The sainted bishop of Florence expressed the same conclusion as St Robert Bellarmine: that a Pope who falls into heresy cuts himself off from the Church and the office of the papacy.
It cannot be repeated often enough that all the classical theologians who discussed the question (as in the present case) only considered the possibility of a pope falling into personal heresy.
The inference is that a pope going further still, and attempting to bind the universal Church to heresy through magisterial acts (eg., encyclicals) was a scenario so radically opposed to the raison d’etre of the papacy as to require no comment.
This fact is continuously lost sight of in the R&R championing of Cajetan/JST (as though these latter would have accepted such a thing as possible).
For some inexplicable reason, the defenders of the fourth position take that fact - that it was about private heresy, not teaching - and the fact that those classical theologians envisaged there being cardinals and bishops who would act on it, and say that our different position means that Bellarmine'a fifth doesn't apply.
Some anti-sedevacantist apologists also try to get around the problem by making the Ordinary Magisterium of the Pope the same as the Pope teaching as a private doctor/theologian, so to them the only time that the Pope actually teaches the Church is when he is using his Extraordinary Magisterium to define or condemn something. That way they think they can get around the Indefectibility of the Roman See, but the irony is (I think it was Mr. Mario Derksen who first noticed it) that they are actually committing the very error that they falsely accuse us of - saying that every papal teaching is infallible.
The reason why Catholic theologians never entertained the possibility of a Pope teaching heresy not as a private person but as Pope (e.g. in encyclicals) is because it is opposed to the infallible teaching that the See of St. Peter cannot fail in the faith, otherwise known as the Indefectibility of the Roman See, taught explicitly not only by the First Vatican Council, but by a series of Popes and Doctors going back to the first centuries.
Our R&R friends find this doctrine very uncomfortable, because it doesn't fit with their interpretation of the Ćrisis (which involves popes constantly implicitly and explicitly teaching heresy to the Church for decades), so they never mention it, and when someone does, they try to minimize it by equating it with Papal Infallibility, thus changing the interpretation of that Indefectibility of the Roman See to: the Pope can never teach heresy to the Church, unless he can (because he is not defining it).
In fact, it was precisely this infallible doctrine ("that this See of St. Peter always remains unblemished by any error") that showed me I could no longer be R&R.
My own 'eureka' moment on the above, came while I was reading Xilveira's "Can a Good Pope Go Bad" for the second or third time, when all of a sudden I realized that this concept, of the impossibility of a Pope falling into heresy, while acting in his official capacity, was like Alexander the Great's cutting through the "Gordian Knot", of the controversy between the opinions of different theologians on this question. It was because of the discussions between John Lane and S&S on this very subject that I had to keep going back and re-reading the booklet.
I appreciate the principle being defended here, because office in the Church has never been treated as something purely automatic or detached from the visible order Christ established.
I think a similar distinction applies lower down as well. A man may preserve external continuity, valid rites, or even orthodoxy, while still lacking the lawful transmission that makes his public ministry truly Catholic in the full sense.
That line seems more important today than many people realize.
I was wondering why these constant repetitions of the same question, but I can see from your Activity page that you are an advocate for the home-aloner position, and it seems that what you are saying, unless I misunderstood, is that there is no longer any mission in the Church, that there are no bishops (or priests) with jurisdiction, or anyone with any authority whatsoever.
If that were true, it would mean that the Catholic Church is at this moment in time no longer Apostolic (because it would lack Apostolicity of Mission, i.e. the Successors of the Apostles), which would mean that it has lost one of its essential notes and that its Divine Constitution has changed to a society with no one having any power to teach, rule and sanctify. In essence, that the Church has become as empty as the Synagogue, and that the New Testament priesthood has ceased just like the Mosaic priesthood. Not only is that impossible and heretical, but also it would make Our Lord Jesus Christ into a liar, because He promised to be with His Apostles, and their Successors (as St. Antoninus teaches in the text, following St. Augustine), to the consummation of the world.
But there are no new things under the sun, and to claim that no one in the Church possesses authority has been said before by Protestants and by some other sects preceding them. Yes, those are the predecessors to such a position.
Your articles show that you seem to have built a whole house of cards based on private interpretation and unhealthy notions, which can all be torn down by a single Canon of the Code of Canon Law, so here it is:
Canon 2261:
§ 2. The faithful, with due regard for the prescription of § 3, can for any just cause seek the Sacraments and Sacramentals from one excommunicated, especially if other ministers are lacking, and then the one who is excommunicate and approached can administer these and is under no obligation of inquiring the reasons from the one requesting.
§ 3. But from a banned excommunicate and from others excommunicated after a condemnatory or declaratory sentence has come, only the faithful in danger of death can ask for sacramental absolution according to the norm of Canons 882 and 2252 and even, if other ministers are lacking, other Sacraments and Sacramentals.
As you can see, the Church loves her children so much that, when we are in need and have no recourse to lawful ministers, she will allow even excommunicated priests and bishops, who are outside the Church, to provide the sacraments that her children need, and in danger of death (which theologians say applies also if the faithful are not expected to ever again have access to a lawful minister), she permits it, even for sacramentals, even of an excommunicate whom we are otherwise obliged to avoid.
So no, the Church is *not* a heartless bitch who sees her children in need and says: "Tough luck!"
If the church that you believe in says that, then I don't know what church that is, but what I know is that it certainly isn't my Holy Mother, the Catholic Church.
I believe it is treated as a hypothetical case, if a pope were to become a heretic or a heretic were elected pope.
The reality, however, was clearly defined when the Fathers of the First Vatican Council concluded that no Pope had ever been a heretic – not Liberius, Honorius I, John XII, John XXII, nor any other name that is brought up in association with the accusation of “papal heresy.” Nor had any pope failed to maintain Apostolic Tradition in doctrine, worship, sacramental rites, discipline or anything essential to the Catholic faith & practice. NEVER HAPPENED AND NEVER WILL. The Holy Spirit also prevents heretics from being elected pope (like the Freemason Rampolla in 1903), and a true pope can’t even teach, promote or approve anything injurious to faith or morals or perfect worship, and not just when teaching ex cathedra.. This is the Tradition of the Church.
“…this See of Saint Peter always remains unblemished by any error, according to the divine promise of our Lord & Savior to the prince of his disciples: ‘I have prayed for you that your faith may not fail….’” – Vatican I, Pastor Aeternus, 4.
I'm not sure, but I'm quite sure both John23 & Paul6 were heretics for many years before their invalid election, besides both being Freemasons & Paul a crypto-Jew (he even wore the ephod of the OT Jewish priest). Have you seen
"Paul VI: The Pope Who Changed the Church" by Fr Luigi Villa?
catholicendtimetruths.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/08/Chiesa-viva-441-S-en-OK-1.pdf (Title should really read "Antipope"; Communist double agent: p.18; Responsible for the murder of scores of bishops & priests: p.21; Freemason: p.30; his mother a false convert Jew: p.44; as Jewish High Priest: p.50; Homosexual: p.55; Satanist?: 53, 59, 82, 87; p.80: read "Impostor Sr Lucia of Fatima": sisterlucytruth.org)
I'm not sure about John XXIII being a public heretic. Can you identify one of his heresies?
Another problem (if Siri was *not* elected or did not accept) is that it seems John XXIII had the Universal and Peaceful Acceptance of the Church.
Paul VI also seems to have had it before the heresies at the Council, after which the acceptance was no longer peaceful, and in a few years, not universal either.
It is not at all inconceivable for a true Pope to become a public heretic, what is inconceivable is for a public heretic to remain Pope after that (because he is no longer a member of the Church and thus cannot be her Head), or, even more, to teach that heresy to the Church as Pope (because then the Roman See would fail in the faith). Remember, it is the See that is indefectible, not necessarily the person of the Pope (though many believed this as well, as a pious opinion).
"... wouldn’t UPA (per Billot) sanate the election (at least until the usurper fell through heresy)?"
Not if there was already a validly elected Pope who accepted the election but was threatened to withdraw his acceptance.
Canon 185 says:
"Resignation is invalid by law if it was made out of *grave fear unjustly inflicted*, [or from] fraud, substantial error, or simony."
In that case, that person would remain Pope and the person who was elected later, even if he were accepted by all, would be an antipope. It would be a case of "sedes impedita". It is what the Siri theory alleges.
Personally, I find the first part of the theory very convincing (that Siri was elected in 1958) because of the white smoke incident and because of the declassified FBI report confirming his election (though the report itself has not been published), but even if we hypothetically take this as certain, we have no way of knowing if he actually accepted (he would become Pope only if he accepted), or if any of the things alleged afterward happened. I find the part about Fr. Tran very suspect.
Without some truly conclusive evidence, Siri could *at most* be considered a doubtful pope, because his claim isn't proven.
It cannot be repeated often enough that all the classical theologians who discussed the question (as in the present case) only considered the possibility of a pope falling into personal heresy.
The inference is that a pope going further still, and attempting to bind the universal Church to heresy through magisterial acts (eg., encyclicals) was a scenario so radically opposed to the raison d’etre of the papacy as to require no comment.
This fact is continuously lost sight of in the R&R championing of Cajetan/JST (as though these latter would have accepted such a thing as possible).
For some inexplicable reason, the defenders of the fourth position take that fact - that it was about private heresy, not teaching - and the fact that those classical theologians envisaged there being cardinals and bishops who would act on it, and say that our different position means that Bellarmine'a fifth doesn't apply.
Some anti-sedevacantist apologists also try to get around the problem by making the Ordinary Magisterium of the Pope the same as the Pope teaching as a private doctor/theologian, so to them the only time that the Pope actually teaches the Church is when he is using his Extraordinary Magisterium to define or condemn something. That way they think they can get around the Indefectibility of the Roman See, but the irony is (I think it was Mr. Mario Derksen who first noticed it) that they are actually committing the very error that they falsely accuse us of - saying that every papal teaching is infallible.
The reason why Catholic theologians never entertained the possibility of a Pope teaching heresy not as a private person but as Pope (e.g. in encyclicals) is because it is opposed to the infallible teaching that the See of St. Peter cannot fail in the faith, otherwise known as the Indefectibility of the Roman See, taught explicitly not only by the First Vatican Council, but by a series of Popes and Doctors going back to the first centuries.
Our R&R friends find this doctrine very uncomfortable, because it doesn't fit with their interpretation of the Ćrisis (which involves popes constantly implicitly and explicitly teaching heresy to the Church for decades), so they never mention it, and when someone does, they try to minimize it by equating it with Papal Infallibility, thus changing the interpretation of that Indefectibility of the Roman See to: the Pope can never teach heresy to the Church, unless he can (because he is not defining it).
In fact, it was precisely this infallible doctrine ("that this See of St. Peter always remains unblemished by any error") that showed me I could no longer be R&R.
My own 'eureka' moment on the above, came while I was reading Xilveira's "Can a Good Pope Go Bad" for the second or third time, when all of a sudden I realized that this concept, of the impossibility of a Pope falling into heresy, while acting in his official capacity, was like Alexander the Great's cutting through the "Gordian Knot", of the controversy between the opinions of different theologians on this question. It was because of the discussions between John Lane and S&S on this very subject that I had to keep going back and re-reading the booklet.
I appreciate the principle being defended here, because office in the Church has never been treated as something purely automatic or detached from the visible order Christ established.
I think a similar distinction applies lower down as well. A man may preserve external continuity, valid rites, or even orthodoxy, while still lacking the lawful transmission that makes his public ministry truly Catholic in the full sense.
That line seems more important today than many people realize.
I was wondering why these constant repetitions of the same question, but I can see from your Activity page that you are an advocate for the home-aloner position, and it seems that what you are saying, unless I misunderstood, is that there is no longer any mission in the Church, that there are no bishops (or priests) with jurisdiction, or anyone with any authority whatsoever.
If that were true, it would mean that the Catholic Church is at this moment in time no longer Apostolic (because it would lack Apostolicity of Mission, i.e. the Successors of the Apostles), which would mean that it has lost one of its essential notes and that its Divine Constitution has changed to a society with no one having any power to teach, rule and sanctify. In essence, that the Church has become as empty as the Synagogue, and that the New Testament priesthood has ceased just like the Mosaic priesthood. Not only is that impossible and heretical, but also it would make Our Lord Jesus Christ into a liar, because He promised to be with His Apostles, and their Successors (as St. Antoninus teaches in the text, following St. Augustine), to the consummation of the world.
But there are no new things under the sun, and to claim that no one in the Church possesses authority has been said before by Protestants and by some other sects preceding them. Yes, those are the predecessors to such a position.
Your articles show that you seem to have built a whole house of cards based on private interpretation and unhealthy notions, which can all be torn down by a single Canon of the Code of Canon Law, so here it is:
Canon 2261:
§ 2. The faithful, with due regard for the prescription of § 3, can for any just cause seek the Sacraments and Sacramentals from one excommunicated, especially if other ministers are lacking, and then the one who is excommunicate and approached can administer these and is under no obligation of inquiring the reasons from the one requesting.
§ 3. But from a banned excommunicate and from others excommunicated after a condemnatory or declaratory sentence has come, only the faithful in danger of death can ask for sacramental absolution according to the norm of Canons 882 and 2252 and even, if other ministers are lacking, other Sacraments and Sacramentals.
As you can see, the Church loves her children so much that, when we are in need and have no recourse to lawful ministers, she will allow even excommunicated priests and bishops, who are outside the Church, to provide the sacraments that her children need, and in danger of death (which theologians say applies also if the faithful are not expected to ever again have access to a lawful minister), she permits it, even for sacramentals, even of an excommunicate whom we are otherwise obliged to avoid.
So no, the Church is *not* a heartless bitch who sees her children in need and says: "Tough luck!"
If the church that you believe in says that, then I don't know what church that is, but what I know is that it certainly isn't my Holy Mother, the Catholic Church.
I believe it is treated as a hypothetical case, if a pope were to become a heretic or a heretic were elected pope.
The reality, however, was clearly defined when the Fathers of the First Vatican Council concluded that no Pope had ever been a heretic – not Liberius, Honorius I, John XII, John XXII, nor any other name that is brought up in association with the accusation of “papal heresy.” Nor had any pope failed to maintain Apostolic Tradition in doctrine, worship, sacramental rites, discipline or anything essential to the Catholic faith & practice. NEVER HAPPENED AND NEVER WILL. The Holy Spirit also prevents heretics from being elected pope (like the Freemason Rampolla in 1903), and a true pope can’t even teach, promote or approve anything injurious to faith or morals or perfect worship, and not just when teaching ex cathedra.. This is the Tradition of the Church.
“…this See of Saint Peter always remains unblemished by any error, according to the divine promise of our Lord & Savior to the prince of his disciples: ‘I have prayed for you that your faith may not fail….’” – Vatican I, Pastor Aeternus, 4.
novusordowatch.org/2022/04/felix-cappello-heretical-pope-impossible;
novusordowatch.org/2015/04/heretical-popes-first-vatican-council
https://novusordowatch.org/2025/01/pope-pius12-on-perpetual-orthodoxy-of-papacy
All this gives greater credence to the reality that a validly elected pope was threatened into invalid abdication in 1958.
BTW, it's "Summa Theologica Moralis."
Great comment.
Regarding your penultimate sentence, wouldn’t UPA (per Billot) sanate the election (at least until the usurper fell through heresy)?
I'm not sure, but I'm quite sure both John23 & Paul6 were heretics for many years before their invalid election, besides both being Freemasons & Paul a crypto-Jew (he even wore the ephod of the OT Jewish priest). Have you seen
"Paul VI: The Pope Who Changed the Church" by Fr Luigi Villa?
catholicendtimetruths.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/08/Chiesa-viva-441-S-en-OK-1.pdf (Title should really read "Antipope"; Communist double agent: p.18; Responsible for the murder of scores of bishops & priests: p.21; Freemason: p.30; his mother a false convert Jew: p.44; as Jewish High Priest: p.50; Homosexual: p.55; Satanist?: 53, 59, 82, 87; p.80: read "Impostor Sr Lucia of Fatima": sisterlucytruth.org)
On John23: novusordowatch.org/john-xxiii
I'm not sure about John XXIII being a public heretic. Can you identify one of his heresies?
Another problem (if Siri was *not* elected or did not accept) is that it seems John XXIII had the Universal and Peaceful Acceptance of the Church.
Paul VI also seems to have had it before the heresies at the Council, after which the acceptance was no longer peaceful, and in a few years, not universal either.
It is not at all inconceivable for a true Pope to become a public heretic, what is inconceivable is for a public heretic to remain Pope after that (because he is no longer a member of the Church and thus cannot be her Head), or, even more, to teach that heresy to the Church as Pope (because then the Roman See would fail in the faith). Remember, it is the See that is indefectible, not necessarily the person of the Pope (though many believed this as well, as a pious opinion).
Sean:
"... wouldn’t UPA (per Billot) sanate the election (at least until the usurper fell through heresy)?"
Not if there was already a validly elected Pope who accepted the election but was threatened to withdraw his acceptance.
Canon 185 says:
"Resignation is invalid by law if it was made out of *grave fear unjustly inflicted*, [or from] fraud, substantial error, or simony."
In that case, that person would remain Pope and the person who was elected later, even if he were accepted by all, would be an antipope. It would be a case of "sedes impedita". It is what the Siri theory alleges.
Personally, I find the first part of the theory very convincing (that Siri was elected in 1958) because of the white smoke incident and because of the declassified FBI report confirming his election (though the report itself has not been published), but even if we hypothetically take this as certain, we have no way of knowing if he actually accepted (he would become Pope only if he accepted), or if any of the things alleged afterward happened. I find the part about Fr. Tran very suspect.
Without some truly conclusive evidence, Siri could *at most* be considered a doubtful pope, because his claim isn't proven.