Benedict XVI's Motu Proprio: Sedevacantist Reaction

traditionalmass.org ^ | July 7, 2007 | Rev. Anthony Cekada

[jobim]

Just as with the homosexual lobby: there is no appeasing this group.

[Smocker]

If the Sedevacantist position is that there is no Pope, which essentially and realistically places them outside of the Catholic Faith, why don’t they act honest with everyone and stop calling themselves Catholics and call themselves Protestants?

It’s very sad to continue to see the Catholic Church attacked not only from without but from those who still have the audacity to call themselves Catholic.

[WriteOn]

The real evidence that this is a protestant position is its anti-papal tone. All protestant writing has an anti-magisterial bent and is defined by what it is not, i.e “we’re not like the Catholics because...”

Even Mohammed wrote like that ergo Mohammedism is a heresy.

[PetroniusMaximus]

“changes that might be in store for them at their local Motu Mass:... and vernacular readings”

Not a Catholic, no dog in this fight.

But why in the world would anyone oppose reading the Bible in the language of the hearer???

I mean, wouldn’t you want your hearer to understand what they are hearing???

[BlessedBeGod]

*** rolls eyes ***

[NYer]

There are prayers missing from the TLM that have never been added or completed. The liturgy, like the list of saints, is not stagnant. It is organic and needs to expand and grow over the course of time. The trads have forgotten why the TLM was locked for 500 years and recall its organic roots.

Catholic Ping List
Please freepmail me if you want on/off this list

[AnAmericanMother]

As Kerry MacFarlane said of his Uncle Valentine, "just the least bit inaccurate, but when you consider the scope . . . " (of course his uncle was totally and completely wrong from beginning to end, but he thundered out his mistakes with such conviction -- )

So much in this poisonous screed is inaccurate that one hardly knows where to start.

But it clearly demonstrates that the Sedevacantists are as utterly Protestant as John Knox -- they just like the Catholic trappings.

[Lauren BaRecall]

You’re rabid, and I can’t read most of your rant even out of some interest.

God have Mercy on you.

[SaintDismas]

Could you elaborate on what you mean by what you have said here? I’m not well versed in my own faith on so many things.

But I will say that what this man has written is so arrogant, he thinks he knows God while the rest of us slobs must all be going straight to hell. The God he speaks of sounds untouchable, unknowable, unapproachable. I have no idea what he’s saying, he might as well have written THAT in Latin too.

Our church liturgy would probably make his head explode. We at various times throughout the year mix Latin in with our NO mass. We sing Sanctus and Agnus Dei and so many other songs of prayer in Latin. I love it. I don’t understand this sort of thinking, and right now this is really bringing me down. To say I’m not really Catholic hurts me to my bone marrow.

[Lauren BaRecall]

Please believe me, not all Protestants are like this - only the “Whore of Babylon” screed types. The rest are Christians.

[tiki]

Pride, arrogance and conceit. They knew/know better than the sheeple who stayed faithful to the Magisterium even when they didn't want what they got. In God's time the Holy Spirit worked and they and we have been given a gift but many will choose to reject it just as many rejected Jesus. God knows why but I don't.

I knew when I talked to my SSPX friend that they were being primed to reject the Motu Proprio even though they think the pope did it just for them. What I find disgusting and also cultish in the worst sense of the word is that almost everything she says can be googled word for word and I find anti-Catholic and pro-SSPX screeds. If she was really thinking for herself I wouldn't worry so much. I really have just about had it with her. I'm afraid though that God may have a different opinion and that it won't be that easy.

[wagglebee]

Two years ago he also tried to say that the Church should NOT oppose Terri Schiavo’s murder:

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-religion/1397181/posts

[tiki]

LOL, we know. We understand that most Protestants are more interested in serving Christ than bashing fellow Christians. I feel the same way.

[Youngstown]

If the Sedevacantist position is that there is no Pope, which essentially and realistically places them outside of the Catholic Faith, why don’t they act honest with everyone and stop calling themselves Catholics and call themselves Protestants?

I suggest that you learn what the true Roman Catholic Church not only teaches but also commands must be done in the instance of the Vatican2 heretics usurping the throne of Peter and instituting a false apostate church of their own making.

"Cum ex Apostolatus Officio" Apostolic Constitution of Pope Paul IV, 15th February 1559 (Roman Bullarium Vol. IV. Sec. I, pp. 354-357)

1..."Remembering also that, where danger is greater, it must more fully and more diligently be counteracted, We have been concerned lest false prophets or others, even if they have only secular jurisdiction, should wretchedly ensnare the souls of the simple, and drag with them into perdition, destruction and damnation countless peoples committed to their care and rule, either in spiritual or in temporal matters; and We have been concerned also lest it may befall Us to see the abomination of desolation, which was spoken of by the prophet Daniel, in the holy place."

6. In addition, [by this Our Constitution, which is to remain valid in perpetuity We enact, determine, decree and define:-]

that if ever at any time it shall appear that any Bishop, even if he be acting as an Archbishop, Patriarch or Primate; or any Cardinal of the aforesaid Roman Church, or, as has already been mentioned, any legate, or even the Roman Pontiff, prior to his promotion or his elevation as Cardinal or Roman Pontiff, has deviated from the Catholic Faith or fallen into some heresy:

(i) the promotion or elevation, even if it shall have been uncontested and by the unanimous assent of all the Cardinals, shall be null, void and worthless;

(ii) it shall not be possible for it to acquire validity (nor for it to be said that it has thus acquired validity) through the acceptance of the office, of consecration, of subsequent authority, nor through possession of administration, nor through the putative enthronement of a Roman Pontiff, or Veneration, or obedience accorded to such by all, nor through the lapse of any period of time in the foregoing situation;

(iii) it shall not be held as partially legitimate in any way;

(iv) to any so promoted to be Bishops, or Archbishops, or Patriarchs, or Primates or elevated as Cardinals, or as Roman Pontiff, no authority shall have been granted, nor shall it be considered to have been so granted either in the spiritual or the temporal domain;

(v) each and all of their words, deeds, actions and enactments, howsoever made, and anything whatsoever to which these may give rise, shall be without force and shall grant no stability whatsoever nor any right to anyone;

(vi) those thus promoted or elevated shall be deprived automatically, and without need for any further declaration, of all dignity, position, honour, title, authority, office and power.

7. Finally, [by this Our Constitution, which is to remain valid in perpetuity, We] also [enact, determine, define and decree]:-

that any and all persons who would have been subject to those thus promoted or elevated if they had not previously deviated from the Faith, become heretics, incurred schism or provoked or committed any or all of these, be they members of anysoever of the following categories:

(i) the clergy, secular and religious;

(ii) the laity;

(iii) the Cardinals, even those who shall have taken part in the election of this very Pontiff previously deviating from the Faith or heretical or schismatical, or shall otherwise have consented and vouchsafed obedience to him and shall have venerated him;

(iv) Castellans, Prefects, Captains and Officials, even of Our Beloved City and of the entire Ecclesiastical State, even if they shall be obliged and beholden to those thus promoted or elevated by homage, oath or security;

shall be permitted at any time to withdraw with impunity from obedience and devotion to those thus promoted or elevated and to avoid them as warlocks, heathens, publicans, and heresiarchs (the same subject persons, nevertheless, remaining bound by the duty of fidelity and obedience to any future Bishops, Archbishops, Patriarchs, Primates, Cardinals and Roman Pontiff canonically entering).

To the greater confusion, moreover, of those thus promoted or elevated, if these shall have wished to prolong their government and authority, they shall be permitted to request the assistance of the secular arm against these same individuals thus promoted or elevated; nor shall those who withdraw on this account, in the aforementioned circumstances, from fidelity and obedience to those thus promoted and elevated, be subject, as are those who tear the tunic of the Lord, to the retribution of any censures or penalties.

[Youngstown]

Two years ago he also tried to say that the Church should NOT oppose Terri Schiavo’s murder:

I agree with you that Cekada has Teri Schindler's blood on his hands by completely misapplying Catholic teaching on withdrawing extraordinary life support in a case where the facts did not in any way coincide with their application. By doing this, in his arrogance, he justified her murder, hence as the Church teaches, partaking in the sin of another, that of Michael Schiavo's and the corrupt legal system.

All that being said, I wanted to seperate his own actions in the Terri Schindler case from being used to justify an equally arrogant and ignorant "Know-Nothing" dismissal of the Church's teaching that the See of Peter becomes vacant due to formal heresy by the miscreant's own actions, either before his election to the Chair of Peter which would prevent the election from ever being valid as I quoted above, or would result in an immediateloss of the Papacy after his election, again solely by his own actions, and without any formal declaration being necessary.

Four Doctors of the Church regarding defection from the Faith by a Pope.
 

St. Robert Bellarmine:  "For, in the first place, it is proven with arguments from authority and from reason that the manifest heretic is "ipso facto" deposed."

St Robert Bellarmine, "De Romano Pontifice", ("On the Roman Pontiff"), liber II, caput 30:

"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.

Est ergo quinta opinio vera, papam haereticum manifestum per se desinere esse papam et caput, sicut per se desinit esse christianus et membrum corporis Ecclesiae; quare ab, Ecclesia posse eum judicari et puniri. Haec est sententia omnium veterum Patrum, qui docent, haereticos manifestos mox amittere omnem jurisdictionem.

"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. This is the opinion of all the ancient Fathers, who teach that manifest heretics immediately lose all jurisdiction,

Fundamentum hujus sententiae est. quoniam haereticus manifestos nullo modo est membrum Ecclesiae, idest, neque animo neque corpore, sive neque unione interna, neque externa.

"The foundation of this argument is that the manifest heretic is not in any way a member of the Church, that is, neither spiritually nor corporally, which signifies that he is not such by internal union nor by external union.
 

St. Alphonsus de Liguori on the fate of a heretical pope:

"Del resto, si Dio permettesse che un papa fosse notoriamente eretico e contumace, egli cesserebbe d'essere papa, e vacherebbe il pontificato."

--"Verita della Fede", part 3, ch. 8, no. 10.
In: Opere dommatiche di S. Alfonso de Liguori (Torino, G. Marietti, 1848), p. 720. (Opere di S. Alfonso Maria de Liguori, v. 8)

 "For the rest, if God should permit that a Pope should become a notorious and contumacious heretic, he would cease to be Pope, and the pontificate would be vacant."
 

St. Francis de Sales on papal infallibility and heresy:

"En l'ancienne loy le grand pretre ne portait pas le rational si non quand il estoit revestu des habits pontificaux et qu'il entroit devant le Seigneur. Ainsi ne disons nous pas que le pape en ses opinions particulieres ne puisse errer comme fit Jean XXII, ou etre du tout heretique comme peut etre fut Honorius. Or quand il est heretique expres *ipso facto* il tombe de son grade hors de l'Eglise et l'Eglise le doit ou priver comme disent quelques uns, ou le declarer prive de son siege apostolique et dire comme fit St. Pierre: Episcopatum eius accipiat alter. Quand il erre en sa particuliere opinion il le faut enseigner, adviser, convaincre comme on fit a Jean XXII le quel tant s'en faut qu'il mourut opiniatre ou que pendant sa vie il determina aucune chose touchant son opinion, que pendant qu'il faysoit l'inquisition requise pour determiner en matiere de foy, il mourut, au recit de son successeur en l'Extravagante qui se commence *Benedictus Deus.*"

St. Francis de Sales, The Catholic Controversy (Tan Books), p. 388 (part II, art. VI, ch. 14)

"Under the ancient law the High Priest did not wear the Rational except when he was vested in the pontifical robes and was entering before the Lord. Thus we do not say that the Pope cannot err in his private opinions, as did John XXII; or be altogether a heretic, as perhaps Honorius was. Now when he is explicitly a heretic, he falls ipso facto from his dignity out of the Church, and the Church must either deprive him, as some say, or declare him deprived, of his Apostolic See, and must say as St. Peter did: Let another take his bishopric (Acts I). When he errs in his private opinion he must be instructed, advised, convinced; as happened with John XXII, who was so far from dying obstinate or from determining anything during his life concerning his opinion, that he died whilest he was making the examination which is necessary for determining in a matter of faith, as his successor declared in the *Extravagantes* which begins Benedictus Deus." (Ib. p. 305-306)
 

St. Thomas Aquinas on loss of jurisdiction by heretics:

Summa, 2a 2ae, q. 39, art. 3. (Utrum schismatici habeant aliquam potestatem)

"...Potestas autem iurisdictionis est quae ex simplici iniunctione hominis confertur; et talis potestas non immobiliter adhaeret; unde in schismaticis et haereticis non manet; unde non possunt nec absolvere, nec excommunicare, nec indulgentias facere, aut aliquid huiusmodi; quod si fecerint, nihil est actum."

 (Whether schismatics have any power.)

"...The power of jurisdiction, however [as opposed to the power of Orders, which he has just discussed], is that [power] which is conferred simply by the injunction of man; and this power does not adhere immovably; therefore it does not remain in schismatics and heretics. Hence they can neither absolve, nor excommunicate, nor grant indulgences, or anything of this sort. If they do this, the act is null."

[Youngstown]

Pope Innocent III (1198), Sermo 4:

"The Roman Pontiff has no superior but God. Who, therefore, could cast him out or trample him under foot – since of the pope it is said ‘gather thy flock into thy fold’? Truly, he 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 [Minus dico] 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'."

Code of Canon Law (1917), Canon 188.4:

Canon 188: "Ob tacitam renuntiationem ab ipso iure admissam quaelibet officia vacant ipso facto et sine ulla declaratione, si clerus ...
(4) a fide catholica publice defecerit."

Canon 188: "There are certain causes which effect the tacit resignation of an office, which resignation is accepted in advance by operation of law, and hence is effective without any declaration. These causes are:
(4) if he has publicly fallen away from the Catholic faith."

[AnAmericanMother]

I know - I should have made myself clear - I used to be a protestant myself!

What I meant is, that while this guy SAYS he is a Catholic, he is actually being the ultimate protestant -- denying the Faith while pretending to support it (which is of course much more protestant, not to mention hypocritical, than any protestant denomination.)

May God have mercy on his soul, indeed!

[Youngstown]

Jus Canonicum by the Rev F X Wernz S.J. and the Rev P Vidal S.J. (1938) Chapter VII

De Summo Pontifice


[The power of the Roman Pontiff ceases...]

453.        By heresy which is notorious and openly made known. The Roman Pontiff should he fall into it is by that very fact even before any declaratory sentence of the Church deprived of his power of jurisdiction. Concerning this matter there are five Opinions of which the first denies the hypothesis upon which the entire question is based, namely that a Pope even as a private doctor can fall into heresy. This opinion although pious and probable cannot be said to be certain and common. For this reason the hypothesis is to be accepted and the question resolved.


A second opinion holds that the Roman Pontiff forfeits his power automatically even on account of occult heresy. This opinion is rightly said by Bellarmine to be based upon a false supposition, namely that even occult heretics are completely separated from the body of the Church... The third opinion thinks that the Roman Pontiff does not automatically forfeit his power and cannot be deprived of it by deposition even for manifest heresy. This assertion is very rightly said by Bellarmine to be "extremely improbable".


The fourth opinion, with Suarez, Cajetan and others, contends that a Pope is not automatically deposed even for manifest heresy, but that he can and must be deposed by at least a declaratory sentence of the crime. "Which opinion in my judgment is indefensible" as Bellarmine teaches.


Finally, there is the fifth opinion - that of Bellarmine himself - which was expressed initially and is rightly defended by Tanner and others as the best proven and the most common. For he who is no longer a member of the body of the Church, i.e. the Church as a visible society, cannot be the head of the Universal Church. But a Pope who fell into public heresy would cease by that very fact to be a member of the Church. Therefore he would also cease by that very fact to be the head of the Church.


Indeed, a publicly heretical Pope, who, by the commandment of Christ and the Apostle must even be avoided because of the danger to the Church, must be deprived of his power as almost all admit. But he cannot be deprived by a merely declaratory sentence...


Wherefore, it must be firmly stated that a heretical Roman Pontiff would by that very fact forfeit his power. Although a declaratory sentence of the crime which is not to be rejected in so far as it is merely declaratory would be such that the heretical Pope would not be judged, but would rather be shown to have been judged.

[ichabod1]

That was my problem with the piscopos. After a while it got to seem like they was just playing dress-up. As Kathleen Parker said sarcastically in a column, if we’re going to do church, by all means let’s make it high church!