Having dealt with the issue from different perspectives across several articles, this essay brings together everything we published on why heretics cannot excommunicate.
Nestorius bound people to believe error. As bad as those in Rome are today, none of them have done that. Nor have they anathematized the Truth as, again, Nestorius did.
That study group 9 thing was the closest I ever saw to doing that, but it's authority is at the least very uncertain.
Sure they have. Not just the false Council, but the subsequent "Magisterial" teachings of the Conciliar "popes" are all "binding". This has been authoritatively pronounced by those same (fake) authorities, and this is why they have repeatedly and explicitly demanded of the SSPX to recognize those teachings in order to be accepted as Catholic (in 1976, 1988, 2009, 2011, 2012, 2014, 2016, 2017, 2018 and 2026).
The Church has never taught that Catholics only need to adhere to infallible teaching.
When the Church wishes to bind Catholics to believe something she uses very specific language, so that there is no doubt about what she is doing. She also anathematizes the opposing opinion. I suggest that you read the documents of Vatican I and of Trent. One sees none of that language in either the Vatican II documents or any papal document of recent times. What specific doctrines has the SSPX been required to recognize?
There you go talking about infallible doctrines again, as if the only thing that Catholics are bound to believe is dogma. Catholics are obliged to submit to and accept also the teachings of the Ordinary Magisterium, such as papal encyclicals, not to mention the teachings of ecumenical councils. This is why the occupied Vatican has insisted for all these years that the SSPX fully accept those teachings and that they make a profession of faith in which they would recognize precisely this duty to accept not just dogma but also the teachings of the Ordinary Magisterium.
Why would a rational God require human beings to accept without reservation or investigation a proposition that comes from a potentially non infallible source?
It is incredible that a Catholic should ask such a question (this is an effect of the R&R theology of the SSPX - once one begins to change the definition of submission to fit one's resistance to the Conciliar "popes", one is bound to also question and re-define what is submission to true, Catholic, popes). In effect, you are asking why we should obey the Authority of the Church. Here is the short answer by Pope Pius XII in Humani Generis:
"For these matters are taught with the ordinary teaching authority, of which it is true to say: 'He who heareth you, heareth me' [Lk 10:16]."
Or a longer answer by Canon Smith:
"'Going therefore teach ye all nations…teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you' [Mt 28:19-20]. Herein lies the source of the obligation to believe what the Church teaches. The Church possesses the divine commission to teach, and hence there arises in the faithful a moral obligation to believe, which is founded ultimately, not upon the infallibility of the Church, but upon God’s sovereign right to the submission and intellectual allegiance of His creatures..."
To learn more, I would suggest that you start with the pre-Conciliar theologians and Magisterial teachings found in these articles:
I have an honest question, though. The SSPX recognizes that many prelates, including Francis and Leo, have taught heretical things. However, the SSPX still recognizes them as pope due to the fact that an authority has to declare them heretics for it to be legitimate— this is the view of the SSPX. The SSPX denies the validity of the excommunications on different grounds citing the state of necessity in Canon Law. What are your thoughts on this? I think the main concern is this: what authority does anyone have to declare Cardinal or Pope a heretic? Wouldn’t a future Pope be the only one with authority to declare a pope a heretic? This is a formal declaration, not just a recognition of heresy in and of itself.
Someone isn’t made a hereric by a declaration of authority. This just makes recognition of the fact of their heresy binding on everyone. But they may well be a heretic before, even a public one; and they may well have already lost office. This will turn on the facts. The recognition that this is the case is a congitive judgment, rather than an authoritative one. It binds the person who makes it, and calls for a line of action on the personal level, but they cannot bind anyone else to their private conclusion. It is not true that one cannot recognise a heretic, or that effects of heresy do not take place, prior to a judgement.
The non-papacy of these men is upstream of heresy questions. The reason we say they can’t be popes is because things they have done; heresy is simply one explanation as to why they are not popes.
The canonical arguments seem to be weak, or at least equivocal, whereas the argument advanced here, which does not necessarily require a conclusion of sede vacante, is strong and straightforward.
I think that there are actually a lot of priests in the SSPX who recognized at least Bergoglio to be a true heretic, but they still considered him to be the Pope. They justify that by invoking Cajetan's original opinion that a heretical pope would need to be deposed by the Church. This is impossible, since only a superior can depose, and the Church is never the Pope's superior. This means that he had to have lost the pontificate before the Church judges him, and the only time that this could happen is after his heresy became public and pertinacious. This is why ten years after his original opinion Cajetan abandoned it and wrote that "as soon as he ceases to be faithful, he also ceases to be Peter's successor" (De divina institutione pontificatus Romani pontificis, Ch. XIII).
Also, not even a pope has the power to take away the pontificate of another pope, because he is his equal, and not his superior. This means that the only way that the next Pope could ever issue a declaration proclaiming these men false popes (or anti-popes, invalid, usurpers etc.) is if they are already that and, as Mr. Wright wrote, he would not be using his authority to come to that conclusion (the reason is in the first sentence of this paragraph), he would be using his authority only to bind everyone to hold this conclusion, probably even under threat of censure, to ensure unity.
However, even today one is bound by charity (to the truth and to the Faith) to hold that these men cannot and could not have been popes because it is the only possible interpretation in line with Catholic doctrine - otherwise the heretical teachings of Vatican II and of the post-Conciliar "Magisterium" would have to be attributed to the Church, which is impossible because of her indefectibility in faith and morals. For the same reason, it is impossible for the Catholic Church to permit sacrilege (e.g. giving communion to adulterers, blessing those in unnatural sin), to tolerate and promote a liturgy which is deficient in the worship due to God or harmful to souls, to promulgate a universal Catechism which contains heresy, a universal Code of Canon Law which permits sacrilege and favors the heresy of indifferentism etc.
1) The SSPX can say whatever it wants, but the plain fact is that there is no Church teaching which says authority must declare a pope a heretic before we can consider the Holy See vacant;
2) We do have the theological opinions of Cajetan (at one point) and John of St. Thomas saying this, but as with all the “five opinions,” it is only in the context as to whether a pope could become a personal heretic (public or occult), and if so what would follow therefrom;
3) Absolutely zero classical theologians maintain a true pope could teach heresy in his official magisterium, thereby binding the faithful to error;
4) In missing that distinction, the SSPX holds the dubious distinction of having become the first one to make such an outrageous argument;
5) EDITED: Even the Billuart quote seems only to be addressing a pope becoming a personal heretic, rather than promulgating heretical teaching in his official magisterium. This seems to follow from the claim that Billuart’s position was the “more common opinion” of his time, whereas the opinion of a true pope promulgating heresy in his official magisterium was unheard of.
6) The simple fact is that the theologians thought that a pope teaching heresy in his official magisterium was an impossibility too obvious and self-evident to discuss.
7) As a matter of dicta, consider the ruinous implications for the Catholic religion if it were possible for a legitimate pope to teach heresy in his official magisterium.
Audivimus is the fourth canon in Quest. I, which starts with the following statement:
“That someone cannot be deposed or excommunicated by a heretic is easily proved.”
So let's assume that the statement above is valid and licit. If so, why is anyone even arguing about the popes starting with John XXIII or Paul VI through Prevost being heretics or not? Surely their decrees, words, and actions, especially appointments of heretics like Smoocho, prove they are not Catholic, and therefore, they CANNOT be popes. I don't get it.
Another writer posted Bellarmine's words saying he stated a Pope cannot teach heresy, then in another document stated that if a Pope taught heresy, he would not be Catholic and therefore not Pope. Which is it? Either a Pope cannot teach heresy or he can't! It can't be both ways, can it?
To this lay Catholic, this all seems like uncertainty at the very least, or self contradiction at the worst. I thought the Church was supposed to teach clearly, without ambiguity.
The Pope cannot teach the Church heresy as Pope, because of the Indefectibility of the See of St. Peter, a constant teaching of the Church since the first centuries:
Pope Saint Lucius I, Epist. I ad Episcopos Hispaniae et Galliae:
"The Roman Apostolic Church is the mother of all Churches and has never been shown to have wandered from the path of Apostolic tradition, nor being deformed, succumbed to heretical novelties according to the promise of the Lord himself, saying, 'I have prayed for thee, etc.'"
Pope Innocent III, Apostolicae Sedis Primatus:
"The Lord confesses at the time of the Passion that he prayed for him: 'I have prayed for you, Peter, that your faith may not fail: and when you have turned again, strengthen your brethren,' by this manifestly indicating that his successors would never at any time deviate from the Catholic faith, but rather, they would recall others and also strengthen the hesitant..."
First Vatican Council, Pastor Aeternus:
"So the fathers of the fourth Council of Constantinople, following the footsteps of their predecessors, published this solemn profession of faith: '... For in the Apostolic See the Catholic religion has always been preserved unblemished, and sacred doctrine been held in honor. Since it is our earnest desire to be in no way separated from this faith and doctrine, we hope that we may deserve to remain in that one communion which the Apostolic See preaches, for in it is the whole and true strength of the christian religion.'
... Indeed, their apostolic teaching was embraced by all the venerable fathers and reverenced and followed by all the holy orthodox doctors, for they knew very well that this See of St. Peter always remains unblemished by any error, in accordance with the divine promise of our Lord and Savior to the prince of his disciples: 'I have prayed for you that your faith may not fail; and when you have turned again, strengthen your brethren'."
Now, we know that the men who become popes do not suddenly become perfect and incapable of sin, so, if it should happen that one of them were to publicly and pertinaciously contradict the Faith, he would immediately cease being a member of the Church and consequently also cease to be her Head (this is what I believe happened with Paul VI). Thus his treachery would not be attributable to the Apostolic See, which would remain "unblemished by any error". Any other scenario, where he continues to be the Pope and still publicly teaches the Church heresy, is incompatible with that unblemished purity because then those corrupt doctrines become the doctrines of the See of St. Peter, and consequently of the Church, which is also incompatible with the Indefectibility of the Church, her "perfect and perpetual immunity from error and heresy" (Quas Primas).
Your comment notwithstanding, the fact is that the popes of V-II have committed heresy, idolatry, and promoted modernism. So, since your sources prove they are no longer Catholic, then we do not have a pope in the Chair of Peter. That does not mean the office of the Chair has failed, nor does it mean Jesus' words have failed or were false. But it has to mean that the individual sitting in the Chair of Peter CANNOT be a pope.
Again, in the link itself it calls these things 'non-infallible teaching'. If it is not infallible then it might very well be... fallible. So why in the world would I give blind assent to that?
Besides, Pius XII tried to ditch Saint Jerome's ancient psalter and replace it with the paganized Latin translation of a medieval Hebrew manuscript put together by a bunch of rabbis. No way I'm giving my assent to that.
I suppose this is a reply to my comment above (starting with "It is incredible").
Which psalter one uses is not a teaching. The only thing that the Magisterium teaches in that case is that the new psalter does not contain anything contrary to faith and morals. BTW, I also prefer the old psalter.
"If it is not infallible then it might very well be... fallible. So why in the world would I give blind assent to that?"
Your attitude is quite foreign to a Catholic, because you make yourself into the ultimate judge of what is correct and what is not, and refuse to be led by the Authority of the Church except in very rare cases. But if you think I'm being too harsh, don't take my word for it, here is Pope Pius XI:
"Wherefore, let the faithful also be on their guard against the overrated independence of private judgment and that false autonomy of human reason. For **it is quite foreign to everyone bearing the name of a Christian** to trust his own mental powers with such pride as to agree only with those things which he can examine from their inner nature, and to imagine that the Church, sent by God to teach and guide all nations, is not conversant with present affairs and circumstances;
or even that they must obey **only** in those matters which she has decreed by solemn **definition** as though her other decisions might be presumed to be false or putting forward insufficient motive for truth and honesty. Quite to the contrary, a characteristic of all true followers of Christ, lettered or unlettered, is to suffer themselves to be **guided and led in all things** that touch upon faith or morals by the Holy Church of God through its Supreme Pastor the Roman Pontiff, who is himself guided by Jesus Christ Our Lord."
(Casti Connubii, n. 104)
When the choice is between ditching or "redefining" the Catholic doctrines on the Papacy and the Magisterium vs. ditching the false popes, there is really no choice.
Yes sir. And I stand by every word I've said about both of those men. Since you brought it up, and so I have an opportunity to present my own case, here is a link to my article questioning the merits of 'Saint' Pius X's canonization: https://divineoffice.substack.com/p/saint-pius-x . Enjoy.
However, unlike Kwasniewski, I have never once endorsed any practitioner of hermetic magic, so please refrain from lumping me in with him.
You think you are defending yourself, but what you have actually done is to completely discredit yourself with any faithful Catholic, not just for attacking the sanctity of a great Pope and patron of our struggle against the same enemy he fought, and still continues to fight with his intercession - Modernism, as well as the spiritual heirs to the Modernist heretics that he condemned and acted to protect the Church from, but you have also dared to question and refuse the infallible canonization of a saint whom Pope Pius XII with his supreme apostolic authority, "with the authority of Our Lord Jesus Christ" and the authority "of the Blessed Apostles Peter and Paul" (as it says in the Bull of Canonization) obliges all Catholics to venerate.
Though many sedeplenists question the "canonizations" simulated by the Conciliar false popes, they would not have the audacity to question or to refuse to obey a canonization "decreed and defined" by a true Catholic pope.
You have attacked also Pope Saint Pius X's constitution "Divino Afflatu", defying this warning at the end of the document:
"Wherefore, let nobody infringe or temerariously oppose this page of our abolition, revocation, permission, ordinance, precept, statue, indult, mandate and will. But if anybody shall presume to attempt this let him know that he will incur the indignation of almighty God and of his apostles the blessed Peter and Paul."
You have demonstrated precisely where the path of denying subjection of mind and will to the Magisterium leads. I urge you in Christ to turn back and repent of this evil.
The ‘mirage’ has become a group-mind - a lie that takes on a life of its own - that is obsessing the R&R, confusing the faithful and delighting the non-Catholics of ill-will.
Nestorius bound people to believe error. As bad as those in Rome are today, none of them have done that. Nor have they anathematized the Truth as, again, Nestorius did.
That study group 9 thing was the closest I ever saw to doing that, but it's authority is at the least very uncertain.
Sure they have. Not just the false Council, but the subsequent "Magisterial" teachings of the Conciliar "popes" are all "binding". This has been authoritatively pronounced by those same (fake) authorities, and this is why they have repeatedly and explicitly demanded of the SSPX to recognize those teachings in order to be accepted as Catholic (in 1976, 1988, 2009, 2011, 2012, 2014, 2016, 2017, 2018 and 2026).
The Church has never taught that Catholics only need to adhere to infallible teaching.
When the Church wishes to bind Catholics to believe something she uses very specific language, so that there is no doubt about what she is doing. She also anathematizes the opposing opinion. I suggest that you read the documents of Vatican I and of Trent. One sees none of that language in either the Vatican II documents or any papal document of recent times. What specific doctrines has the SSPX been required to recognize?
There you go talking about infallible doctrines again, as if the only thing that Catholics are bound to believe is dogma. Catholics are obliged to submit to and accept also the teachings of the Ordinary Magisterium, such as papal encyclicals, not to mention the teachings of ecumenical councils. This is why the occupied Vatican has insisted for all these years that the SSPX fully accept those teachings and that they make a profession of faith in which they would recognize precisely this duty to accept not just dogma but also the teachings of the Ordinary Magisterium.
Why would a rational God require human beings to accept without reservation or investigation a proposition that comes from a potentially non infallible source?
It is incredible that a Catholic should ask such a question (this is an effect of the R&R theology of the SSPX - once one begins to change the definition of submission to fit one's resistance to the Conciliar "popes", one is bound to also question and re-define what is submission to true, Catholic, popes). In effect, you are asking why we should obey the Authority of the Church. Here is the short answer by Pope Pius XII in Humani Generis:
"For these matters are taught with the ordinary teaching authority, of which it is true to say: 'He who heareth you, heareth me' [Lk 10:16]."
Or a longer answer by Canon Smith:
"'Going therefore teach ye all nations…teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you' [Mt 28:19-20]. Herein lies the source of the obligation to believe what the Church teaches. The Church possesses the divine commission to teach, and hence there arises in the faithful a moral obligation to believe, which is founded ultimately, not upon the infallibility of the Church, but upon God’s sovereign right to the submission and intellectual allegiance of His creatures..."
To learn more, I would suggest that you start with the pre-Conciliar theologians and Magisterial teachings found in these articles:
https://novusordowatch.org/2025/01/binding-force-of-papal-teaching-john-cronin/
https://novusordowatch.org/2019/03/catholics-assent-non-infallible-teaching/
https://novusordowatch.org/2020/01/what-are-catholics-bound-to-believe/
https://novusordowatch.org/2019/07/doctrinal-value-papal-magisterium/
Ladies and gentlemen I give you the Enlightenment in a sentence.
Montini the Monster (stage name Paul VI) used the language of binding to 'in the darkness bind' all who didn't know their Catholic faith to V2.
https://novusordowatch.org/2021/08/paul6-vatican2-is-binding/
I have an honest question, though. The SSPX recognizes that many prelates, including Francis and Leo, have taught heretical things. However, the SSPX still recognizes them as pope due to the fact that an authority has to declare them heretics for it to be legitimate— this is the view of the SSPX. The SSPX denies the validity of the excommunications on different grounds citing the state of necessity in Canon Law. What are your thoughts on this? I think the main concern is this: what authority does anyone have to declare Cardinal or Pope a heretic? Wouldn’t a future Pope be the only one with authority to declare a pope a heretic? This is a formal declaration, not just a recognition of heresy in and of itself.
There are a few different points you raise there.
Someone isn’t made a hereric by a declaration of authority. This just makes recognition of the fact of their heresy binding on everyone. But they may well be a heretic before, even a public one; and they may well have already lost office. This will turn on the facts. The recognition that this is the case is a congitive judgment, rather than an authoritative one. It binds the person who makes it, and calls for a line of action on the personal level, but they cannot bind anyone else to their private conclusion. It is not true that one cannot recognise a heretic, or that effects of heresy do not take place, prior to a judgement.
The non-papacy of these men is upstream of heresy questions. The reason we say they can’t be popes is because things they have done; heresy is simply one explanation as to why they are not popes.
The canonical arguments seem to be weak, or at least equivocal, whereas the argument advanced here, which does not necessarily require a conclusion of sede vacante, is strong and straightforward.
I think that there are actually a lot of priests in the SSPX who recognized at least Bergoglio to be a true heretic, but they still considered him to be the Pope. They justify that by invoking Cajetan's original opinion that a heretical pope would need to be deposed by the Church. This is impossible, since only a superior can depose, and the Church is never the Pope's superior. This means that he had to have lost the pontificate before the Church judges him, and the only time that this could happen is after his heresy became public and pertinacious. This is why ten years after his original opinion Cajetan abandoned it and wrote that "as soon as he ceases to be faithful, he also ceases to be Peter's successor" (De divina institutione pontificatus Romani pontificis, Ch. XIII).
Also, not even a pope has the power to take away the pontificate of another pope, because he is his equal, and not his superior. This means that the only way that the next Pope could ever issue a declaration proclaiming these men false popes (or anti-popes, invalid, usurpers etc.) is if they are already that and, as Mr. Wright wrote, he would not be using his authority to come to that conclusion (the reason is in the first sentence of this paragraph), he would be using his authority only to bind everyone to hold this conclusion, probably even under threat of censure, to ensure unity.
However, even today one is bound by charity (to the truth and to the Faith) to hold that these men cannot and could not have been popes because it is the only possible interpretation in line with Catholic doctrine - otherwise the heretical teachings of Vatican II and of the post-Conciliar "Magisterium" would have to be attributed to the Church, which is impossible because of her indefectibility in faith and morals. For the same reason, it is impossible for the Catholic Church to permit sacrilege (e.g. giving communion to adulterers, blessing those in unnatural sin), to tolerate and promote a liturgy which is deficient in the worship due to God or harmful to souls, to promulgate a universal Catechism which contains heresy, a universal Code of Canon Law which permits sacrilege and favors the heresy of indifferentism etc.
I’ll have a go at this one as well:
1) The SSPX can say whatever it wants, but the plain fact is that there is no Church teaching which says authority must declare a pope a heretic before we can consider the Holy See vacant;
2) We do have the theological opinions of Cajetan (at one point) and John of St. Thomas saying this, but as with all the “five opinions,” it is only in the context as to whether a pope could become a personal heretic (public or occult), and if so what would follow therefrom;
3) Absolutely zero classical theologians maintain a true pope could teach heresy in his official magisterium, thereby binding the faithful to error;
4) In missing that distinction, the SSPX holds the dubious distinction of having become the first one to make such an outrageous argument;
5) EDITED: Even the Billuart quote seems only to be addressing a pope becoming a personal heretic, rather than promulgating heretical teaching in his official magisterium. This seems to follow from the claim that Billuart’s position was the “more common opinion” of his time, whereas the opinion of a true pope promulgating heresy in his official magisterium was unheard of.
6) The simple fact is that the theologians thought that a pope teaching heresy in his official magisterium was an impossibility too obvious and self-evident to discuss.
7) As a matter of dicta, consider the ruinous implications for the Catholic religion if it were possible for a legitimate pope to teach heresy in his official magisterium.
The 'outrageous argument' of the SSPX policy makers is one founded on desperation and sustained by denarii and delusion.
Start from Vatican 2; you'll get the most mileage from that approach.
Everything flows from the Catholicity, or not, of that council.
Audivimus is the fourth canon in Quest. I, which starts with the following statement:
“That someone cannot be deposed or excommunicated by a heretic is easily proved.”
So let's assume that the statement above is valid and licit. If so, why is anyone even arguing about the popes starting with John XXIII or Paul VI through Prevost being heretics or not? Surely their decrees, words, and actions, especially appointments of heretics like Smoocho, prove they are not Catholic, and therefore, they CANNOT be popes. I don't get it.
Another writer posted Bellarmine's words saying he stated a Pope cannot teach heresy, then in another document stated that if a Pope taught heresy, he would not be Catholic and therefore not Pope. Which is it? Either a Pope cannot teach heresy or he can't! It can't be both ways, can it?
To this lay Catholic, this all seems like uncertainty at the very least, or self contradiction at the worst. I thought the Church was supposed to teach clearly, without ambiguity.
The Pope cannot teach the Church heresy as Pope, because of the Indefectibility of the See of St. Peter, a constant teaching of the Church since the first centuries:
Pope Saint Lucius I, Epist. I ad Episcopos Hispaniae et Galliae:
"The Roman Apostolic Church is the mother of all Churches and has never been shown to have wandered from the path of Apostolic tradition, nor being deformed, succumbed to heretical novelties according to the promise of the Lord himself, saying, 'I have prayed for thee, etc.'"
Pope Innocent III, Apostolicae Sedis Primatus:
"The Lord confesses at the time of the Passion that he prayed for him: 'I have prayed for you, Peter, that your faith may not fail: and when you have turned again, strengthen your brethren,' by this manifestly indicating that his successors would never at any time deviate from the Catholic faith, but rather, they would recall others and also strengthen the hesitant..."
First Vatican Council, Pastor Aeternus:
"So the fathers of the fourth Council of Constantinople, following the footsteps of their predecessors, published this solemn profession of faith: '... For in the Apostolic See the Catholic religion has always been preserved unblemished, and sacred doctrine been held in honor. Since it is our earnest desire to be in no way separated from this faith and doctrine, we hope that we may deserve to remain in that one communion which the Apostolic See preaches, for in it is the whole and true strength of the christian religion.'
... Indeed, their apostolic teaching was embraced by all the venerable fathers and reverenced and followed by all the holy orthodox doctors, for they knew very well that this See of St. Peter always remains unblemished by any error, in accordance with the divine promise of our Lord and Savior to the prince of his disciples: 'I have prayed for you that your faith may not fail; and when you have turned again, strengthen your brethren'."
Now, we know that the men who become popes do not suddenly become perfect and incapable of sin, so, if it should happen that one of them were to publicly and pertinaciously contradict the Faith, he would immediately cease being a member of the Church and consequently also cease to be her Head (this is what I believe happened with Paul VI). Thus his treachery would not be attributable to the Apostolic See, which would remain "unblemished by any error". Any other scenario, where he continues to be the Pope and still publicly teaches the Church heresy, is incompatible with that unblemished purity because then those corrupt doctrines become the doctrines of the See of St. Peter, and consequently of the Church, which is also incompatible with the Indefectibility of the Church, her "perfect and perpetual immunity from error and heresy" (Quas Primas).
Your comment notwithstanding, the fact is that the popes of V-II have committed heresy, idolatry, and promoted modernism. So, since your sources prove they are no longer Catholic, then we do not have a pope in the Chair of Peter. That does not mean the office of the Chair has failed, nor does it mean Jesus' words have failed or were false. But it has to mean that the individual sitting in the Chair of Peter CANNOT be a pope.
Heretics cannot hold office, either. This comes first.
And, yet, they still do, ostensibly.
Communists can vote in presidential elections. They can hold office, too.
A communist dictator has no promise from the King of Kings that he 'not fail' in his charism to 'feed My lambs, feed My sheep...'
Indeed not. But beyond the feeding of sheeps and lambs are the mending of fences and the sowing of oats and ivy.
A field that has been sold to a pig famer no longer has anything to do with the Good Shepherd.
Again, in the link itself it calls these things 'non-infallible teaching'. If it is not infallible then it might very well be... fallible. So why in the world would I give blind assent to that?
Besides, Pius XII tried to ditch Saint Jerome's ancient psalter and replace it with the paganized Latin translation of a medieval Hebrew manuscript put together by a bunch of rabbis. No way I'm giving my assent to that.
I suppose this is a reply to my comment above (starting with "It is incredible").
Which psalter one uses is not a teaching. The only thing that the Magisterium teaches in that case is that the new psalter does not contain anything contrary to faith and morals. BTW, I also prefer the old psalter.
"If it is not infallible then it might very well be... fallible. So why in the world would I give blind assent to that?"
Your attitude is quite foreign to a Catholic, because you make yourself into the ultimate judge of what is correct and what is not, and refuse to be led by the Authority of the Church except in very rare cases. But if you think I'm being too harsh, don't take my word for it, here is Pope Pius XI:
"Wherefore, let the faithful also be on their guard against the overrated independence of private judgment and that false autonomy of human reason. For **it is quite foreign to everyone bearing the name of a Christian** to trust his own mental powers with such pride as to agree only with those things which he can examine from their inner nature, and to imagine that the Church, sent by God to teach and guide all nations, is not conversant with present affairs and circumstances;
or even that they must obey **only** in those matters which she has decreed by solemn **definition** as though her other decisions might be presumed to be false or putting forward insufficient motive for truth and honesty. Quite to the contrary, a characteristic of all true followers of Christ, lettered or unlettered, is to suffer themselves to be **guided and led in all things** that touch upon faith or morals by the Holy Church of God through its Supreme Pastor the Roman Pontiff, who is himself guided by Jesus Christ Our Lord."
(Casti Connubii, n. 104)
When the choice is between ditching or "redefining" the Catholic doctrines on the Papacy and the Magisterium vs. ditching the false popes, there is really no choice.
Mr. Eric has devoted a lot of electronic ink to condemning Pope St. Pius X and Pope Pius XII for "liturgical abuse."
Thorough Dr. K-ite.
Yes sir. And I stand by every word I've said about both of those men. Since you brought it up, and so I have an opportunity to present my own case, here is a link to my article questioning the merits of 'Saint' Pius X's canonization: https://divineoffice.substack.com/p/saint-pius-x . Enjoy.
However, unlike Kwasniewski, I have never once endorsed any practitioner of hermetic magic, so please refrain from lumping me in with him.
This is blockworthy.
Just defending myself against a charge. Those who wish can judge for themselves.
You think you are defending yourself, but what you have actually done is to completely discredit yourself with any faithful Catholic, not just for attacking the sanctity of a great Pope and patron of our struggle against the same enemy he fought, and still continues to fight with his intercession - Modernism, as well as the spiritual heirs to the Modernist heretics that he condemned and acted to protect the Church from, but you have also dared to question and refuse the infallible canonization of a saint whom Pope Pius XII with his supreme apostolic authority, "with the authority of Our Lord Jesus Christ" and the authority "of the Blessed Apostles Peter and Paul" (as it says in the Bull of Canonization) obliges all Catholics to venerate.
Though many sedeplenists question the "canonizations" simulated by the Conciliar false popes, they would not have the audacity to question or to refuse to obey a canonization "decreed and defined" by a true Catholic pope.
You have attacked also Pope Saint Pius X's constitution "Divino Afflatu", defying this warning at the end of the document:
"Wherefore, let nobody infringe or temerariously oppose this page of our abolition, revocation, permission, ordinance, precept, statue, indult, mandate and will. But if anybody shall presume to attempt this let him know that he will incur the indignation of almighty God and of his apostles the blessed Peter and Paul."
You have demonstrated precisely where the path of denying subjection of mind and will to the Magisterium leads. I urge you in Christ to turn back and repent of this evil.
Sancte Pie X, ora pro nobis!
The ‘mirage’ has become a group-mind - a lie that takes on a life of its own - that is obsessing the R&R, confusing the faithful and delighting the non-Catholics of ill-will.