``Where the Bishop is, there let the multitude of believers be; even as where Jesus is, there is the Catholic Church'' Ignatius of Antioch, 1st c. A.D Holy Orders Psalm 109:4 "The Lord hath sworn, and he will not repent: Thou art a priest for ever according to the order of Melchisedech." John 20:19-23 "Now when it was late that same day, the first of the week, and the doors were shut, where the disciples were gathered together, for fear of the Jews, Jesus came and stood in the midst, and said to them: Peace be to you. And when he had said this, he shewed them his hands and his side. The disciples therefore were glad, when they saw the Lord. He said therefore to them again: Peace be to you. As the Father hath sent me, I also send you. When he had said this, he breathed on them; and he said to them: Receive ye the Holy Ghost. Whose sins you shall forgive, they are forgiven them; and whose sins you shall retain, they are retained." Acts 6:3,6 "Wherefore, brethren, look ye out among you seven men of good reputation, full of the Holy Ghost and wisdom, whom we may appoint over this business...These they set before the apostles; and they praying, imposed hands upon them." II Timothy 1:6 (St. Paul to Timothy, whom he ordained) "For which cause I admonish thee, that thou stir up the grace of God which is in thee, by the imposition of my hands." St. Francis of Assisi (later quoted by St. John Vianney): "If I saw an Angel and a priest, I would bend my knee first to the priest and then to the Angel." In the Latin Church, there are seven clerical orders, all mentioned together 1 in the Historical record by Eusebius (b. A.D. 260) in the 43rd Chapter of the 6th Book of his "Church History." The lowest 5 are ecclesiastical in origin; the higher two are of divine origin. The seven orders are, in descending rank: The 3 Major or "Sacred" Orders: I: Priests: Bishops: The First Degree of the Priesthood: Bishops have the greatest authority and jurisdiction (aside from Popes and Patriarchs), and have the powers to ordain men into the diaconate and priesthood, and to offer the Sacrament of Confirmation (this last power they can delegate to a priest), to dedicate churches and altars, to consecrate chalices and patens and bells, and to preside at the benediction of abbots. They are said to exercise the fullness of the priesthood. The symbol of this office is the mitre. Priests: The Second Degree of the Priesthood The duties and powers of the priest are to confect the Eucharist at the Mass; offer the Sacraments of Penance, Communion, and Unction; to preside at the Sacrament of Holy Matrimony; to solemnly baptize; to preach; to teach, guide, and sanctify his sheep. With ordination to the priesthood, a man has received the fullness of the Sacrament of Order. The symbols of this office are the stole, the chasuble, a paten with bread on it, and a Chalice filled with wine. II: Deacons: The duties of the deacon are to handle the sacred vessels, to be of service to the priests and Bishops (inside and outside of the liturgy), to read the Epistle and Gospel at the Mass, to be general stewards, and to serve the widows and orphans. This Order is Sacramental, and the first of the three divinely-instituted grades of the hierarchy of Orders, the others being the priesthood and the episcopate. The symbols of this office are the dalmatic, the stole (worn over the left shoulder, as opposed to around the neck as priests wear them, and under the dalmatic), and the Book of the Gospels. III: Subdeacons: The duties of a subdeacon are to serve the deacon at Mass; to prepare the bread, wine, and sacred vessels for the Sacrifice; to present the chalice and paten at the Offertory, and pour water into the wine for the Eucharist; to chant the Epistle; and to wash the sacred linens. This office is non-sacramental, but it is now that the vow of celibacy is taken. The symbols of this order are the empty Chalice and the paten, basin and towel, two little cruets, and the book of epistles. The 4 Minor Orders: IV: Acolytes: The duties of the acolyte are to light the Altar candles, carry the candles in procession, prepare the water and wine for the Mass, and assist the priest during the Mass The symbols of this order are the candle, the cruet, and a linen bag. (Note that altar boys are sometimes designated "acolytes" and fulfill the duties of the acolyte during the Mass.) V: Exorcists: In the early Church, the duty of the exorcist was to cast out demons. Now that duty belongs to the priest alone, but this minor order is kept in traditional priestly societies nonetheless. The symbol for this order is the book containing the Rite of Exorcism. VI: Lectors (Readers): The duty of the lector is to chant the Epistle when Mass is sung without a deacon and subdeacon. The symbol of this order is the Book of the Epistles. VII: Porters (Doorkeepers or Ostiaries or Sextons): The duties of the porter are to ring the bells, to open the church and sacristy, and to open the book for the priest. Most of these duties have passed to the laity, such as sacristans, etc., but in traditional priestly orders, this clerical order is kept as an office and stepping-stone toward the priesthood. The symbol for this order is keys. A man who is to become a priest first receives the "tonsure" -- i.e., he is received into the clerical state by being given a surplice and having hair shorn away at the crown of the head (over the last 400 years or so, the hair-shearing has passed out of use due to Protestant persecutions). With the tonsure, he becomes a cleric, but still has not received the Sacrament of Orders. The tonsured cleric is then ordained to each of the Orders above, one at a time, receiving the power of each office, and ascending up through the ranks until he is raised to the dignity of the priesthood, at which time he receives the fullness of the Sacrament of Holy Orders. Those of the Minor Orders are not obligated to pray the Divine Office or bound to the rule of celibacy (but if they marry they lose their office); however, once the Major Orders are entered into, there is no going back, and from the level of deacon on up, the actual Sacrament of Orders is received. Deacons receive partial fruits of the Sacrament, priests receive the totality of the Sacrament, with only Bishops having more authority. The Sacrament Itself Here I will focus on the elevation of men to the dignity of the priesthood. Holy Orders is the Sacrament by which men become priests and are given a sacred power (sacra potestas) to act in total sacramental identification with Christ (i.e., to act in persona Christi) in order confect Christ's Body and offer it up to the Father at the Mass for the remission of sins; to forgive sins through the Sacrament of Penance; to solemnly baptize; to preside during the Sacrament of Holy Matrimony; to offer Unction to the dying; to preach; and to otherwise teach, guide, and sanctify their sheep. With -- and only with -- the permission of his Bishop, he may be delegated to offer the Sacrament of Confirmation, but to the Bishop alone is reserved the power to ordain other priests (though a priest may be delgated to ordain men to the sub-diaconate and the minor orders). As in Baptism and Confirmation, the Sacrament of Holy Orders leaves an indelible mark on the soul of the recipient and can never be repeated once validly received; once a priest, always a priest (even if a priest is laicized and removed from his office, this mark remains). As said, the minister of the Sacrament of Holy Orders is the Bishop, and the matter of the Sacrament is the imposition of hands, which takes place during the beautiful ceremony of ordination. The form of the Sacrament is the words: Grant, we beseech Thee, Almighty Father, to these Thy servants, the dignity of the Priesthood; renew the spirit of holiness within them, so that they may hold from Thee, O God, the office of the second rank in Thy service and by the example of their behavior afford a pattern of holy living. Latin: Da, quaesumus, omnipotens Pater, in hos famulos tuos presbyterii dignitatem. Innova in visceribus eorum spiritum sanctitatis, ut acceptum a te, Deus, secundi meriti munus obtineant; censuramque morum exemplo suae conversationis insinuent. The recipient of the Sacrament must be a baptized, healthy male, at least 25 years of age, who has a vocation from God, a strong Catholic faith, intelligence, a good moral character, and a life marked by sanctity. He must be committed to living a celibate and chaste life, and to prayer (especially the Divine Office, which he is obligated to pray), and must have been properly formed in seminary. Traditional priestly formation, such as that undertaken by seminarians of the S.S.P.X., lasts for 6 years and includes a thorough study of Latin, liturgy, liturgical chant, philosophy, Theology, Church History, moral Theology, dogmatic Theology, and Canon Law. During the first year, they receive the cassock; during the second, the tonsure; during the third and fourth, they are ascend through the minor orders; in the fifth, they are ordained to the sub-diaconate and then the diaconate; and after the sixth, they are ordained priests. The seminarian's days are heavily scheduled, much like a monk's, with daily Mass, the Divine Office, classes, private study, and community devotions. Not all priests work in dioceses. Typically, those who do are called "secular priests" or "diocesan priests," and most of these work in parishes and, so, are also called "parish priests." Secular priests make promises of chastity and obedience to the local Ordinary (no promise of poverty is made). Other priests belong to religious orders (e.g., the Carmelites, Dominicans, Franciscans, etc.) and offer Mass for the people of their religious order. These men are called "religious priests" (though sometimes a "religious priest" might work for a parish in some cases). Religious priests make the solemn vows of poverty, chastity, and obedience to the superiors of their religious community that all members of their Order make. The Rite of Ordination The Rite of Ordination, which you can watch online in video here (will open in new browser window), is as follows (taken from the Catholic Encyclopdia): All the candidates...present themselves in the church with tonsure and in clerical dress, carrying the vestments of the order to which they are to be raised, and lighted candles. They are all summoned by name, each candidate answering "Adsum". When a general ordination takes place the tonsure is given after the Introit or Kyrie, the minor orders after the Gloria, subdiaconate after the Collect, the diaconate after the Epistle, priesthood after Alleluia and Tract. After the Tract of the Mass the archdeacon summons all who are to receive the priesthood. The candidates, vested in amice, alb, girdle, stole, and maniple, with folded chasuble on left arm and a candle in their right hand, go forward and kneel around the bishop. The latter inquires of the archdeacon, who is here the representative of the Church as it were, whether the candidates are worthy to be admitted to the priesthood. The archdeacon answers in the affirmative and his testimony represents the testimony of fitness given in ancient times by the clergy and people. The bishop, then charging the congregation and insisting upon the reasons why "the Fathers decreed that the people also should be consulted", asks that, if anyone has anything to say to the prejudice of the candidates, he should come forward and state it. The bishop then instructs and admonishes the candidates as to the duties of their new office. He kneels down in front of the altar; the ordinandi lay themselves prostrate on the carpet, and the Litany of the Saints is chanted or recited. On the conclusion of the Litany, all arise, the candidates come forward, and kneel in pairs before the bishop while he lays both hands on the head of each candidate in silence. The same is done by all priests who are present. Whilst bishop and priests keep their right hands extended, the former alone recites a prayer, inviting all to pray to God for a blessing on the candidates. After this follows the Collect and then the bishop says the Preface, towards the end of which occurs the prayer, "Grant, we beseech Thee etc." The bishop then with appropriate formulæ crosses the stole over the breast of each one and vests him with the chasuble. This is arranged to hang down in front but is folded behind. Though there is no mention of the stole in many of the most ancient Pontificals, there can be no doubt of its antiquity. The vesting with the chasuble is also very ancient and found already in Mabillon "Ord. VIII and IX." Afterwards the bishop recites a prayer calling down God's blessing on the newly-ordained. He then intones the "Veni Creator", and whilst it is being sung by the choir he anoints the hands of each with the oil of catechumens... ...The bishop then hands to each the chalice, containing wine and water, with a paten and a host upon it. This rite, with its corresponding formula,.. [signifying] the power which has already been received, is not found in the oldest rituals and probably dates back not earlier than the ninth or tenth century. When the bishop has finished the Offertory of the Mass, he seats himself before the middle of the altar and each of those ordained make an offering to him of a lighted candle. The newly-ordained priests then repeat the Mass with him, all saying the words of consecration simultaneously. Before the Communion the bishop gives the kiss of peace to one of the newly-ordained. After the Communion the priests again approach the bishop and say the Apostle's Creed. The bishop laying his hands upon each says: "Receive ye the Holy Ghost, whose sins you shall forgive they are forgiven them; and whose sins you shall retain, they are retained." ...The chasuble is then folded, the newly-ordained make a promise of obedience and having received the kiss of peace, return to their place. It is customary for those who attend the priest's Ordination and/or first Mass to kiss the palms of his hands which have been consecrated by holy oils. Palm-kissing at either time results in an indulgence of 100 days under the usual conditions. An indulgence of 7 years, under the usual conditions, was traditionally received for piously attending a priest's first Mass -- the indulgence having been plenary if the one attending is related to the third degree to the newly-ordained priest. Indulgenced or not, kissing a newly-ordained priest's hands is the traditional practice. To do so, kneel on the left knee (or bow profoundly if kneeling is not an option) and kiss the palm of each hand. Changes in the Rite In the Novus Ordo rite, the minor orders have been done away with and the diaconate has been changed from a "transitional diaconate" (a stepping-stone on the way toward the priesthood) to a "permanent diaconate" which can include married men. It is my opinion that this will harm the priesthood horribly by getting people used to seeing married men in the sanctuary, encouraging calls for a married priesthood ("Why not? You let deacons marry now!"), and, at the least, turning clerically-minded men away from the priesthood and toward the "permanent diaconate" where the sacrifices one must make are less severe. Priestly formation is generally scandalous, often overseen by radical Modernists and homosexualists. Orthodox seminarians are often intentionally weeded out by those who've assumed "gate-keeper" positions in "vocational ministries." Latin is not stressed at all, Gregorian chant is forgotten, and the very nature of the priesthood is treated differently than in traditional seminaries, mostly stemming from an animus against the very existence of hierarchy, and a changed definition of the Mass (i.e., from an unbloody Sacrifice -- the Offering of the Son to the Father for the remission of sins -- to a "celebratory meal" as per the new "Paschal Theology"). In addition, there has been a change of sacramental form in the new rite: the removal of the Latin "ut" -- "so that" -- in the words of ordination, a change that, at the least, fails to convey the idea of a sacramental effect. Also, the prayers, admonitions, and blessings included in the ordination ceremony reflect a new idea of the priesthood itself, even to the point that the priest's hands are no longer consecrated and the prayer, "Receive the Holy Ghost. Whose sins you shall forgive, they are forgiven them; and whose sins you shall retain, they are retained" has been abolished. The Saints on the Priesthood Please read these words of the Saints on the most glorious topic of the priesthood: St. John Chrysostom: Treatise on the Priesthood (excerpt) St. John Vianney, Patron of Priests: Catechism on the Priesthood St. Alphonsus Liguori: The Dignity & Duties of the Priest (excerpt) Finally... Pray for vocations and encourage any priestly vocation your sons might have. Teach your children to have the utmost respect for priests, by word and your own behavior. Don't call a priest by his first name; he should be addressed as, for example, "Father Manzione" or simply "Father." He should enjoy the place of honor (barring the presence of higher ranking hierarchs) at social gatherings. Kiss his hands to show reverence for the Eucharist. Let your sons see that to be a priest is to answer God's highest calling, and that the fruits of the priesthood are His merciful gifts to us. In this way vocations are nurtured and God's people can continue to be nourished with the very Body of Christ. And pray for priests, who give us so much! O God, Who hast appointed Thine only-begotten Son to be the eternal High Priest for the glory of Thy Majesty and the salvation of mankind; grant that they whom He hath chosen to be His ministers and the stewards of His Mysteries, may be found faithful in the fulfillment of the ministry which they have received. Through the same Christ our Lord. Amen. Deus, Qui ad maiestatis tuae gloriam et generis humani salutem, Unigenitum Tuum summum atque aeternum constituisti Sacerdotem: praesta, ut quos ministros et Mysteriorum suorum dispensatores elegit, in accepto ministerio adimplendo fideles inveniantur. Per eundem Christum Dominum nostrum. Amen. Footnotes: 1 Eusuebius, born in A.D. 260, is actually quoting a letter written by St. Cornelius to the future Pope St. Fabian. Pope St. Fabian was martyred on 20 January, A.D. 250, so the reference to the 7 Clerical Orders is older than that date. After the martyrdom of Pope St. Fabian, St. Cornelius became Pope until he, too, was martyred in A.D. 253.

The Twelve Articles of Catholic Faith If you want to know the basics of the Catholic faith, look no further than the articles of Catholic faith. This list of twelve articles mirrors the Apostles' Creed, a prayer that sets out Catholic tenets: Article 1: I believe in God, the Father Almighty, Creator of heaven and earth. This affirms that God exists, that he's a Triune God (one God in three persons, known as the Holy Trinity), and that he created the known universe. Article 2: And in Jesus Christ, his only Son, our Lord. This attests that Jesus is the Son of God and that he's most certainly divine. The word Lord implies divinity, because the Greek Kyrios and the Hebrew Adonaiboth mean "lord" and are ascribed only to God. So the use of Lord withJesus is meant to profess his divinity. The name Jesus comes from the Hebrew Jeshua, meaning "God saves." So Catholics believe that Jesus is Savior. Article 3: Who was conceived by the power of the Holy Spirit and born of the Virgin Mary. This affirms the human nature of Christ, meaning he had a real, true human mother, and also affirms his divine nature, meaning he had no human father but by the power of the Holy Spirit was conceived in the womb of the Virgin Mary. He's therefore considered both God and man by Christians—fully divine and fully human. Article 4: He suffered under Pontius Pilate, was crucified, died, and was buried. The human nature of Christ could feel pain and actually die, and he did on Good Friday. The mention of Pontius Pilate by name wasn't meant so much to vilify him forever in history but to place the Crucifixion within human history. Reference is made to an actual historical person, the Roman governor of Judea, appointed by Caesar, to put the life and death of Jesus within a chronological and historical context. It also reminds the faithful that one can't blame all Jews for the death of Jesus, as some have erroneously done over the ages. Certain Jewish leaders conspired against Jesus, but the actual death sentence was given by a Roman and carried out by Roman soldiers. So both Jew and Gentile alike shared in the spilling of innocent blood. Anti-Semitism based on the Crucifixion of Jesus is inaccurate, unjust, and erroneous. Article 5: He descended into hell. The third day he arose again from the dead. The hell Jesus descended into wasn't the hell of the damned, where Jews and Christians believe the devil and his demons reside. Hell was merely a word that Jews and early Christians used to describe the place of the dead. This passage affirms that on the third day he rose, meaning Jesus came back from the dead of his own divine power. He wasn't just clinically dead for a few minutes; he was dead dead — then he rose from the dead. More than a resuscitated corpse, Jesus possessed a glorified and risen body. Article 6: He ascended into heaven and is seated at the right hand of God the Father Almighty. The Ascension reminds the faithful that after the human and divine natures of Christ were united in the Incarnation, they could never be separated. In other words, after the saving death and Resurrection, Jesus didn't dump his human body as if he didn't need it anymore. Catholicism teaches that his human body will exist forever. Where Jesus went, body and soul, into heaven, the faithful hope one day to follow. Article 7: He will come again to judge the living and the dead. This article affirms the Second Coming of Christ at the end of the world to be its judge. Judgment Day, Day of Reckoning, Doomsday—they're all metaphors for the end of time when what's known as the General Judgment will occur. Catholics believe that after the death of any human person, immediate private judgment occurs and the person goes directly to heaven, hell, or purgatory (an intermediate place in preparation for heaven). Article 8: I believe in the Holy Spirit, This part reminds the believer that God exists in three persons — the Holy Trinity — God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Spirit. What's referred to as the Force in the movieStar Wars isn't the same as the Holy Spirit, who is a distinct person equal to the other two — God the Father and God the Son. Article 9: the holy catholic Church, the Communion of Saints, Catholics believe that the Church is more than a mere institution and certainly not a necessary evil. It's an essential dimension and aspect of spiritual life. Christ explicitly uses the word church (ekklesia in Greek) in Matthew 16 when he says, "I will build My Church." Article 10: the forgiveness of sins, Christ came to save the world from sin. Belief in the forgiveness of sins is essential to Christianity. Catholicism believes sins are forgiven in Baptism and in the Sacrament of Penance. Article 11: the resurrection of the body, From the Catholic perspective, a human being is a union of body and soul, so death is just the momentary separation of body and soul until the end of the world, the Second Coming of Christ, the General Judgment, and the resurrection of the dead. The just go, body and soul, into heaven, and the damned go, body and soul, into hell. Article 12: And in life everlasting. As Christ Our Saviour died, so, too, must mere mortals. As he rose, so shall all human beings. Death is the only way to cross from this life into the next. At the very moment of death, private judgment occurs; Christ judges the soul: * If it's particularly holy and virtuous, the soul goes directly to heaven. * If it's evil and wicked and dies in mortal sin, it's damned for eternity in hell. * If a person lived a life not bad enough to warrant hell but not holy enough to go right to heaven, Catholics believe the soul goes to purgatory, which is a middle ground between heaven and earth, a state where departed souls want to go to be cleansed of any attachments to sin before going through the pearly gates.

NOVUS ORDO WATCH SPECIAL REPORT Assisi 2011: APOSTASY REVISITED On October 27th Benedict XVI traveled to the Umbrian town of Assisi, made glorious as the birthplace of both the thirteenth century church luminary St. Francis, and the religious order he founded, the Friars Minor (or Franciscans). The trip was made to celebrate the 25th Anniversary of John Paul II's World Day of Prayer for Peace at Assisi, in which his predecessor invited "160 religious leaders spending the day together with fasting and praying to their God or Gods. They represented 32 Christian religious organizations and 11 other non-Christian world religions…" In response to the first Assisi interreligious meeting, Society of St. Pius X founder Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre declared: "He who now sits upon the Throne of Peter mocks publicly the first article of the Creed and the first Commandment of the Decalogue. The scandal given to Catholic souls cannot be measured. The Church is shaken to its very foundations." And two years later in 1988, when raising four men to the episcopacy, Abp. Lefebvre would in part defend his act by saying it was in defiance of the authorities in Modernist Rome (significantly, "Cardinal" Ratzinger was mentioned by name), who sought to "reduce Tradition to naught" and against "the spirit of Vatican II and the spirit of Assisi." Fast-forward a quarter of a century, and one of those four men echoes the words of Abp. Lefebvre. "Yes, we are deeply indignant, we vehemently protest against this repetition of the days at Assisi," declared SSPX Superior Bishop Bernard Fellay back in January. "Everything that we have said, everything that Archbishop Lefebvre had said at the time of the World Day of Prayer for Peace in Assisi in 1986, we repeat in our own name. It is evident, my dear brothers, that such a thing demands reparation. What a mystery!” Well, only a mystery if by that Bp. Fellay refers to is a mystery of iniquity as was sadly witnessed in 1986, in what was undoubtedly the defining moment of the entire Assisi event, when the Church of St. Peter was the scene of pagans placing a statue of Buddha atop the tabernacle (right). Over a millennium ago, Catholic churches were once built upon the ruins of pagan temples, but now the tables had been turned, so to speak, and an idol now stood in the midst of a church nearly nine hundred years old.…

This is an excellent and well-researched article that addresses the problems of the modern popes since the 1960's. Please take the time to read this material. Fr. B. I. The Church, a divine society When we take the first and most noble perspective, we try to analyze, understand and judge the present day situation based on the divine factors: the words of Scripture, infallible papal and conciliar documents of the past, as well as the unanimous teaching of Bishops, Saints and Doctors. I believe that a discussion on these points is necessary, but very frequently treacherous, for since a scholar knows that any heretic, upon falling into heresy, disconnects himself from the Church, he is led to apply this to the conciliar Popes and to draw juridical consequences from this fact: The present day Popes are no longer Popes, they lose their jurisdiction, their sacraments are not valid, the Bishops consecrated by them are not Bishops, the priests are not priests, etc. I have accompanied these studies from afar, and I also know that a heretic cannot be a member of the Church. When I apply this principle to the conciliar Popes, however, I stop at the affirmation that they are heretics. I do not enter into the juridical consequences of this fact. The imperative reason is simple: Pope Boniface VIII in the Bull Una Sanctam clearly interpreted the words of Scripture, “The spiritual man judges all things and he himself is judged by no man” (1 Cor 2:15), as applicable to Popes. And he concluded saying definitively that no one can “judge” a Pope. “To judge,” for Boniface VIII, was not to make a dogmatic or moral appraisal about the thinking or the conduct of a Pope, but rather to attribute to oneself the power of deposing him. Boniface VIII was indirectly dealing with the case of the King of France, Philip the Fair, who pretended he could depose and make Popes. Now, when someone affirms today that the conciliar Popes are not Popes, that person implicitly is attributing to himself that power. Even when, to avoid such arrogance, a person says that the Pope automatically ceases to be Pope and therefore the See is vacant, it seems to me that he does not have the right to conclude “therefore the seat is vacant” because here he directly enters the prohibited zone. 1. The New Testament St. Paul told us not to accept a different Gospel, even should it be presented by an Angel from Heaven. Consistent with such teaching, he resisted St. Peter when the latter scandalized the faithful. Such precedent teaches us that we can judge whoever is not in accordance with the Gospel, even if it is a high authority, a representative of Heaven. Thus, we can denounce and resist a Pope when he scandalizes the faithful. However, neither St. Paul nor any other Apostle declared the See to be vacant. We find no example of this in Scriptures. 2. History When we research History, we see that Pope St. Leo II declared his predecessor Pope Honorius a heretic some decades after the death of the latter. St. Leo II, however, did not annul the juridical or sacramental acts of Pope Honorius. The two Ecumenical Councils that pretended to have the power to depose Popes – the Council of Constance (1414-1418) and that of Basel (1431-1445) – were later unauthorized exactly in that pretension. Popes Martin V and Sixtus IV annulled the canons of the Ecumenical Council of Constance that ascribed to itself such power and Pope Eugene IV did the same regarding the Ecumenical Council of Basel. 3. The teaching of three ‘infallible’ papal bulls The two papal bulls most often used in sede-vacantist arguments - Quo primum and Cum ex apostolatus officio – merit special analysis. They are very categorical, some even consider them infallible. I do not discuss these qualifications; I prefer to study their content. A. Quo primum & Quod a nobis Reading Quo primum of St. Pius V about the form of the Tridentine Mass, we see the severe condemnations launched at the end of it for those who dare to change that form. At first glance, we would think that no one – not even a Pope – could change the Mass, and if he were to do so, he would automatically be excommunicated and “therefore cease to be Pope.” Despite the prohibition, Pius X serenely changed the Divine Office & Breviary However, the same St. Pius V wrote the Bull Quod a nobis about the forms of the Breviary and the Divine Office with analogous anathemas against anyone who would change them. Notwithstanding those sanctions, St. Pius X decided to change both the Breviary and the Divine Office, and did so with complete tranquility of conscience when he issued the Constitution Divino afflatu. It has never been reported that he had been excommunicated. It has never even been said that this measure disturbed the process of his canonization, in times when the certainty of the processes of canonization were a reflection of the infallibility of the Church. The analysis of these two bulls by St. Pius V and its “violation” by Pius X leads us to the first conclusion: The sanctions of St. Pius V are not applicable to a Pope. From this conclusion, it seems to me that some teachings follow: The Popes are the supreme spiritual authorities on this earth, but among themselves the Popes are equal. If one Pope at a given moment in History were to issue juridical, liturgical or sacramental laws to be obeyed by all the Popes to come, he would be breaking this fundamental equality and declaring himself superior to the future Popes: It seems to me that he would be setting himself up as a super-pope. From the fact that St. Pius X did not take into consideration the anathemas of the Bull Quod ad nobis, logically derives a second conclusion: Were a Pope to legislate over future Popes, he would usurp a power that belongs only to Our Lord. B. Ex cum apostolatus officio If this is true, the complicated case of the Bull Cum ex apostolatus officio of Pope Paul IV can more easily be understood. In it, we should distinguish the teachings and norms issued when the Pope legislates over those who are inferior to him from the norms issued when he intends to legislate over future Popes. Pope Paul IV issuing a statute In the first case, he establishes norms for religious and civil authorities. When he legislates over Catholic civil authorities – Emperors, Kings, Dukes, Marquis, etc. – he automatically excommunicates and deprives of their civil functions, without the need of any further measure, those who have had any adhesion to heresy. Certainly these determinations show that a laudable zeal inspired the Pontiff. But he seems to ignore the reality when he imagines that the simple words of his Bull will have the effect that he desires. Who could objectively prove that such persons have favored heresy unless they have gone through a judicial process? Is it possible for an excommunication latae sententiae – normally reserved in the Church for secret actions – to have a public effect and deprive an authority of its civil functions without any concurrence of the State? No, it is not possible. Thus, at least insofar as he legislates over Catholic civil authorities in so generic a manner, ignoring all indispensable procedures to make his norms effective, Pope Paul IV destines his Bull to remain a dead law, a blank bullet. I leave aside here the application of the Bull for ecclesiastical authorities. In the second case, another distinction is necessary: When Paul IV declares that no candidate to the Papacy or an elected Pope can be a heretic, he is doctrinally sound. But when he intends to depose a validly elected Pope should he become a heretic, and annul his juridical and sacramental actions, Paul IV is legislating over future Popes. This leads us to draw from the second conclusion above a consequence: Paul IV in Cum ex seems to step outside the ambit of papal authority and set himself up as a super-pope. Argumentandi gratia Notwithstanding this shortcoming, argumentandi gratia [for the sake of argument], if one admits that a Pope can legislate over other Popes, one sees that the Bull of Paul IV is omissive, because he does not establish an ecclesiastical body capable of declaring null the pontificate of the validly elected Pope whose election had been invalidated by heresy. In the hypothesis of the election of a heretic Pope, two main cases present themselves: the Pope who would be a public heretic or the Pope who would be a secret heretic. In the first case, if the Pope had already been a public heretic, the accusation of heresy must also have been extended to the College of Cardinals who elected him. Then, the Bull Cum ex should have supposed such a case and indicated another ecclesiastical body to judge and depose the Pope. This organ should have more power than the validly elected Pope and the College of Cardinals who elected him. Someone could say: Such an organ would have to be an ecumenical council. But, in fact, it had been ruled that ecumenical councils were not authorized to do this, as we said above. Thus, one sees that an organ to depose a Pope does not exist in the Church; it had not been indicated by Paul IV nor by any other Pope. Further, should such an organ exist, it would be doctrinally prevented from deposing a validly elected Pontiff. Pope Stephen VI judges the cadaver of Formosus and deposes him In the second case of a secretly heretic Pope, the solution seems to be even more complicated because that supposed ecclesiastical organ would need to have further power to annul and undo all the juridical and sacramental acts made by the Pope until his heresy became manifest, which could be a short or long period of time. But if this organ were to exercise such power, it would lead the Church into chaos. The 15 years that followed the pontificate of Pope Formosus (891-896) provides us an example of the chaos that the annulling of the sacraments ministered by a Pontiff can propitiate (1). As far as I could verify, the Church closed that confused period suspending the discussion about the validity of the papal sacraments without taking the side of any of the factions, and thenceforth avoided entering into juridical-sacramental disputes of this type. It seems to me that this historical precedent of annulling juridical and sacramental acts of Popes should have showed Paul IV the imprudence of leaving instructions to depose a Pope and to annul his sacramental acts since such actions would lead the Church into chaos. The analysis of those two cases leads to a third conclusion: An organ to depose a Pope does not exist in the Church; if such organ did exist, it would be condemned in the doctrinal order, and would lead the Church into chaos in the practical order. From this would come a general conclusion: The juridical and sacramental sanctions of Cum ex referring to the Popes are not applicable. Historical confirmation Modern History confirms the infeasibility of the application of Cum ex. In fact, Cardinal Mastai Ferratti was a complete liberal before rising to the Pontifical Throne – some add that he was also a member of Freemasonry. After taking the name of Pius IX and converting, he practically declared Catholic Liberalism a heresy. One may say, therefore, he declared that he was a heretic before he was elected. If the Bull of Paul IV were to be applied to this case, Cardinal Mastai Ferratti never could have been Pope; his election should be annulled and all the juridical and sacramental acts of his pontificate should have been invalidated. Pius IX at Vatican I, a null council if Ex cum is applied... Now, this seems absurd, since then two dogmas proclaimed by Pius IX would not be valid and the Ecumenical Council Vatican I would also be invalid. I repeat, this seems absurd. No one with a minimum of Catholic sense doubts that Pius IX, after his conversion, was a model Pope. If more confirmation were necessary, I could add some prophecies of Our Lady, such as those of Good Success in Quito, Ecuador, which mention Pius IX as the legitimate Pope. In fact, Our Lady of Good Success foretold a Pope who would declare the dogma of the Immaculate Conception in the 19th century. Therefore, indirectly, Our Lady foretold that Pius IX was a legitimate Pope. If Ex cum had been applied, the validity of the elections of the archliberal Cardinal Pecci, the future Leo XIII, and the para-modernist Cardinal della Chiesa, the future Benedict XV, must also be declared null. Such hypothesis also appears absurd. In the practical order, it would lead the Church into chaos and would seriously vie for her destruction. It seems to me, therefore, that the condemnations of these three papal Bulls, with regard to the powers of jurisdiction and orders, are not applicable to a Pope. Thus, I would say that applying these papal Bulls in this way is not conclusive to declare the See vacant. 4. The ordinary Magisterium When we have recourse to the ordinary Magisterium of the Church, which as you may recall enjoys infallibility when it unanimously affirms the same teaching through the centuries, we do not find a uniform teaching with regard to a heretic Pope. What we find is a theological discussion examining the question of a heretic Pope placed on the level of quaestio disputata [question open to discussion], that is, each theologian can express the opinion he wishes. These studies were already categorized by St. Robert Bellarmine into five basic opinions. The themes discussed include the following: Can the Pope be a heretic? Does the Pope lose the pontificate when he becomes a heretic? What if he were a secret heretic? What if he were a public heretic? It is necessary for some ecclesiastical body to declare him a heretic for him to lose the pontificate or does he lose it automatically? If such declaration were made, would not this ecclesiastical body make itself superior to the Pope? If he is deposed automatically, at what moment does this take place? What happens to the Pope’s power of jurisdiction and orders when he is considered a heretic? Bellarmine's only adds his opinion to a question still open to discussion At the moment, what concerns me is not to make the list of responses to these questions, but rather to emphasize that there has been no definitive teaching on the matter. The opinions of the various theologians are expressed strongly, but with humility, knowing that until the Church speaks, there is no definitive answer. The important conclusion is that there is not unanimity of opinion among the theologians about what happens should a Pope fall into heresy. Even if there were unanimity, this opinion still would not have infallibility. Infallibility resides only in the extraordinary pontifical teachings or in the ordinary pontifical teachings when unanimous, and also in episcopal teachings throughout the centuries when they are unanimous. Even if the opinion of the theologians were unanimous, it would have a non-definitive weight, but at the present stage of the discussion, even this weight cannot be given to it. It seems to me that, regarding this discussion, the partisans of sede-vacantism should be more honest with their followers. Instead of presenting partial opinions of this or that Saint or Doctor as if they were definitive certainties, they should show their followers that the topic is a study in progress that will only be closed when the Church leaves the present day crisis and a good Pope gives a final word on the matter. Concluding this Part I, we see that with regard to the consideration of the Church as divine, we must limit ourselves to saying that the conciliar Popes are heretics, without drawing definitive conclusions about the loss of their powers of jurisdiction and orders. To shed more light on this sad situation of general apostasy, we will change the perspective and go on to look at the Church as a human society, which is much more simple and brief. II. The Church, a human society In its human aspect, the Catholic Church is a societas perfecta, a visible, autonomous and sovereign society that is sufficient in itself and does not depend on any external authority, be it spiritual or temporal. The same laws that govern other visible societies should be applied to her. St. Robert Bellarmine confirms this principle when, in his famous definition of the Church, he affirms that “the Catholic Church is as visible as the Kingdom of France or the Republic of Venice.” In accordance with the laws of visible societies, the conciliar Popes were chosen by a designated electoral body, the College of Cardinal; they were accepted by the ensemble of the Catholic Hierarchy and by the ensemble of the faithful and were recognized as valid Popes by the whole world. One could say, therefore, that these Popes are de facto Popes. The Cathedra of Peter glorified by Bernini Are they also de iure Popes? Just as a temporal ruler acknowledged by all as such has the power of jurisdiction of his office, so also does a conciliar Pope. Therefore, I would say that despite the heresy, they retain the right to command in everything that is not directly heresy. It seems to me that they also retain the power of orders since this is also linked indirectly to the power of jurisdiction, while directly only to the apostolic succession. The Church has always been very careful before affirming that a validly consecrated Bishop has lost the power of orders after becoming a heretic. Since Protestantism (1521), she still has not declared the sacraments of Lutheran bishops invalid; and only after 300 years did Leo XIII declare the Anglican orders to be invalid. Certainly the same criteria should be applied to the power of orders of the conciliar Popes: It is at the least very early to place in doubt the validity of the sacraments ministered by them. When does a bad Pope stop being Pope? (I already gave my opinion on this matter in another place with examples; here I summarize it). In the same way that a bad King stops being de facto King. And when does this happen? When a considerable part of his subjects denies him obedience. In the case of the conciliar Popes, when Catholics become convinced that these Popes are heretics, resist their orders and spread the position of resistance until the government of such Popes becomes unsustainable. It seems to me that this condition of great public notoriety is what some theologians were referring to when they said that the heretic Pope would continue to be Pope until his heresy became “notorious and publicly known.” These are the fruits we can harvest with regard to the Church as a human society. III. Conclusion Concluding and combining the two perspectives – the divine and the human – this is my position: 1.A heretic Pope loses the pontificate automatically before God, who knows his innermost thoughts and actions, at the moment when he falls into heresy, or, if he is already a heretic, at the moment when he reaffirms the heresy after his election; 2.He continues to be Pope before the visible Church until a respectful opposition of the faithful makes his government impossible; 3.Catholics have the obligation to resist him in all that he does that favors heresy; 4.They also have the obligation to spread the position of resistance as much as possible; 5.They should pray much and offer sacrifices asking Our Lord Jesus Christ, the true Head of the Church of which the Pope is only the Vicar, to intervene and bring this great trial for the Church and the faithful to an end. At this moment these are the considerations that occur to me suggested by your amiable letter and by the questions of other correspondents and readers of our website. With consideration, In Jesu et Maria, Atila S. Guimarães Footnote 1. After the death of Pope Formosus and the brief pontificate of 15 days of his successor Boniface VI (896), Stephen VI (896-897) was elected. Nine months after his election, under pressure from partisans of a faction opposed to Pope Formosus, he contested the election of the latter, exhumed his body, and then judged, deposed and excommunicated him at the so-called Cadaver Synod (897); he also annulled all the juridical and sacramental acts of his pontificate. However, in a public uprising against the Cadaver Synod, Stephen VI was deposed and thrown in prison where he was strangled. That same party favorable to Formosus brought the next Pope, Romanus (897) to the throne; he died four months later. His successor, Theodore II, had an even briefer pontificate, but he was able to hold a synod that annulled all the decisions of Eugene VI. The successor of Theodore was Sergius, of the anti-Formosus faction, who held the papal throne for only some months until he was deposed in 898 by a revolution, and John IX (898-900) was elected. This Pope, favorable to Formosus, confirmed all his juridical and sacramental acts. Benedict IV (900-903) followed the same line of John IX. At his death, Leo V was elected; he remained on the papal throne for two months and was deposed by a palace revolution. Christopher, later considered an antipope, took the place of Leo V and threw him in prison. After a few months, Christopher was deposed and imprisoned by Sergius, who had been dismissed in 898. After some time in prison, the two deposed popes, Leo V and Christopher, were executed. Rising to the pontifical throne with the name of Sergius III (904-911), this pope declared the pontificates of John IX, Leo V and Christopher to be null. Sergius III called a synod in Rome that annulled the decisions opposed to the Cadaver Synod and again installed them in full vigor. With this decision, later contested by historians, the disputes over the validity of the juridical and sacramental acts of Pope Formosus did not resurface. A new era of intrigue in the Papacy, not directly linked to our study, would begin. One can well imagine the chaotic sacramental consequences for the Church in Rome from this dispute in the Papacy: With each new annulling or rehabilitation of the previous papal acts, the members of the Hierarchy and the clergy lost or regained their episcopal consecrations or priestly ordinations. This is an excellent and well-researched article that addresses the problems of the modern popes since the 1960's. Please take the time to read this material. Fr. B. I. The Church, a divine society When we take the first and most noble perspective, we try to analyze, understand and judge the present day situation based on the divine factors: the words of Scripture, infallible papal and conciliar documents of the past, as well as the unanimous teaching of Bishops, Saints and Doctors. I believe that a discussion on these points is necessary, but very frequently treacherous, for since a scholar knows that any heretic, upon falling into heresy, disconnects himself from the Church, he is led to apply this to the conciliar Popes and to draw juridical consequences from this fact: The present day Popes are no longer Popes, they lose their jurisdiction, their sacraments are not valid, the Bishops consecrated by them are not Bishops, the priests are not priests, etc. I have accompanied these studies from afar, and I also know that a heretic cannot be a member of the Church. When I apply this principle to the conciliar Popes, however, I stop at the affirmation that they are heretics. I do not enter into the juridical consequences of this fact. The imperative reason is simple: Pope Boniface VIII in the Bull Una Sanctam clearly interpreted the words of Scripture, “The spiritual man judges all things and he himself is judged by no man” (1 Cor 2:15), as applicable to Popes. And he concluded saying definitively that no one can “judge” a Pope. “To judge,” for Boniface VIII, was not to make a dogmatic or moral appraisal about the thinking or the conduct of a Pope, but rather to attribute to oneself the power of deposing him. Boniface VIII was indirectly dealing with the case of the King of France, Philip the Fair, who pretended he could depose and make Popes. Now, when someone affirms today that the conciliar Popes are not Popes, that person implicitly is attributing to himself that power. Even when, to avoid such arrogance, a person says that the Pope automatically ceases to be Pope and therefore the See is vacant, it seems to me that he does not have the right to conclude “therefore the seat is vacant” because here he directly enters the prohibited zone. 1. The New Testament St. Paul told us not to accept a different Gospel, even should it be presented by an Angel from Heaven. Consistent with such teaching, he resisted St. Peter when the latter scandalized the faithful. Such precedent teaches us that we can judge whoever is not in accordance with the Gospel, even if it is a high authority, a representative of Heaven. Thus, we can denounce and resist a Pope when he scandalizes the faithful. However, neither St. Paul nor any other Apostle declared the See to be vacant. We find no example of this in Scriptures. 2. History When we research History, we see that Pope St. Leo II declared his predecessor Pope Honorius a heretic some decades after the death of the latter. St. Leo II, however, did not annul the juridical or sacramental acts of Pope Honorius. The two Ecumenical Councils that pretended to have the power to depose Popes – the Council of Constance (1414-1418) and that of Basel (1431-1445) – were later unauthorized exactly in that pretension. Popes Martin V and Sixtus IV annulled the canons of the Ecumenical Council of Constance that ascribed to itself such power and Pope Eugene IV did the same regarding the Ecumenical Council of Basel. 3. The teaching of three ‘infallible’ papal bulls The two papal bulls most often used in sede-vacantist arguments - Quo primum and Cum ex apostolatus officio – merit special analysis. They are very categorical, some even consider them infallible. I do not discuss these qualifications; I prefer to study their content. A. Quo primum & Quod a nobis Reading Quo primum of St. Pius V about the form of the Tridentine Mass, we see the severe condemnations launched at the end of it for those who dare to change that form. At first glance, we would think that no one – not even a Pope – could change the Mass, and if he were to do so, he would automatically be excommunicated and “therefore cease to be Pope.” Despite the prohibition, Pius X serenely changed the Divine Office & Breviary However, the same St. Pius V wrote the Bull Quod a nobis about the forms of the Breviary and the Divine Office with analogous anathemas against anyone who would change them. Notwithstanding those sanctions, St. Pius X decided to change both the Breviary and the Divine Office, and did so with complete tranquility of conscience when he issued the Constitution Divino afflatu. It has never been reported that he had been excommunicated. It has never even been said that this measure disturbed the process of his canonization, in times when the certainty of the processes of canonization were a reflection of the infallibility of the Church. The analysis of these two bulls by St. Pius V and its “violation” by Pius X leads us to the first conclusion: The sanctions of St. Pius V are not applicable to a Pope. From this conclusion, it seems to me that some teachings follow: The Popes are the supreme spiritual authorities on this earth, but among themselves the Popes are equal. If one Pope at a given moment in History were to issue juridical, liturgical or sacramental laws to be obeyed by all the Popes to come, he would be breaking this fundamental equality and declaring himself superior to the future Popes: It seems to me that he would be setting himself up as a super-pope. From the fact that St. Pius X did not take into consideration the anathemas of the Bull Quod ad nobis, logically derives a second conclusion: Were a Pope to legislate over future Popes, he would usurp a power that belongs only to Our Lord. B. Ex cum apostolatus officio If this is true, the complicated case of the Bull Cum ex apostolatus officio of Pope Paul IV can more easily be understood. In it, we should distinguish the teachings and norms issued when the Pope legislates over those who are inferior to him from the norms issued when he intends to legislate over future Popes. Pope Paul IV issuing a statute In the first case, he establishes norms for religious and civil authorities. When he legislates over Catholic civil authorities – Emperors, Kings, Dukes, Marquis, etc. – he automatically excommunicates and deprives of their civil functions, without the need of any further measure, those who have had any adhesion to heresy. Certainly these determinations show that a laudable zeal inspired the Pontiff. But he seems to ignore the reality when he imagines that the simple words of his Bull will have the effect that he desires. Who could objectively prove that such persons have favored heresy unless they have gone through a judicial process? Is it possible for an excommunication latae sententiae – normally reserved in the Church for secret actions – to have a public effect and deprive an authority of its civil functions without any concurrence of the State? No, it is not possible. Thus, at least insofar as he legislates over Catholic civil authorities in so generic a manner, ignoring all indispensable procedures to make his norms effective, Pope Paul IV destines his Bull to remain a dead law, a blank bullet. I leave aside here the application of the Bull for ecclesiastical authorities. In the second case, another distinction is necessary: When Paul IV declares that no candidate to the Papacy or an elected Pope can be a heretic, he is doctrinally sound. But when he intends to depose a validly elected Pope should he become a heretic, and annul his juridical and sacramental actions, Paul IV is legislating over future Popes. This leads us to draw from the second conclusion above a consequence: Paul IV in Cum ex seems to step outside the ambit of papal authority and set himself up as a super-pope. Argumentandi gratia Notwithstanding this shortcoming, argumentandi gratia [for the sake of argument], if one admits that a Pope can legislate over other Popes, one sees that the Bull of Paul IV is omissive, because he does not establish an ecclesiastical body capable of declaring null the pontificate of the validly elected Pope whose election had been invalidated by heresy. In the hypothesis of the election of a heretic Pope, two main cases present themselves: the Pope who would be a public heretic or the Pope who would be a secret heretic. In the first case, if the Pope had already been a public heretic, the accusation of heresy must also have been extended to the College of Cardinals who elected him. Then, the Bull Cum ex should have supposed such a case and indicated another ecclesiastical body to judge and depose the Pope. This organ should have more power than the validly elected Pope and the College of Cardinals who elected him. Someone could say: Such an organ would have to be an ecumenical council. But, in fact, it had been ruled that ecumenical councils were not authorized to do this, as we said above. Thus, one sees that an organ to depose a Pope does not exist in the Church; it had not been indicated by Paul IV nor by any other Pope. Further, should such an organ exist, it would be doctrinally prevented from deposing a validly elected Pontiff. Pope Stephen VI judges the cadaver of Formosus and deposes him In the second case of a secretly heretic Pope, the solution seems to be even more complicated because that supposed ecclesiastical organ would need to have further power to annul and undo all the juridical and sacramental acts made by the Pope until his heresy became manifest, which could be a short or long period of time. But if this organ were to exercise such power, it would lead the Church into chaos. The 15 years that followed the pontificate of Pope Formosus (891-896) provides us an example of the chaos that the annulling of the sacraments ministered by a Pontiff can propitiate (1). As far as I could verify, the Church closed that confused period suspending the discussion about the validity of the papal sacraments without taking the side of any of the factions, and thenceforth avoided entering into juridical-sacramental disputes of this type. It seems to me that this historical precedent of annulling juridical and sacramental acts of Popes should have showed Paul IV the imprudence of leaving instructions to depose a Pope and to annul his sacramental acts since such actions would lead the Church into chaos. The analysis of those two cases leads to a third conclusion: An organ to depose a Pope does not exist in the Church; if such organ did exist, it would be condemned in the doctrinal order, and would lead the Church into chaos in the practical order. From this would come a general conclusion: The juridical and sacramental sanctions of Cum ex referring to the Popes are not applicable. Historical confirmation Modern History confirms the infeasibility of the application of Cum ex. In fact, Cardinal Mastai Ferratti was a complete liberal before rising to the Pontifical Throne – some add that he was also a member of Freemasonry. After taking the name of Pius IX and converting, he practically declared Catholic Liberalism a heresy. One may say, therefore, he declared that he was a heretic before he was elected. If the Bull of Paul IV were to be applied to this case, Cardinal Mastai Ferratti never could have been Pope; his election should be annulled and all the juridical and sacramental acts of his pontificate should have been invalidated. Pius IX at Vatican I, a null council if Ex cum is applied... Now, this seems absurd, since then two dogmas proclaimed by Pius IX would not be valid and the Ecumenical Council Vatican I would also be invalid. I repeat, this seems absurd. No one with a minimum of Catholic sense doubts that Pius IX, after his conversion, was a model Pope. If more confirmation were necessary, I could add some prophecies of Our Lady, such as those of Good Success in Quito, Ecuador, which mention Pius IX as the legitimate Pope. In fact, Our Lady of Good Success foretold a Pope who would declare the dogma of the Immaculate Conception in the 19th century. Therefore, indirectly, Our Lady foretold that Pius IX was a legitimate Pope. If Ex cum had been applied, the validity of the elections of the archliberal Cardinal Pecci, the future Leo XIII, and the para-modernist Cardinal della Chiesa, the future Benedict XV, must also be declared null. Such hypothesis also appears absurd. In the practical order, it would lead the Church into chaos and would seriously vie for her destruction. It seems to me, therefore, that the condemnations of these three papal Bulls, with regard to the powers of jurisdiction and orders, are not applicable to a Pope. Thus, I would say that applying these papal Bulls in this way is not conclusive to declare the See vacant. 4. The ordinary Magisterium When we have recourse to the ordinary Magisterium of the Church, which as you may recall enjoys infallibility when it unanimously affirms the same teaching through the centuries, we do not find a uniform teaching with regard to a heretic Pope. What we find is a theological discussion examining the question of a heretic Pope placed on the level of quaestio disputata [question open to discussion], that is, each theologian can express the opinion he wishes. These studies were already categorized by St. Robert Bellarmine into five basic opinions. The themes discussed include the following: Can the Pope be a heretic? Does the Pope lose the pontificate when he becomes a heretic? What if he were a secret heretic? What if he were a public heretic? It is necessary for some ecclesiastical body to declare him a heretic for him to lose the pontificate or does he lose it automatically? If such declaration were made, would not this ecclesiastical body make itself superior to the Pope? If he is deposed automatically, at what moment does this take place? What happens to the Pope’s power of jurisdiction and orders when he is considered a heretic? Bellarmine's only adds his opinion to a question still open to discussion At the moment, what concerns me is not to make the list of responses to these questions, but rather to emphasize that there has been no definitive teaching on the matter. The opinions of the various theologians are expressed strongly, but with humility, knowing that until the Church speaks, there is no definitive answer. The important conclusion is that there is not unanimity of opinion among the theologians about what happens should a Pope fall into heresy. Even if there were unanimity, this opinion still would not have infallibility. Infallibility resides only in the extraordinary pontifical teachings or in the ordinary pontifical teachings when unanimous, and also in episcopal teachings throughout the centuries when they are unanimous. Even if the opinion of the theologians were unanimous, it would have a non-definitive weight, but at the present stage of the discussion, even this weight cannot be given to it. It seems to me that, regarding this discussion, the partisans of sede-vacantism should be more honest with their followers. Instead of presenting partial opinions of this or that Saint or Doctor as if they were definitive certainties, they should show their followers that the topic is a study in progress that will only be closed when the Church leaves the present day crisis and a good Pope gives a final word on the matter. Concluding this Part I, we see that with regard to the consideration of the Church as divine, we must limit ourselves to saying that the conciliar Popes are heretics, without drawing definitive conclusions about the loss of their powers of jurisdiction and orders. To shed more light on this sad situation of general apostasy, we will change the perspective and go on to look at the Church as a human society, which is much more simple and brief. II. The Church, a human society In its human aspect, the Catholic Church is a societas perfecta, a visible, autonomous and sovereign society that is sufficient in itself and does not depend on any external authority, be it spiritual or temporal. The same laws that govern other visible societies should be applied to her. St. Robert Bellarmine confirms this principle when, in his famous definition of the Church, he affirms that “the Catholic Church is as visible as the Kingdom of France or the Republic of Venice.” In accordance with the laws of visible societies, the conciliar Popes were chosen by a designated electoral body, the College of Cardinal; they were accepted by the ensemble of the Catholic Hierarchy and by the ensemble of the faithful and were recognized as valid Popes by the whole world. One could say, therefore, that these Popes are de facto Popes. The Cathedra of Peter glorified by Bernini Are they also de iure Popes? Just as a temporal ruler acknowledged by all as such has the power of jurisdiction of his office, so also does a conciliar Pope. Therefore, I would say that despite the heresy, they retain the right to command in everything that is not directly heresy. It seems to me that they also retain the power of orders since this is also linked indirectly to the power of jurisdiction, while directly only to the apostolic succession. The Church has always been very careful before affirming that a validly consecrated Bishop has lost the power of orders after becoming a heretic. Since Protestantism (1521), she still has not declared the sacraments of Lutheran bishops invalid; and only after 300 years did Leo XIII declare the Anglican orders to be invalid. Certainly the same criteria should be applied to the power of orders of the conciliar Popes: It is at the least very early to place in doubt the validity of the sacraments ministered by them. When does a bad Pope stop being Pope? (I already gave my opinion on this matter in another place with examples; here I summarize it). In the same way that a bad King stops being de facto King. And when does this happen? When a considerable part of his subjects denies him obedience. In the case of the conciliar Popes, when Catholics become convinced that these Popes are heretics, resist their orders and spread the position of resistance until the government of such Popes becomes unsustainable. It seems to me that this condition of great public notoriety is what some theologians were referring to when they said that the heretic Pope would continue to be Pope until his heresy became “notorious and publicly known.” These are the fruits we can harvest with regard to the Church as a human society. III. Conclusion Concluding and combining the two perspectives – the divine and the human – this is my position: 1.A heretic Pope loses the pontificate automatically before God, who knows his innermost thoughts and actions, at the moment when he falls into heresy, or, if he is already a heretic, at the moment when he reaffirms the heresy after his election; 2.He continues to be Pope before the visible Church until a respectful opposition of the faithful makes his government impossible; 3.Catholics have the obligation to resist him in all that he does that favors heresy; 4.They also have the obligation to spread the position of resistance as much as possible; 5.They should pray much and offer sacrifices asking Our Lord Jesus Christ, the true Head of the Church of which the Pope is only the Vicar, to intervene and bring this great trial for the Church and the faithful to an end. At this moment these are the considerations that occur to me suggested by your amiable letter and by the questions of other correspondents and readers of our website. With consideration, In Jesu et Maria, Atila S. Guimarães Footnote 1. After the death of Pope Formosus and the brief pontificate of 15 days of his successor Boniface VI (896), Stephen VI (896-897) was elected. Nine months after his election, under pressure from partisans of a faction opposed to Pope Formosus, he contested the election of the latter, exhumed his body, and then judged, deposed and excommunicated him at the so-called Cadaver Synod (897); he also annulled all the juridical and sacramental acts of his pontificate. However, in a public uprising against the Cadaver Synod, Stephen VI was deposed and thrown in prison where he was strangled. That same party favorable to Formosus brought the next Pope, Romanus (897) to the throne; he died four months later. His successor, Theodore II, had an even briefer pontificate, but he was able to hold a synod that annulled all the decisions of Eugene VI. The successor of Theodore was Sergius, of the anti-Formosus faction, who held the papal throne for only some months until he was deposed in 898 by a revolution, and John IX (898-900) was elected. This Pope, favorable to Formosus, confirmed all his juridical and sacramental acts. Benedict IV (900-903) followed the same line of John IX. At his death, Leo V was elected; he remained on the papal throne for two months and was deposed by a palace revolution. Christopher, later considered an antipope, took the place of Leo V and threw him in prison. After a few months, Christopher was deposed and imprisoned by Sergius, who had been dismissed in 898. After some time in prison, the two deposed popes, Leo V and Christopher, were executed. Rising to the pontifical throne with the name of Sergius III (904-911), this pope declared the pontificates of John IX, Leo V and Christopher to be null. Sergius III called a synod in Rome that annulled the decisions opposed to the Cadaver Synod and again installed them in full vigor. With this decision, later contested by historians, the disputes over the validity of the juridical and sacramental acts of Pope Formosus did not resurface. A new era of intrigue in the Papacy, not directly linked to our study, would begin. One can well imagine the chaotic sacramental consequences for the Church in Rome from this dispute in the Papacy: With each new annulling or rehabilitation of the previous papal acts, the members of the Hierarchy and the clergy lost or regained their episcopal consecrations or priestly ordinations.

What we have lost...and the Road to Restoration 2/5

VATICAN ECUMENISM & ORTHODOX ECUMENIST FALL#.1/3!!!

Saint Augustine of Hippo, Bishop and Confessor

St. Augustine of Hippo Augustine Aurelius was born on November 13, 354, in Tagaste, North Africa. His father was a pagan, his mother, St. Monica. Still unbaptized and burning for knowledge, he came under the influence of the Manicheans, which caused his mother intense sorrow. He left Africa for Rome, deceiving his mother, who was ever anxious to be near him. She prayed and wept. A bishop consoled her by observing that a son of so many tears would never be lost. Yet the evil spirit drove him constantly deeper into moral degeneracy, capitalizing on his leaning toward pride and stubbornness. Grace was playing a waiting game; there still was time, and the greater the depths into which the evil spirit plunged its fledgling, the stronger would be the reaction. Augustine recognized this vacuum; he saw how the human heart is created with a great abyss; the earthly satisfactions that can be thrown into it are no more than a handful of stones that hardly cover the bottom. And in that moment grace was able to break through: Restless is the heart until it rests in God. The tears of his mother, the sanctity of Milan's Bishop Ambrose, the book of St. Anthony the hermit, and the sacred Scriptures wrought his conversion, which was sealed by baptism on Easter night 387. Augustine's mother went to Milan with joy and witnessed her son's baptism. It was what it should have been, the greatest event of his life, his conversion — metanoia. Grace had conquered. Augustine accompanied his mother to Ostia, where she died. She was eager to die, for now she had given birth to her son for the second time. In 388 he returned to Tagaste, where he lived a common life with his friends. In 391 he was ordained priest at Hippo, in 394 made coadjutor to bishop Valerius, and then from 396 to 430 bishop of Hippo. Augustine, numbered among the four great Doctors of the Western Church, possessed one of the most penetrating minds of ancient Christendom. He was the most important Platonist of patristic times, the Church's most influential theologian, especially with regard to clarifying the dogmas of the Trinity, grace, and the Church. He was a great speaker, a prolific writer, a saint with an inexhaustible spirituality. His Confessions, a book appreciated in every age, describes a notable portion of his life (until 400), his errors, his battles, his profound religious observations. Famous too is his work The City of God, a worthy memorial to his genius, a philosophy of history. Most edifying are his homilies, especially those on the psalms and on the Gospel of St. John. Augustine's episcopal life was filled with mighty battles against heretics, over all of whom he triumphed. His most illustrious victory was that over Pelagius, who denied the necessity of grace; from this encounter he earned the surname "Doctor of grace." As an emblem Christian art accords him a burning heart to symbolize the ardent love of God which permeates all his writings. He is the founder of canonical life in common; therefore Augustinian monks and the Hermits of St. Augustine honor him as their spiritual father. Excerpted from The Church's Year of Grace, Pius Parsch. Categories: Devotional, Liturgical Notes