope has' supreme potestas jurisdictionis "characteristic not only to quae in rebus fidem et mores sed etiam in iis quae to disciplinam et regimen Ecclesiae per totum ORBEM diffusae relevant "(The Second Vatican Council, Dogmatic Pastor Aeternus, SD 3064) (p. A9), and obedience that is due not only to matters of doctrine.

5. With your statements on submission to the Council and the post-conciliar reforms of Paul VI - statements with which all agree and behavior, in particular the illicit ordinations - she fell into a serious disobedience whose logic leads to the schism (p. A 10).

Franc. Cardinal Seper Prefect"

The objections raised by the "Cardinal," Seper, Archbishop Lefebvre did not respond point by point, but only with general considerations concerning its fidelity to the Church of Rome and the expulsion from Vatican tradition. Moreover it could respond only that the "cardinal" Seper was right and then to justify its action was to recognize that the authority was no longer such.

Don Bisig in 1988 reiterated the same idea about the attitude towards the fraternity of the Roman in his pamphlet "Du sacred Episcopal against the wishes du pape " (25).

Don Bisig, replied to Archbishop Lefebvre stated that: "The current pope is not Catholic"This way: "If you mean" not Catholic "in the strictest sense or in the theological sense, has lost faith and one is faced with a dilemma: either the pope and the pope is always preserved, therefore, jurisdiction, (although illegally validly ) and then him and is always only he who appoint the members of the College of the successors of the Apostles, and therefore the bishops of June 30 did not belong, or the Pope is not Pope and did not, therefore, more jurisdiction is the "Vacans sedis" ( sic). Although Archbishop Lefebvre has not, and never uttered on current theoretical possibility of this thesis and its consequences - has always denied officially (26) - Remains in practice that it is the "Vacans sedis" in its charge, since it alone can explain the consistent position " (Page 52), also to explain the statements of Archbishop Lefebvre that "The council are schismatics"The author of the booklet adds to the note, (a), page 30: "It is therefore no pope can not be schismatic pope and at the same time, it is a contradiction in terms, whatever may have played some theologians, in fact, is not clear how the pope can be excluded from this unit in it is its very function of the guarantor. It is for this reason that certain theological chose accordingly sedevacantism ", Footnote (a) of page 42, says further: "We know that the priests of the SSPX ask why their leaders have the honesty to recognize that the vacancy of the Apostolic See single(We emphasize that) justify the consecrations of June 30 ".

Continuing our examination of Article Catholic Tradition on page 31 the author mentions that Cardinal Billot says: "From this it follows that if the Church adhered to a false pontiff would be like if adhered to a false rule of faith, the Pope being the norm living in believing that the Church must always follow and, in fact, follows, as appears clearly from what we shall hereafter. Note this step is at least strange of Cardinal Billot:

"This truth, which constitutes an argument against sedevacantist by those who recognize the authority of Paul VI and his successors, obliges us to assert that a" teaching "and irreconcilable conflict with the perennial teaching of the Church can not come from pope As pope, or as a living rule of faith. This is necessarily a different reality (Private teaching, advice, food for thought, encouragement for self-consciousness of humanity, etc ...) but not a teaching of the Church as such.

(...) The argument sedevacantist he plays like this: in any case in practice Paul VI can not be followed as a rule of faith, so the reasoning does not apply. The reasoning is the same but why is the consideration of what the Church must be a priori and at all costs to continue to be the Catholic Church and not from the account - however, only possible retrospectively - on what churchmen do.

We limit ourselves only to emphasize, once again, that explain the current crisis through the means sedevacantism mutilate the Church in his being and to impinge upon God the responsibility of not keeping their promises, compounded from having finally provided a universal deceit in having recognized the Supreme Pontiff Paul VI.

Once again shows the need to seek an explanation of the current crisis crippling the Church in its being, but considering its members in action, (27) not a defect of the Holy Spirit but rather a defect in the human element in her free cooperation and the use of the gifts that God has promised to provide every day to your Church ".

Can be defined as: "Doctrine private counsel, food for thought, encouragement for self mankind, etc.." official documents of Paul VI and John Paul II, such as encyclicals, motu proprio and apostolic constitutions, which often have enacted universal laws, disciplinary and liturgical Church?

The author has a strange concept of law and practice of the Church.

On other occasions the Society has sought to answer this in mind that this objection is taken to mean the words of Cardinal Billot only relatively extraordinary Magisterium, but that goes against the very words of the cardinal, when he speaks of regula vivens. Now, as the pope speaks in an extraordinary way twice, three times per century, the rule would be living only two or three times per century. We specify, however, it was difficult for these theologians imagine a situation similar to ours. The key to the answer, however, lies in their own words: Cum sit regula fidei vivens pope .... ". Now, as we have seen, you can not follow the faith of the "Pope", therefore can no longer be the rule of faith, because his is alien to the Catholic faith. Also because the pope is the living rule of faith and "Conciliar popes" have faith, it follows that the Catholic world has followed "The Pope" in his apostasy. And those who have not followed because dissent is more or less public by his teaching.

Nubius had in the nineteenth century the triumph of the revolution must come through the pope and, unfortunately, is what everyone can see.

A question arises and must be paid to the author of Catholic Tradition: You can follow the teaching authority of Paul VI and John Paul II? Or not?

The same Bishop M. Lefebvre insisted on several occasions and it went much further and argued the possibility of the Church to declare the popes "Conciliar popes". The author of the text failed to consider these statements of the founder of the Fraternity to continue to follow his reasoning divorced from reality!

1) "What should be our attitude of Pope Paul VI? This attitude will be different depending on how you define the Pope Paul VI (The same problem exists today for John Paul II, Ed.) because our attitude toward the pope, as pope, the successor of Peter, can not change.

The question, therefore, ultimately is this: Pope Paul VI he was or is the successor of Peter? If the answer is: Paul VI Pope has never been or no longer is, our attitude will be that of vacant periods, it would simplify the problem. Some theologians argue, relying on the statements of theologians of the past, accepted by the Church and who have studied the problem of the Pope a heretic, schismatic, or virtually abandoned his office as supreme Pastor.

It is not impossible that this hypothesis is, one day, confirmed by the Church. Why has serious arguments in its favor. Many are, in fact, acts of Paul VI, made by a bishop or a theologian, twenty years ago would have been condemned as suspected of heresy, heresy in favor. In front of that is the one who sits on the throne of Peter, who performs these acts, the world still Catholic or what remains, remains amazed, dumbfounded, prefer silence rather than condemn, he prefers witness the destruction of the Church, rather than oppose, waiting for days the best ». The masterstroke of Satan (ECON, 1977)

2) And again in Paris March 17, 1985, the track of the declaration of Bishop M. Lefebvre's August 2, 1976 "... On the other hand, appears much more certain of the faith taught by the Church for twenty centuries can not contain errors, which is not of absolute certainty that the Pope is its pope. The heresy, schism, excommunication ipso facto, the invalidity of the election are so many causes that possibly can to ensure that a pope has not been so ever or not longer. This is obviously a very exceptional case, the Church finds itself in a situation similar to what happens after the death of a Supreme Pontiff ".

3) In his homily on Easter 1986 to ECON, the archbishop said: "(...) We are really in front of a serious dilemma, and it is dramatic, I believe, never existed in the Church that he who is seated in the See of Peter is participating in the worship of false gods. I think this has never happened in the Church. What conclusion might we draw from several months in the face of these repeated acts of communion with false cults? I do not know ... I wonder.

But is it possible that we will be in a position to believe that this Pope is not Pope. Because it seems at first sight (I would not even say a solemn and formal way), but it seems at first sight that it is impossible that a pope has publicly and formally heretical.

The Lord has promised to be with him, to guard its faith, to guard the faith. How can those to whom Our Lord has promised to keep it permanently in the Faith, which can not err in faith, we can at the same time, be publicly heretical and almost apostatize ...? (28)Here is the problem that affects us all, that is not just me.



THE CANONICAL Monition



The author states on page 52 that"To be heretics outside the Church that is formally known, and is necessary for the person proves obstinate heresy and released after being warned by the competent ecclesiastical authority". This theory is supported by those who follow the Thesis Cassiciacum. To our knowledge there is no theological or canonical admonition that states the need for anyone to be considered formal heretic. Instead we found that at least one explicitly states the necessity of not admonition.

In column 2222, the D.T.C. explicitly states that there is no canonical admonition: "... The opposition wanted the Magisterium of the Church is the pertinacity, the authors require that there be a sin of heresy. (St. Alphonsus, cit.., I, II, TR. I, C. IV DUB. IV No. 19). One caveat with Gaetano in IIam, IIae, Q. XI a. 2, Suarez, op. cit, n. 8, that this does not necessarily include a long obstinacy obstinacy on the part of the heretic and commentaries by the Church. Another is the condition of the sin of heresy, the other is a crime, punishable by canon law and it is very important to remark here, to hold, despite the demands of a conservative procedure, the true theological concept of sin of heresy , a concept accepted by all theologians and inquisitors with the possible exception of only legally Alciato in his glosses on clementines De summa Trinitate (29).

Count Matthew Crowned O.M.C. says:

"Here's notorious. - Some authors deny this thesis: we can not admit that the Roman Pontiff to be heretical. Can not be proved, however, that the Roman Pontiff, as a private doctor, can not become a heretic, if already in persistent denies a dogma defined. Quest'impeccabilità not been promised by God never So Innocent III expressly acknowledged that the case could happen. If the case really happens, he (the pope) by divine right, fell from the office of his office without any sentence, whether or not declared. In fact anyone who openly professes heresy separates himself from the Church and is not likely that the Christ retains such an unworthy pope primacy on it. Therefore, if the Roman Pontiff professes heresy, it is deprived of his authority before any judgmentMoreover, can not deliver ' (30).

He argues, therefore, this author and many others, just the sin of heresy and the offense because the pope lapses by his office. The DDC also when playing in legal terms what constitutes a brief introduction we understand even more that can not be imposed on a pope, in fact: if we consider the election to the papacy as an ordinary bishop or cardinal, the introductions can not be made by an equal degree, but only by a superior, under "Monition" such claims: "The admonition mentioned in the code is a warning sent by the Ordinary, the Christian clergy and / or secular, which is located next occasion of committing a crime over which hangs an investigation after a serious suspicion of guilt (c. . 1946 § 2, 2nd; can. 2037) " (31).

The commentaries are therefore a judicial document issued by a superior to his subordinate, and no bishop as his superior, another bishop or cardinal, but only the pope.

These commentaries are distinguished from those which Bishop Bruno of Segni d'Asti, Abbot of Monte Cassino Saint Hugh of Grenoble and Guido Archbishop of Vienna Address Pasquale II on the issue of investiture. Those can not be regarded as canonical commentaries Ratione iurirdictionis "But as warnings Ratione Caritatis ".

In this sense can also be understood the various public letters sent before to Paul VI by Bishop M. Lefebvre, then later to John Paul II always the same French bishop and Bishop A. De Castro Mayer, to warn them of the errors that were committed.

With this, it was found that the canonical commentaries are not necessary to establish that an entity is a formal heretic

The Catholic Tradition denies that "P. (Ie, Paladin) master of close sedevacantism try to apply the hypothesis of the current popes Bellarmine " (32) and after citing arguments Guerard, asserts that: "The unforgivable error of the bottom of who uses this argument to reject the authority of the present Pope is to use a pure theological assumptions to draw firm conclusions and obliging, equivalent to elements of the profession of Catholic faith, a mere theological opinion, discutibilissima also can easily be embraced as such, but may not be the basis of anything binding on the conscience " (P. 53).

The book that probably the author ignores Petrus Thou?, written in French and soon translated into Italian, he had already replied to this objection, stating that in fact this hypothesis alone, since the mere possibility, was not sufficient to arrive at our conclusion. It was said that this hypothesis was confirmed, as a sort of test of 9 a posteriori because as we have seen a pope can not err and which must be submitted. If you can not err and be submissive to him, as it is not even the fraternity, is a sure sign that this pope has no authority.

Given that a pope loses his office as he writes Stephen Sipos the canon in the following ways:

"1) To mortem (death),

2) for resignationem (waiver)

3) to joust and amentiam perpetuam (Humor)

4) for haeresim privatam notoriam divulgatam and skipjack (for heresy private notorious and openly divulged)".

Since John Paul II is not dead, not signs of mental imbalance, has not resigned, it follows that the papacy has lost or has never had to heresy, which is amply demonstrated by many of his speeches and official documents.



Don Francesco Maria Paladino



NOTES



(1) This article was written in conjunction with the response Sodalitium No 56 special issue of the Catholic Tradition on sedevacantism. Many arguments inevitably intertwine, differences remain especially on matters pertaining to the thesis.

(2) T. ZAPELENA, De Ecclesia Christi, Vol Gregorian Rome 1954, p. 252.

(3) "Habet (...) jurisdictionis supreme potestas' "Characteristic not only here in fide et in rebus etiam mores sed in iis, quae to disciplinam et regimem Ecclesiae per totum ORBEM diffusae pertinet.

(4) How can the Abbé de Tanoüarn Society of St. Pius X in the periodic Pacte, No. 26 write"... The New Mass is essentially valid. It's bad: he lost faith ... but does not prevent in principle it is valid because promulgated by Rome. Declare invalid the making promulgated by a pope, is to cause a short circuit ecclesiological irreparable ". Writing these statements Abbé realizes that it states that the new Mass is invalid, should be recognized that the authority has promulgated, would not be legitimate, but that does not include the other hand ensuring that a Mass promulgated by Rome is bad, also falls under the thunder of condemnation of Pius VI. To escape this condemnation, there is no other solution, which concluded that authority to promulgate a bad set, which is losing the faithIs not legitimate. Particularly, it is claimed that the new Mass is bad, but valid (which do not admit), not subject to the authority, because in this case would do worse than promulgate a Mass invalid. The bad rite, you should add the desecration of the Body of Our Lord.

(5) D.T.C. - Dictionnaire de Theologie Catholique.

(6) F.X. Wernz - P. VIDAL S.I., Jus CanonicumRome Gregorian 1938, Volume II, p. 410.

(7) J.M. HERVÉ, Manual Theol dogmaticae, Paris 1952, Vol I, p. 508.

(8) T. ZAPELENA S.I., De Ecclesia Christi, op. cit. Vol II, op. cit., p. 231

(9) Ibid, P. 252 to 253.

(10) S. Cartechini S.I., Opinion to the dogma, PP. 86 to 89

(11) In the magazine YES YES NO NO 15 December 2002, Hirpinus wrote an article entitled Clear idea of canonization. There is much to say about the whole article, but we wanted only note that it mentions Hirpinus L. October Cartechini into thinking that these authors classify the infallibility of the canonization of saints in theological note of common sentence, when as you pointed out in No. 21 of the New Catholic Observer, the part under the note at least theologically certain. This way of mystifying the lyrics by the Fraternity and circles close to it is quite common as we shall see.

(12) L. OTT, Compendium of Dogmatic Theology, Turin, Marietti, 1955, p. 493

(13) S. Cartechini S.J., Opinion to the dogma, op. cit. p. 174

(14) T. ZAPELENA, De Ecclesia Christi, op. cit., Vol II, Rome Gregorian 1954, p. 237.

(15) Incidentally the author of the article Catholic Tradition.

(16) L. Billot, De Ecclesia Christi, Qu. Th 29 XIV, § 3.

(17) Should be considered in this regard that according to some medieval theologians simony was seen, albeit wrongly, like a crime of heresy, to solve this problem that happened a few times during papal elections and in particular for the election of Alexander VI, probably, accomplished with simony, Pope Julius II in the Bull "Cum tam divine" of January 14, 1506, declared null promotions to positions including papal church, took place with the help of simony. St. Pius X in the Constitution "Vacancy of the Apostolic See" Julian said that the Bull was not understood by divine right, but purely ecclesiastical and could not invalidate the election of the Supreme Pontiff. Savonarola challenged the election of Alexander VI based on the erroneous understanding that did not undermine the validity of papal simony raising this flaw only a few years after his appointment to the Chair of Peter. While under the Bull of Julius II had to raise the defect immediately after the election, in each case at the time of Savonarola legislation of Pope Julius was not yet in force. These historical facts may be one of the reasons that led Cardinal Billot to argue the question of which is treated.

(18) Ergo non erat hereticus, and saltem haereticitate tolle rationem qua members of the Church, papal could vel qualibet ordinary nature iurisdictione ex rei consequenter privat ".

(19) L. Billot, De Ecclesia Christi, op. cit. Qu. Th 29 XIV, § 2.

(20) Here's another example of how to arrange the texts is quite common in the sphere of the Society of Saint Pius X.- In January 2000 came out for use within the fraternity, the first issue of the journal Tradiction Doctrine actualité. That number was called: De l'action de l'extraordinaire Episcopat. Postpone the content, at least questionable, for to dwell on the point that we are dealing with. On page. 61 the author writes: "In his Traité de Droit Canonique (Treaty of Canon Law), Tomo I-II, No. 512, referring to canon 221, NAZ considers the case of inability to exercise power as a result of dementia or perpetual formal heresy. In these cases, he says, the help of a vicar could not make up because the infallibility and primacy of jurisdiction can not be delegated. " We went to see Nat, who at No. 512 after treating the waiver in the strict sense says: "The power of the pope would cease also due to irreversible insanity or formal heresy. In the first case, the Pope, being unable to put a human act, would therefore be unable to exercise its jurisdiction. The help of a vicar could not make up because the infallibility and primacy of jurisdiction can not be delegated.

In the second case, according to the most common theory is theoretically possible, since serving as the pope's private doctor. Since the Supreme Headquarters is judged by no one (Can. 1556), one should conclude that the very fact and without declaratory ruling, the pope would be revoked. There are examples in church history that a true pope has fallen formal heresy, even as a private doctor ".

Note that the cover is put back in this sentence: "Viam elegi veritatis" (Ps. 118, 30). - "I chose the path of truth." There is no shortage of shamelessness. Just compare the two texts to realize that the author does not express the thought of Naz on the subject, as the French canon lawyer's failure to exercise papal power is the cause of his loss, because this power can not be delegate. Practically heresy to our author makes the pope only incapable of exercising power without losing it. Evidence, however, quest'incapacità is due to loss of power. It seems incredible that the author can in good faith mistake of thinking Naz up to this point. This text is understandable by any person can read. It seems unlikely that the other hand, the author of the Italian journal against sedevacantism have not read up the bottom section of Cardinal Billot.

(21) S. SIPOS - Galos, Enchiridion Iuris Canonici Pecs, 1940 P.187). "Eligio power quolibet masculum, usu rationis pollens, membrum Church. Ergo eligerentur feminae invalid, infantes, Habitual catkins laborantes not baptize, haeretici, schismatici ". Naz, Corona, Prümmer and others say the same thing.

(22) Pope Paul IV Bubble Cum ex officio apostolatus: "We add that, if anything were to happen some time that a bishop, even if acting as Archbishop or Patriarch or Primate or a Cardinal of the Roman Church, as stated, or a legate, or the same Roman Pontiff, who before his promotion to his elevation to Cardinal or Roman Pontiff, had deviated from the Catholic Faith or fallen into some heresy was (or was committed, or has this caused a schism) is void, invalid and of no value (nothing irritates et inanis existat) the promotion or elevation, even if this occurred with the consent agreement and unanimity of all the Cardinals could not even say that it is validated with receipt of the charge, or the consecration of possession or quasi possession and subsequent government administration, or for the enthronement and adoration (adoratio) of the same Roman Pontiff or the obedience given him by all and the course of any length of time in that year of his office, nor could it in its entirety be deemed legitimate, and judges have given anything or give an option to administer (facultatem nullam ...) these people promoted as bishops or archbishops or patriarchs or taken as a first or Cardinals or as Roman Pontiff, in things spiritual or temporal but any immoderate force (Viribus careant) each and every (et omnia singular) of any of their words, actions, administrative work or they therefore can not give any firm of law (ius nullam prorsus firmitatem NEC), and those persons who were thus promoted or elevated, is the fact that (eo ipso) and without a further statement (absque aliquo desuper facienda declaration), Private (private sint) of all dignity, position, honor, title, authority , charge and power (auctoritate, et officio authority). "

(23) T. ZAPELENA, De Ecclesia Christi, Vol Gregorian Rome 1954, p. 237 to 238. The theologian argues that the fact the theological legitimacy of a pope also applies to the ecumenical councils.

(24) K.A. FINK, Church and Papacy in the Middle AgesEd Il Mulino Bologna 1987: 235 to 236.

(25) BisigWas District Superior of Germany escaped from St. Pius X Fraternity during the episcopal consecrations of 1988, later became superior of the Society of Saint-Peter is going to another appointment at that time published the brochure: On consecration of bishops against the will of the pope.

(26) The statement is not entirely accurate, as discussed later.

(27) St. Thomas Aquinas did not say that the act might be the following (Agere sequitur them)?

(28) This question Archbishop Lefebvre could not answer clearly. If you answered yes, would have recognized that a pope assisted by the Holy Spirit could do what John Paul II did. If you answered no, had to admit that he was not pope. However ask the question is already answer, he could not do what he did with the assistance of the Holy Spirit.

(29) D.T.C., Volume VI, Col. 2222, the author also cites St. Thomas Aquinas ST II II ª ª c. Q XI a. 2 to 3, and q. XXXII Others 4

(30) Mattheus Comes in Corona, Institutionis Iuris Canonici, Vol I, Marietti Turin 1928, p. 367. - "Haeresi notorious - Quidem auctores denying supposite: Dari NEMP Romanum posse pontificem haereticum. Probari wickedness romanum pontificem tamen, ut doctorem privatum haereticum proud I can not, e. g., the dogma antecedenter definitum contumaciter deneget; haec Deo promissa impeccabilitas inspired nullibi to the east. Immo III Innocentius express admittit casum dari posse. It is true casus accidat ipse ex jure divine ab officio sine ulla sententia, he declared quidem, decidit. Here enim palam profitetur haeresim ponit se ipsum et extra ecclesiam non est Christum likely suæ Primatum Ecclesial these indignant serve. Proinde is R. pontifex haeresim profiteatur ante quancumque sententiam, here impossibilis east, its auctoritate privatur.

(31) D.D.C. Dictionnaire de Droit Canonique, article signed R. NAZ, Monition col. 938.

(32) This hypothesis consists in asserting that the Pope loses his pontificate because of his heresy.