The conciliar/Novus Ordo/Synodal church hasn't had any valid nor faithful bishops, cardinals or more importantly, popes, so who among them could end the heresies, blasphemes, sacrileges and mockery of Christ which they all do?
We can prove the public heresy of the Conciliar claimants to the Papacy, but we cannot prove that every single bishop in the world (NO and Eastern Catholic) is a public heretic and thus not a Catholic bishop. Even regarding Orders: those in the NO are doubtfully ordained and consecrated but the Eastern Catholic Churches maintain the traditional rites, so they have certainly valid bishops and priests.
There are many heretical bishops in the NO, but there are also those who do not publicly profess heresy and stay silent against the Modernists out of fear that they will be deposed and persecuted (as were Abp. Viganò and Bp. Strickland, two rare examples of NO bishops who had the courage to speak out, and were dealt with severely by the usurpers as a message to the others). As Bp. Michael Mary said, they are not all wicked. It is an error to believe that.
Cowardice in opposing the enemy is reprehensible but does not lead to loss of office.
Our Lady of Good Success foresaw this, which is why She said: "In this supreme moment of need of the Church, those who should speak will fall silent."
Mr. Lane gave several examples where the Catholic episcopate did not act, out of cowardice, human respect and similar reasons. Another example is the scattering of the Apostles after Our Lord was captured, condemned and crucified.
Although I am not a theologian, to the best of my knowledge Vatican II does contain not merely error, but heresy as well.
A recognition of Vatican II as an ecumenical council, or even quoting some of its conservative statements and trying to accept it in the light of Tradition and to reconcile its errors with previous teaching doesn't make a person a heretic (in grave error yes, but not a heretic). To be a heretic one must be aware that he is departing from the rule of the Church's Magisterium and following another opinion.
We know that during the Arian Crisis most sees in the East were vacant because those bishops defected into heresy, but in the West it was different (today, it's the other way around). The Western bishops weren't brave, though. Almost all of them were silent for fear of being exiled by the Emperor, many compromised with the Arians but without openly professing heresy, and what happened when the Crisis was ended? All of those who compromised with the Arians, but didn't openly profess heresy, were permitted to stay in their Sees. The Church had compassion for their weakness. There was, however, a bishop who opposed this, and he manifested the same spirit as you do in your comment - they are all false, they are all guilty. His name was Lucifer of Cagliari and he started a schism, turning against his friend St. Athanasius, Pope Liberius and all the other bishops who supported that act of compassion.
You talk about presumed training and guilt, but I know what they teach in the NO seminaries - Modernist brainwashing presented as Catholic truth, with little information about Catholic doctrine. It was much different in the past, when they were actually taught Catholic doctrine so they would know what they are rejecting. You mention the East, but have you actually ever talked to an Eastern Catholic priest about the Faith, listened to their sermons, been to their liturgy etc.? I have, and there is a huge difference between them and the NO.
I agree. People toss the Eastern rites out too easily due to them being close to the synodal church. Although, sometimes I am skeptical of Vigano. I have seen many people (friends of mine also) try to say he was a false convert. They said things like “Why should we trust him when he aided these monsters for years?”
Although I understand their sentiment.
It’s led me to become very disillusioned with anything trad related. I approach most trads with heavy skepticism such as SGG to RCI to CMRI.
Since the Novus Ordo church is a counterfeit, anyone who is a member of that church is a heretic so it doesn't matter if they publicly profess heresy as just belonging to that church places them outside of the true Catholic Church. It doesn't matter if one is afraid to speak out if they don't agree with the heretical teachings of this church as they are still members of it.
I said nothing about the Eastern Catholic Churches but all of them, in my understanding, are in communion with the heretical popes which makes them outside of the true Catholic Church as well.
It is a simplistic argument, which is both unproven and false. As such, "the NO Church" doesn't exist as a separate body with such a name. It identifies officially as the Catholic Church and its leaders occupy Catholic institutions and dioceses (this is precisely why it is so pernicious). Many among the laity, as well as some of the bishops, have done nothing to separate from the Catholic Church. They live and die as Catholics without having consciously departed from the rule of the Magisterium (which is what makes a heretic). It is not analogous to someone who is a member or official of the Lutheran or Anglican sect and who is well aware that he is not a member of the Catholic Church.
If a Catholic is in communion with a false pope during a time of great confusion, thinking that he was a true pope based on weighty reasons, this does not take that Catholic out of the Church. The Western Schism is the perfect example, with canonized saints from both obediences.
Those faithful Catholics who profess communion with Prevost do so because they believe him to be Pope, and not because he is a heretic, nor are they in communion with his heresies. If you believe that they are all out of the Church, then you must conclude that only sedevacantists are inside the Church.
Those are grave errors (and objective sins) against both justice and charity - to consider someone non-Catholic even though he does not consciously withdraw from the rule of the Magisterium, nor does he separate from communion with other Catholics. It is such sectarian sedevacantism which keeps many people away from recognizing the fact of the vacancy.
Elaine, my apologies. My original reply to you came off rather aggressive in my questioning about what you believed on certain trad issues. I have since deleted it. I would attribute it to tumultuous life changes I am going through right now… this has caused me to be a bit “temperamental” in my moods.
We will just agree to disagree for now. May God Bless you and his Mother keep you.
Strickland and Viganò as well as all those who continue to celebrate, publicly, the N.O are more than cowards. They are, indeed, manifest, public and notorious heretics. If that is wrong please correct.
Illogical to say he hasn’t. He has been a part of the Norvos Ordo establishment. He served as Apostolic Nuncio to the United States from October 19, 2011, until April 12, 2016. One of his jobs was to go make sure that the orders who offered the real Mass toed the line by celebrating the N.O at least twice a year. I witnessed this at Our Lady of Clear Creek Abby in Oklahoma. It’s one of the reasons I didn’t go there again. One of the monks walked out in the middle. Sadly, they continue to offer their pinch of incense to the abomination that is the N.O. In my opinion vigano is simply taking the place of Ratzinger. He’s there to keep those attached to the bells and smells hoping.
What do you think our understanding of the Eastern Churches and Bishops should be? I understand they have valid orders and may be subjectively doing what they believe is correct, and yet it seems difficult to say that attending an Eastern Rite Liturgy would be perfectly fine under normal circumstances given their being in communion with someone who is objectively a false pope. Would we have to investigate each bishop individually to determine the degree to which he adheres to the errors of Vatican 2? Thank you for your help.
I *would* say that attending their liturgy is perfectly fine, if the priest is Catholic, i.e., if he doesn't explicitly profess heresy, just as I consider that attending the SSPX or Resistance Masses is perfectly fine, and they also are in communion (or at least they say they are) with someone who is objectively a false pope, just as I would say that going to the Mass said by St. Vincent Ferrer was more than fine, even though he prayed for a probable antipope in the Canon. It is just the confusion of the Crisis.
I don't think you are obliged to investigate their bishops at all, unless you intend to attend a specific bishop's liturgy. I would advise caution against errors, however, because it is probable that their clergy will profess a higher amount of errors than trad clergy. But that is a problem (almost) everywhere, because if you are looking for a society which does not profess any errors, you are going to have a hard time finding it, whether it be sedeplenist or sedevacantist, Latin or Eastern Catholic. Jeremy gave a few examples of sede errors above. Errors are everywhere today because there is no principle of unity, there is no Roman Pontiff, for whom Vatican I says:
"This gift of truth and never-failing faith was therefore divinely conferred on Peter and his successors in this see so that they might discharge their exalted office for the salvation of all, and ***so that the whole flock of Christ might be kept away by them from the poisonous food of error*** and be nourished with the sustenance of heavenly doctrine. ***Thus the tendency to schism is removed and the whole church is preserved in unity***, and, resting on its foundation, can stand firm against the gates of hell."
It is a pious opinion and we permitted to believe so, but how do you then explain the universal and peaceful acceptance of John XXIII, and of Paul VI before his heresies were manifest?
This creates a major problem regarding Paul VI, since his words and actions, and confirmation of Vatican II, are impossible for a Roman Pontiff or the Church to do.
You're welcome to it! Personally, I dont have an opinion on the question of whether the First Position is true or not, but it do agree with Bellarmine, as expressed by da Silveira below. I.E., on the hypothesis that they First is false, the Fifth is true and certain.
Of course, the principles behind the Fifth, which he says are most certain, also preclude one who is an open heretic being validly elected.
Bellarmine was of the first opinion, that a Pope cannot fall into heresy? I think you either need to re-read Bellarmine, or my message above.
He says of the first opinion:
"This opinion is probable and can easily be defended, as we shall later demonstrate in its proper place. However, since it is not certain, and the common opinion is to the contrary, it will be worthwhile to consider what should be answered if the pope could be a heretic."
Then further along he says:
"Therefore, the true opinion is the fifth, according to which the Pope who is manifestly a heretic ceases by himself to be Pope and head, in the same way as he ceases to be a Christian and a member of the body of the Church; and for this reason he can be judged and punished by the Church."
Emphasis: "the true opinion."
And what did he say it was based on?
"For, in the first place, it is proven with arguments from authority and from reason that the manifest heretic is “ipso facto” deposed. The argument from authority is based on St. Paul (Titus, c. 3), who orders that the heretic be avoided after two warnings, that is, after showing himself to be manifestly obstinate—which means before any excommunication or judicial sentence. And this is what St. Jerome writes, adding that the other sinners are excluded from the Church by sentence of excommunication, but the heretics exile themselves and separate themselves by their own act from the body of Christ. Now, a Pope who remains Pope cannot be avoided, for how could we be required to avoid our own head? How can we separate ourselves from a member united to us?
"This principle is most certain. The non-Christian cannot in any way be Pope, as Cajetan himself admits (ib. c. 26). The reason for this is that he cannot be head of what he is not a member; now he who is not a Christian is not a member of the Church, and a manifest heretic is not a Christian, as is clearly taught by St. Cyprian (lib. 4, epist. 2), St. Athanasius (Scr. 2 cont. Arian.), St. Augustine (lib. de great. Christ. cap. 20), St. Jerome (contra Lucifer.) and others; therefore the manifest heretic cannot be Pope."
Emphasis: "most certain."
And on what authorities?
"Finally, the Holy Fathers teach unanimously not only that heretics are outside of the Church, but also that they are “ipso facto” deprived of all ecclesiastical jurisdiction and dignity. [...]
"This is the opinion of all the ancient Fathers, who teach that manifest heretics immediately lose all jurisdiction"
Emphasis: "the Holy Fathers teach unanimously [...] This is the opinion of all the ancient Fathers."
As I said: Bellarmine adhered to the First Opinion in a conditional way, and to the Fifth in a "conditional [alternative-successive]" way, as da Silveira puts it. In other words, on the hypothesis that the First is false, the Fifth is true.
What he held as most certain of the Fifth Opinion is that manifest heretics lose office ipso facto. He did not hold it as most certain that the pope be the one in manifest heresy. The Fifth Opinion is given in relation to the pope ONLY if the First Opinion was hypothetically false.
I find this whole episode, let me say, peculiar for lack of a better term. No valid pope has ever been guilty of heresy per Vatican I. True enough if Alexander VI's heresy was never public. But such a declaration glosses over the potential of putting to death the one who accuses and plans to appropriately make public the confirmation of the charge of heresy to have eventuated the affirmation of Vatican I. Wonder if any historical analysis or search for evidence of Savonarola's charge was ever conducted or perhaps even suppressed to allow such an affirmation to be achieved. Just perhaps if Savonarola had been successful we might be in a better position today to correct the fiasco of papal malfeasance of Vatican II and beyond with that historical example.
Nope. *IF* Alexander VI was a heretic, he was not a public heretic. Secret heretics remain part of the Church, otherwise the visibility of the Church would be destroyed - we would never be able to know who was a member of the Church. If Pope Alexander's alleged heresies were made public and his pertinacity made evident, then the Church would conclude that he lost the pontificate, which is what I believe happened with Paul VI.
Well, I am inclined to agree. But Fr Hurtaud has an excellent article on the subject, which makes a case for the alternative (without adopting it himself).
I think that was my point and I understand your IF. But if someone who would make that public and undeniable gets put away so to speak by the one or his supporters who would be so named, then true enough the heresy is not public but only for a nefarious reason. And given Alexander VI's posthumous condemnation as an example by a subsequent pope, it seems not inconceivable that a heretic can be recognized posthumously as well but I do not know that for certain. So if the evidence was there and incontrovertible and then or later found, perhaps that could have been actionable.
I disagree with you on Paul VI. Not that he may not have been or, to many, was a heretic but that his public heresy is not recognized as such by but a handful or two of marginalized prelates and much less than 1% of all Catholics, however correct they may be. Not what one would expect if his public heresy was so evident and undeniable (which is part of the issue in trying to get over the additional burden of his acting via a "valid" ecumenical council that very few or no Catholics thought invalid at the time). But given no pope ever was a public heretic for 2000 years prior, it makes the bar for the average lay Catholic that much higher to accept, because most who now believe he was a heretic are indeed lay, average Catholics.
If there was evidence about Alexander VI, Savonarola never revealed it, or it was destroyed. We will only know at the end of time.
Regarding Paul VI, according to canonists, "much less than 1% of all Catholics" is more than sufficient to make something canonically public (I think they say it is enough if five persons in a community know about it). However, I believe that the percentage is actually much higher because many of those who call themselves Catholic today actually publicly and pertinaciously depart from the Church's infallible teaching.
That he was a public heretic and no Pope at least from 1965 is certain because otherwise we would be forced to affirm that the grave errors and heresies of an ecumenical council come from the Apostolic See and from the Church, which is not possible. However, if he was a public heretic and no Pope, then the council is not ecumenical, which means it could err, and it also explains all of his other heretical acts, as well as the promulgation of a harmful and deficient rite in 1969.
I find this article interesting as Mr. Lane published a reprint of a book through his TradiBooks label exonerating Alexander VI of the claims against him, both moral and theological. That author even praised him as a fine, just governor and better pope than his immediate successor.
Last summer I stood over the marker in front of Palazza del Vecchio where Savonarola was burned and said a prayer for him and was reminded of his courage. We need men like him now more than ever.
John Lane said in the last days of the Bellarmine Forums that should the last living bishop that possesed valid jurdiction die before the crisis ended, the ecclesieology of the Curch may have to be revised. I thought that was interesting.
The conciliar/Novus Ordo/Synodal church hasn't had any valid nor faithful bishops, cardinals or more importantly, popes, so who among them could end the heresies, blasphemes, sacrileges and mockery of Christ which they all do?
We can prove the public heresy of the Conciliar claimants to the Papacy, but we cannot prove that every single bishop in the world (NO and Eastern Catholic) is a public heretic and thus not a Catholic bishop. Even regarding Orders: those in the NO are doubtfully ordained and consecrated but the Eastern Catholic Churches maintain the traditional rites, so they have certainly valid bishops and priests.
There are many heretical bishops in the NO, but there are also those who do not publicly profess heresy and stay silent against the Modernists out of fear that they will be deposed and persecuted (as were Abp. Viganò and Bp. Strickland, two rare examples of NO bishops who had the courage to speak out, and were dealt with severely by the usurpers as a message to the others). As Bp. Michael Mary said, they are not all wicked. It is an error to believe that.
Cowardice in opposing the enemy is reprehensible but does not lead to loss of office.
Our Lady of Good Success foresaw this, which is why She said: "In this supreme moment of need of the Church, those who should speak will fall silent."
Mr. Lane gave several examples where the Catholic episcopate did not act, out of cowardice, human respect and similar reasons. Another example is the scattering of the Apostles after Our Lord was captured, condemned and crucified.
Although I am not a theologian, to the best of my knowledge Vatican II does contain not merely error, but heresy as well.
A recognition of Vatican II as an ecumenical council, or even quoting some of its conservative statements and trying to accept it in the light of Tradition and to reconcile its errors with previous teaching doesn't make a person a heretic (in grave error yes, but not a heretic). To be a heretic one must be aware that he is departing from the rule of the Church's Magisterium and following another opinion.
We know that during the Arian Crisis most sees in the East were vacant because those bishops defected into heresy, but in the West it was different (today, it's the other way around). The Western bishops weren't brave, though. Almost all of them were silent for fear of being exiled by the Emperor, many compromised with the Arians but without openly professing heresy, and what happened when the Crisis was ended? All of those who compromised with the Arians, but didn't openly profess heresy, were permitted to stay in their Sees. The Church had compassion for their weakness. There was, however, a bishop who opposed this, and he manifested the same spirit as you do in your comment - they are all false, they are all guilty. His name was Lucifer of Cagliari and he started a schism, turning against his friend St. Athanasius, Pope Liberius and all the other bishops who supported that act of compassion.
You talk about presumed training and guilt, but I know what they teach in the NO seminaries - Modernist brainwashing presented as Catholic truth, with little information about Catholic doctrine. It was much different in the past, when they were actually taught Catholic doctrine so they would know what they are rejecting. You mention the East, but have you actually ever talked to an Eastern Catholic priest about the Faith, listened to their sermons, been to their liturgy etc.? I have, and there is a huge difference between them and the NO.
I agree. People toss the Eastern rites out too easily due to them being close to the synodal church. Although, sometimes I am skeptical of Vigano. I have seen many people (friends of mine also) try to say he was a false convert. They said things like “Why should we trust him when he aided these monsters for years?”
Although I understand their sentiment.
It’s led me to become very disillusioned with anything trad related. I approach most trads with heavy skepticism such as SGG to RCI to CMRI.
It would be better to be disillusioned with the destruction of the true Catholic faith the counterfeit Novus Ordo church has done and continues to do.
Since the Novus Ordo church is a counterfeit, anyone who is a member of that church is a heretic so it doesn't matter if they publicly profess heresy as just belonging to that church places them outside of the true Catholic Church. It doesn't matter if one is afraid to speak out if they don't agree with the heretical teachings of this church as they are still members of it.
I said nothing about the Eastern Catholic Churches but all of them, in my understanding, are in communion with the heretical popes which makes them outside of the true Catholic Church as well.
It is a simplistic argument, which is both unproven and false. As such, "the NO Church" doesn't exist as a separate body with such a name. It identifies officially as the Catholic Church and its leaders occupy Catholic institutions and dioceses (this is precisely why it is so pernicious). Many among the laity, as well as some of the bishops, have done nothing to separate from the Catholic Church. They live and die as Catholics without having consciously departed from the rule of the Magisterium (which is what makes a heretic). It is not analogous to someone who is a member or official of the Lutheran or Anglican sect and who is well aware that he is not a member of the Catholic Church.
If a Catholic is in communion with a false pope during a time of great confusion, thinking that he was a true pope based on weighty reasons, this does not take that Catholic out of the Church. The Western Schism is the perfect example, with canonized saints from both obediences.
Those faithful Catholics who profess communion with Prevost do so because they believe him to be Pope, and not because he is a heretic, nor are they in communion with his heresies. If you believe that they are all out of the Church, then you must conclude that only sedevacantists are inside the Church.
Those are grave errors (and objective sins) against both justice and charity - to consider someone non-Catholic even though he does not consciously withdraw from the rule of the Magisterium, nor does he separate from communion with other Catholics. It is such sectarian sedevacantism which keeps many people away from recognizing the fact of the vacancy.
Elaine, my apologies. My original reply to you came off rather aggressive in my questioning about what you believed on certain trad issues. I have since deleted it. I would attribute it to tumultuous life changes I am going through right now… this has caused me to be a bit “temperamental” in my moods.
We will just agree to disagree for now. May God Bless you and his Mother keep you.
Not to worry Jeremy. We are all experiencing confusion or disbelief of some kind but I do appreciate your explanation.
May God bless you as well.
Strickland and Viganò as well as all those who continue to celebrate, publicly, the N.O are more than cowards. They are, indeed, manifest, public and notorious heretics. If that is wrong please correct.
I do not think V celebrates the NO.
Yes he has. Pictures and articles online. It is
Illogical to say he hasn’t. He has been a part of the Norvos Ordo establishment. He served as Apostolic Nuncio to the United States from October 19, 2011, until April 12, 2016. One of his jobs was to go make sure that the orders who offered the real Mass toed the line by celebrating the N.O at least twice a year. I witnessed this at Our Lady of Clear Creek Abby in Oklahoma. It’s one of the reasons I didn’t go there again. One of the monks walked out in the middle. Sadly, they continue to offer their pinch of incense to the abomination that is the N.O. In my opinion vigano is simply taking the place of Ratzinger. He’s there to keep those attached to the bells and smells hoping.
I can't wait until Savonarola is canonized. Almost happened under Julius II and Pius XII
What do you think our understanding of the Eastern Churches and Bishops should be? I understand they have valid orders and may be subjectively doing what they believe is correct, and yet it seems difficult to say that attending an Eastern Rite Liturgy would be perfectly fine under normal circumstances given their being in communion with someone who is objectively a false pope. Would we have to investigate each bishop individually to determine the degree to which he adheres to the errors of Vatican 2? Thank you for your help.
I *would* say that attending their liturgy is perfectly fine, if the priest is Catholic, i.e., if he doesn't explicitly profess heresy, just as I consider that attending the SSPX or Resistance Masses is perfectly fine, and they also are in communion (or at least they say they are) with someone who is objectively a false pope, just as I would say that going to the Mass said by St. Vincent Ferrer was more than fine, even though he prayed for a probable antipope in the Canon. It is just the confusion of the Crisis.
I don't think you are obliged to investigate their bishops at all, unless you intend to attend a specific bishop's liturgy. I would advise caution against errors, however, because it is probable that their clergy will profess a higher amount of errors than trad clergy. But that is a problem (almost) everywhere, because if you are looking for a society which does not profess any errors, you are going to have a hard time finding it, whether it be sedeplenist or sedevacantist, Latin or Eastern Catholic. Jeremy gave a few examples of sede errors above. Errors are everywhere today because there is no principle of unity, there is no Roman Pontiff, for whom Vatican I says:
"This gift of truth and never-failing faith was therefore divinely conferred on Peter and his successors in this see so that they might discharge their exalted office for the salvation of all, and ***so that the whole flock of Christ might be kept away by them from the poisonous food of error*** and be nourished with the sustenance of heavenly doctrine. ***Thus the tendency to schism is removed and the whole church is preserved in unity***, and, resting on its foundation, can stand firm against the gates of hell."
I cannot believe that a true pope can fall into heresy, occult or public. Opinion No. 1 is the true opinion.
It is a pious opinion and we permitted to believe so, but how do you then explain the universal and peaceful acceptance of John XXIII, and of Paul VI before his heresies were manifest?
Because I do not hold them as manifest heretics.
This creates a major problem regarding Paul VI, since his words and actions, and confirmation of Vatican II, are impossible for a Roman Pontiff or the Church to do.
You're welcome to it! Personally, I dont have an opinion on the question of whether the First Position is true or not, but it do agree with Bellarmine, as expressed by da Silveira below. I.E., on the hypothesis that they First is false, the Fifth is true and certain.
Of course, the principles behind the Fifth, which he says are most certain, also preclude one who is an open heretic being validly elected.
https://www.wmreview.org/p/bellarmine-silveira
But Bellarmine was of the First Opinion.
Bellarmine was of the first opinion, that a Pope cannot fall into heresy? I think you either need to re-read Bellarmine, or my message above.
He says of the first opinion:
"This opinion is probable and can easily be defended, as we shall later demonstrate in its proper place. However, since it is not certain, and the common opinion is to the contrary, it will be worthwhile to consider what should be answered if the pope could be a heretic."
Then further along he says:
"Therefore, the true opinion is the fifth, according to which the Pope who is manifestly a heretic ceases by himself to be Pope and head, in the same way as he ceases to be a Christian and a member of the body of the Church; and for this reason he can be judged and punished by the Church."
Emphasis: "the true opinion."
And what did he say it was based on?
"For, in the first place, it is proven with arguments from authority and from reason that the manifest heretic is “ipso facto” deposed. The argument from authority is based on St. Paul (Titus, c. 3), who orders that the heretic be avoided after two warnings, that is, after showing himself to be manifestly obstinate—which means before any excommunication or judicial sentence. And this is what St. Jerome writes, adding that the other sinners are excluded from the Church by sentence of excommunication, but the heretics exile themselves and separate themselves by their own act from the body of Christ. Now, a Pope who remains Pope cannot be avoided, for how could we be required to avoid our own head? How can we separate ourselves from a member united to us?
"This principle is most certain. The non-Christian cannot in any way be Pope, as Cajetan himself admits (ib. c. 26). The reason for this is that he cannot be head of what he is not a member; now he who is not a Christian is not a member of the Church, and a manifest heretic is not a Christian, as is clearly taught by St. Cyprian (lib. 4, epist. 2), St. Athanasius (Scr. 2 cont. Arian.), St. Augustine (lib. de great. Christ. cap. 20), St. Jerome (contra Lucifer.) and others; therefore the manifest heretic cannot be Pope."
Emphasis: "most certain."
And on what authorities?
"Finally, the Holy Fathers teach unanimously not only that heretics are outside of the Church, but also that they are “ipso facto” deprived of all ecclesiastical jurisdiction and dignity. [...]
"This is the opinion of all the ancient Fathers, who teach that manifest heretics immediately lose all jurisdiction"
Emphasis: "the Holy Fathers teach unanimously [...] This is the opinion of all the ancient Fathers."
As I said: Bellarmine adhered to the First Opinion in a conditional way, and to the Fifth in a "conditional [alternative-successive]" way, as da Silveira puts it. In other words, on the hypothesis that the First is false, the Fifth is true.
https://www.wmreview.org/p/ipso-facto-bellarmine-five-opinions
What he held as most certain of the Fifth Opinion is that manifest heretics lose office ipso facto. He did not hold it as most certain that the pope be the one in manifest heresy. The Fifth Opinion is given in relation to the pope ONLY if the First Opinion was hypothetically false.
I find this whole episode, let me say, peculiar for lack of a better term. No valid pope has ever been guilty of heresy per Vatican I. True enough if Alexander VI's heresy was never public. But such a declaration glosses over the potential of putting to death the one who accuses and plans to appropriately make public the confirmation of the charge of heresy to have eventuated the affirmation of Vatican I. Wonder if any historical analysis or search for evidence of Savonarola's charge was ever conducted or perhaps even suppressed to allow such an affirmation to be achieved. Just perhaps if Savonarola had been successful we might be in a better position today to correct the fiasco of papal malfeasance of Vatican II and beyond with that historical example.
Nope. *IF* Alexander VI was a heretic, he was not a public heretic. Secret heretics remain part of the Church, otherwise the visibility of the Church would be destroyed - we would never be able to know who was a member of the Church. If Pope Alexander's alleged heresies were made public and his pertinacity made evident, then the Church would conclude that he lost the pontificate, which is what I believe happened with Paul VI.
Well, I am inclined to agree. But Fr Hurtaud has an excellent article on the subject, which makes a case for the alternative (without adopting it himself).
Could you please elaborate further?
Not at present but it was in the French article in Revue Thomiste
I think that was my point and I understand your IF. But if someone who would make that public and undeniable gets put away so to speak by the one or his supporters who would be so named, then true enough the heresy is not public but only for a nefarious reason. And given Alexander VI's posthumous condemnation as an example by a subsequent pope, it seems not inconceivable that a heretic can be recognized posthumously as well but I do not know that for certain. So if the evidence was there and incontrovertible and then or later found, perhaps that could have been actionable.
I disagree with you on Paul VI. Not that he may not have been or, to many, was a heretic but that his public heresy is not recognized as such by but a handful or two of marginalized prelates and much less than 1% of all Catholics, however correct they may be. Not what one would expect if his public heresy was so evident and undeniable (which is part of the issue in trying to get over the additional burden of his acting via a "valid" ecumenical council that very few or no Catholics thought invalid at the time). But given no pope ever was a public heretic for 2000 years prior, it makes the bar for the average lay Catholic that much higher to accept, because most who now believe he was a heretic are indeed lay, average Catholics.
If there was evidence about Alexander VI, Savonarola never revealed it, or it was destroyed. We will only know at the end of time.
Regarding Paul VI, according to canonists, "much less than 1% of all Catholics" is more than sufficient to make something canonically public (I think they say it is enough if five persons in a community know about it). However, I believe that the percentage is actually much higher because many of those who call themselves Catholic today actually publicly and pertinaciously depart from the Church's infallible teaching.
That he was a public heretic and no Pope at least from 1965 is certain because otherwise we would be forced to affirm that the grave errors and heresies of an ecumenical council come from the Apostolic See and from the Church, which is not possible. However, if he was a public heretic and no Pope, then the council is not ecumenical, which means it could err, and it also explains all of his other heretical acts, as well as the promulgation of a harmful and deficient rite in 1969.
I find this article interesting as Mr. Lane published a reprint of a book through his TradiBooks label exonerating Alexander VI of the claims against him, both moral and theological. That author even praised him as a fine, just governor and better pope than his immediate successor.
You’re thinking of John Daly there. Contrary to certain theories, they are different persons!
Last summer I stood over the marker in front of Palazza del Vecchio where Savonarola was burned and said a prayer for him and was reminded of his courage. We need men like him now more than ever.
John Lane said in the last days of the Bellarmine Forums that should the last living bishop that possesed valid jurdiction die before the crisis ended, the ecclesieology of the Curch may have to be revised. I thought that was interesting.