It is obvious to those who wish to look critically
to see that the current religion at the Vatican is NOT the Catholic church of
Our Lord Jesus Christ!
It is a religion that has been crafted by
international Freemasonry which was designed to deceive Catholics into thinking
it is catholic. It is NOT Catholic and cannot be Catholic since the Catholic
Church cannot teach errors, officially.
To this extent, the Catholic Church is in the state
of Papal Interregnum, Sede vacante! The Seat of St. Peter is EMPTY! It has been
empty since the death of the last known pope, Pope Pius XII, in 1958.
So this means that ALL the papal claimants since
1958 have been criminal anti popes! The have stolen what does not belong to
them!
These include John XXIII, Paul VI, John Paul I, John
Paul II, Benedict XVI and now, Francis.
These men are NOT Catholics not to talk of being
popes! We know this from what they have taught, officially and from what the Catholic
Church teaches about the papacy, principally, that a heretics cannot be pope
since a heretic is not a member of the Church!
Many objections have been submitted about this
catholic position!
We address some major objections, using Church
documents and Church approved Theologians, here to show that those holding them
do not understand Catholic theological principles and so they hold that
heretics are popes! That is not possible as far as the Catholic Church is
concerned.
We must remind ourselves that to submit to a false
pope is to be outside the Catholic Church! To be outside the Catholic Church is
to lose one’s soul!
Objection
I:
Pope Pius XII lifted all ecclesiastical penalties
during the conclave to elect the pope. So even if the Vatican II popes were
heretics before their elections, they would still be validly elected.
Answer:
Heretics and schismatics are barred by DIVINE LAW
from the election to the Papal Office. Pope Pius XII lifted ecclesiastical
penalties; he did not, would not, could not dispense from Divine Law.
Proof
for this answer:
A. Institutiones
Iuris Canonici , by (approved theologian) Matteo Coronata, 1950
— “Appointment to the Office of the Primacy — What
is required by DIVINE LAW for this appointment... Also required for validity is
that the one elected be a member of the Church; hence, heretics and apostates
(at least public ones) are excluded...”
B. Institutiones
luris Canonici [1921], Marato
— “Heretics and schismatics are barred from the
Supreme Pontificate by the Divine Law itself, because, although by divine law
they are not considered incapable of participating in a certain type of
ecclesiastical jurisdiction, nevertheless, they must certainly be regarded as
excluded from occupying the throne of the Apostolic See, which is the
infallible teacher of the truth of the faith and the center of ecclesiastical
unity.
C. Bull
Cum Ex Apostolatus [16 Feb. 1559], Pope Paul IV
— “Further, if ever it should appear that any bishop
(even one acting as an archbishop, patriarch or primate), or a cardinal of the
Roman Church, or a legate (as mentioned above), or even the Roman Pontiff
(whether prior to his promotion to cardinal, or prior to his election as Roman
Pontiff), has beforehand deviated from the Catholic faith or fallen into any
heresy, We enact, decree, determine and define:
— “Such promotion or election in and of itself, even
with the agreement and unanimous consent of all the cardinals, shall be null,
legally invalid and void.
— “It shall not be possible for such a promotion or
election to be deemed valid or to be valid, neither through reception of
office, consecration, subsequent administration, or possession, nor even
through the putative enthronement of a Roman Pontiff himself, together with the
veneration and obedience accorded him by all.
— “Such promotion or election, shall not through any
lapse of time in the foregoing situation, be considered even partially
legitimate in any way....
— “Each and all of their words, acts, laws,
appointments of those so promoted or elected — and indeed, whatsoever flows
therefrom — shall be lacking in force, and shall grant no stability and legal
power to anyone whatsoever.
— “Those so promoted or elected, by that very fact
and without the need to make any further declaration, shall be deprived of any
dignity, position, honor, title, authority, office and power.”
D. Institutiones
luris Canonici [1921], C. Baldii
— “The law now in force for the election of the
Roman Pontiff is reduced to these points:...
— “Barred as incapable of being validly elected are
the following: women, children who have not reached the age of reason, those
suffering from habitual insanity, the unbaptized, heretics and schismatics....”
Objection
II:
Vatican Council I taught that St. Peter has
perpetual successors; therefore, long vacancies in the See of Peter are not
possible.
Answer:
Nowhere does the Church determine how long a vacancy
may exist in the See of Peter. Between the death of Pope Clement IV (November
29, 1268) and the election of Pope Gregory X (September 1, 1271), there was an
interregnum of nearly three years. During the Western Schism, there were three
claimants to the See of Peter; theologians teach that even if none of them were
pope, that would not be against the promise of Christ or the teaching of
perpetual successors.
Proof
to the answer:
A. Institutiones
Theologiae Fundamentalis [1929], Rev. A. Dorsch
— “The Church therefore is a society that is essentially
monarchical. But this does not prevent the Church, for a short time after the
death of a pope, or even for many years, from remaining deprived of her head
[vel etiam per plures annos capite suo destituta manet].”
B. The
Relations of the Church to Society [1882], Fr. Edward J. O’Reilly, S.J.
— “In the first place, there was all throughout from
the death of Gregory XI in 1378, a Pope—with the exception, of course, of the
intervals between deaths and elections to fill up the vacancies thereby
created. There was, I say, at every given time a Pope, really invested with the
dignity of Vicar of Christ and Head of the Church, whatever opinions might
exist among many as to his genuineness; not that an interregnum covering the
whole period would have been impossible or inconsistent with the promises of
Christ, for this is by no means manifest, but that, as a matter of fact, there
was not such an interregnum.”
C. The
Catholic’s Ready Answer [1915], Rev. M. P. Hill, S.J.
— “If during the entire schism (nearly 40 years)
there had been no Pope at all—that would not prove that the office and
authority of Peter was not transmitted to the next Pope duly elected.”
D. The
Defense of the Catholic Church [1927] Fr. Francis X. Doyle, S.J.
— “The Church is a visible society with a visible
Ruler. If there can be any doubt about who that visible Ruler is, he is not
visible, and hence, where there is any doubt about whether a person has been
legitimately elected Pope, that doubt must be removed before he can become the
visible head of Christ’s Church. Blessed Bellarmine, S.J., says: 'A doubtful
Pope must be considered as not Pope’; and Suarez, S.J., says: 'At the time of
the Council of Constance there were three men claiming to be Pope.... Hence, it
could have been that not one of them was the true Pope, and in that case, there
was no Pope at all....’”
Objection
III:
If all the Vatican II popes were invalid, then there
would be no cardinals to elect a future pope. Thus the Papacy would come to an
end which is impossible.
Answer:
During the Western Schism, three men claimed to be
pope (the true pope in Rome, one in Avignon, one in Pisa) In order to heal the
nearly forty-year schism, the Council of Constance determined that with all the
cardinals, delegates from each country would participate in the papal election
(Pope Martin V was elected). Theologians teach that in doubt of or in absence
of cardinals, the Church has the right to choose its Head.
Proof
to the answer:
A. De
Potestate Ecclesiae, Vitoria
— “Even if St. Peter would have not determined
anything, once he was dead, the Church had the power to substitute him and
appoint a successor to him ... If by any calamity, war or plague, all Cardinals
would be lacking, we cannot doubt that the Church could provide for herself a
Holy Father.
— “Hence such an election should be carried out by
all the Church and not by any particular Church. And this is because that power
is common and it concerns the whole Church. So it must be the duty of the whole
Church.”
B. De
Comparatione Auctoritatis Papae et Concilii, Cajetan, OP
— “.. . by exception and by supplementary manner
this power (that of electing a pope), corresponds to the Church and to the
Council, either by the absence of Cardinal Electors, or because they are
doubtful, or the election itself is uncertain, as it happened at the time of
the schism.”
C. De
Ecclesia Christi, Billot
— “When it would be necessary to proceed with the
election, if it is impossible to follow the regulations of papal law, as was
the case during the Great Western Schism, one can accept, without difficulty,
that the power of election could be transferred to a General Council.”
— “Because natural law prescribes that, in such
cases, the power of a superior is passed to the immediate inferior because this
is absolutely necessary for the survival of the society and to avoid the
tribulations of extreme need.”
D. The
Church of the Incarnate Word [1954], Msgr. Charles Journet
The Church During a Vacancy of the Holy See
— “We must not think of the Church, when the Pope is
dead, as possessing the papal power in act, in a state of diffusion, so that
she herself can delegate it to the next Pope in whom it will be re-condensed
and made definite. When the Pope dies the Church is widowed, and, in respect of
the visible universal jurisdiction, she is truly acephalous. But she is not
acephalous as are the schismatic churches, nor like a body on the way to
decomposition. Christ directs her from heaven ... But, though slowed down, the
pulse of life has not left the Church; she possesses the power of the Papacy in
potency, in the sense that Christ, who has willed her always to depend on a
visible pastor, has given her power to designate the man to whom He will
Himself commit the keys of the Kingdom of Heaven, as once He committed them to
Peter.
— “During a vacancy of the Apostolic See, neither
the Church nor the Council can contravene the provisions already laid down to
determine the valid mode of election (Cardinal Cajetan, O.P., in De Comparata,
cap.xiii, no. 202). However, in case of permission (for example if the Pope has
provided nothing against it), or in case of ambiguity (for example, if it is
unknown who the true Cardinals are or who the true Pope is, as was the case at
the time of the Great Schism), the power 'of applying the Papacy to such and
such a person’ devolves on the universal Church, the Church of God.”
Objection
IV:
Even if a pope fell into heresy, he would remain
pope until the Church declared him a heretic and no longer pope.
Answer:
Pope
Paul IV, in Cum Ex Apostolatus, Pope Innocent III in Si Papa, and theologians
teach that a heretical pope is deposed by God.
Proof
to this answer:
A.
Bull: Cum Ex Apostolatus [16 Feb. 1559], Pope Paul IV
— “Further, if ever it should appear that any bishop
(even one acting as an archbishop, patriarch or primate), or a cardinal of the
Roman Church, or a legate (as mentioned above), or even the Roman Pontiff
(whether prior to his promotion to cardinal, or prior to his election as Roman
Pontiff), has beforehand deviated from the Catholic faith or fallen into any
heresy, We enact, decree, determine and define:
— “Such promotion or election in and of itself, even
with the agreement and unanimous consent of all the cardinals, shall be null,
legally invalid and void... Those so promoted or elected, by that very fact and
without the need to make any further declaration, shall be deprived of any
dignity, position, honor, title, authority, office and power.”
B. Si
Papa [1198], Pope Innocent III
— “The Pope should not flatter himself about his
power nor should he rashly glory in his honor and high estate, because the less
he is judged by man, the more he is judged by God. Still the less can the Roman
Pontiff glory because he can be judged by men, or rather, can be shown to be
already judged, if for example he should wither away into heresy; because he
who does not believe is already judged. In such a case it should be said of
him: 'If salt should lose its savor, it is good for nothing but to be cast out
and trampled under foot by men.’”
C. Institutiones
Juris Canonici [1950] - Coronata
— “If indeed such a situation would happen, he [the
Roman Pontiff] would, by divine law, fall from office without any sentence,
indeed, without even a declaratory one. He who openly professes heresy places
himself outside the Church, and it is not likely that Christ would preserve the
Primacy of His Church in one so unworthy. Wherefore, if the Roman Pontiff were
to profess heresy, before any condemnatory sentence (which would be impossible
anyway) he would lose his authority.”
D.
St. Robert Bellarmine [1610]
— “A Pope who is a manifest heretic automatically
ceases to be a Pope and head, just as he ceases automatically to be a Christian
and a member of the Church.”
E.
St. Antoninus [1459]
— “In the case in which the Pope would become a
heretic, he would find himself, by that very fact alone and without any other
sentence, separated from the Church. A head separated from a body cannot, as
long as it remains separated, be head of the same body from which it was cut
off.”
F.
St. Francis de Sales [1622]
— “Now when the Pope is explicitly a heretic, he
falls ipso facto from his dignity and out of the Church ...”
G. Canon
Law - [1943] - Wernz-Vidal
— “Through notorious and openly divulged heresy, the
Roman Pontiff, should he fall into heresy, by that very fact (ipso facto) is
deemed to be deprived of the power of jurisdiction even before any declaratory
judgment by the Church ... A Pope who falls into public heresy would cease ipso
facto to be a member of the Church; therefore, he would also cease to be head
of the Church.
H. Introductio
in Codicem [1946] - Udalricus Beste
— “Not a few canonists teach that, outside of death
and abdication, the pontifical dignity can also be lost by falling into certain
insanity, which is legally equivalent to death, as well as through manifest and
notorious heresy. In the latter case, a pope would automatically fall from his
power, and this indeed without the issuance of any sentence, for the first See
(i.e., the See of Peter) is judged by no one ... The reason is that, by falling
into heresy, the pope ceases to be a member of the Church. He who is not a
member of a society, obviously, cannot be its head.”
I. Epitome
Juris Canonici [1949] - A. Vermeersch
— “At least according to the more common teaching
the Roman Pontiff as a private teacher can fall into manifest heresy. Then,
without any declaratory sentence (for the supreme See is judged by no one), he
would automatically (ipso facto) fall from power which he who is no longer a
member of the Church is unable to possess.”
Presented
by Malachy Mary Igwilo, 11th August 2017, Feast of St. Philomena
No comments:
Post a Comment