What doth it profit a man to attend Latin Masses, but not live like the Good Samaritan?
Email: torontocatholicwitness@outlook.com

Saturday, 14 April 2018

Pope Francis CANNOT lose "his Office" [UPDATE]

Over the past few days there have been reports of an historian speculating that Pope Francis can "lose his office", (but not be "deposed"), after he has been found "guilty" of "manifest" heresy. In other words he would materially cease to be pope, but not formally. 

Who would declare the Pope has lost his "office", and by what authority?

Who would decide what "manifest heresy" is, and by what authority? 

I refer readers to an article written a number of years ago by Br. Andre Marie, in which he wrote the following: 

Regarding the possibility of an heretical pope and his consequent loss of office, I would like to present another argument. Supposing we were to follow the opinions of certain authors that if a pope were to fall into heresy, he would then lose his office. Then suppose that we were to apply that opinion to a certain pope. At best, what we have accomplished is to establish, based upon theological speculation, the possibility that the See of Peter could be vacant. That is all we could do, given the uncertain nature of this situation. At this point, the individual Catholic is at a moral juncture: Either accept a man as the Roman Pontiff whom he thinks might not be pope, or reject him. If he realizes that the claimant to the Apostolic See might be the pope — and he has to admit that he might be — then rejecting the claimant constitutes a schismatic act. 

Let me explain. This is what is known in moral theology as a “practical doubt.” About this “practical doubt” the Jesuit moralist, Father Slater, says the following. “If I eat meat with a practical doubt as to whether it is not forbidden on that day by the Church, I commit a sin of the same kind and malice as if I ate meat knowingly on a day of abstinence.” Apply this to the pontificate. If I refuse my subjection to the Roman Pontiff with a practical doubt as to whether or not he is the pope, I commit an act of schism. It’s a form of spiritual Russian Roulette.

[UPDATE: Sunday, April 15, 2018: 9:05 a.m.]

For those  who have succumbed to sedevacantism, I again refer you to Br. Andre Marie:

“Yes, and we all know what our Lord did. He deposed the high priest and declared the Seat of Moses vacant! Didn’t He?” The point is simply this: If the Man-God himself had enough respect for the sovereign pontiff of the law of types and figures as to say of the heretical Jew who was soon to murder Him, that he sat “in the seat of Moses,” how does anyone in the present law, the more perfect law, dare to do the opposite? 
Let me spell this out. Our Lord was not a sedevacantist. The evil deicide heretic who had authority over the “church” of Israel, was still the head of the true Religion. 
The religious society of the Old Law was still intact. Anyone wishing to save his soul could look to this office for leadership. Its sacrifices were accepted by God, and despite the abusive use to which it was put, the prophetical office was even maintained by this man. What did St. John say about Caiphas’ prophesy of our Lord’s death? “And this he spoke not of himself: but being the high priest of that year, he prophesied that Jesus should die for the nation.” No matter how you view it, the present Pope’s actions come nowhere near the iniquity of Caiphas.


Anonymous said...

Then I guess it’s pure papal positivism. Whatever the Pope says, goes. Just ignore the faith you were brought up in, and the 2000 years of teaching to the contrary. Ignore the very words of our Lord and Savior if the Pope contravenes them. And hope he doesn’t change his mind next week or next year. Maybe the next Pope will change what this one did. But in all cases,we must continue following the three great commandments of the Laity: Pray, Pay, and Obey. It’s just like the Holy Father says; “Who am I to judge?”

nazareusrex said...

Can you explain to us how a heretic can become a pope? It is impossible. The Magisterium of the Church declared in perpetuity void the elevation of a heretic to the papacy. Begoglio is not a pope who has fallen into heresy but a pertinacious heretic who has been obstinate in his heresy and his papacy is null for his previous heresy. And remember, those who support heretics like Bergoglio the Church dictates automatic excommunication.


If after seeing this video where it is shown that Bergoglio had already fallen into Heresy, apostasy and schism in Argentina you believe that Bergoglio is a Pope? It means one of two things: 1-either you do not understand the Magisterium of the Church; or 2-you simply do not have the Catholic faith because you believe the heresy that a heretic can be a pope.

Anonymous said...

A pope sets himself against the faith when he contradicts that which came before him.

I will not follow that man, but I will remain with the Church as She has been.

That does not make me a schismatic.

Bergoglio is the Pope because the Laws says he is.

The Law is a donkey.

Barona said...


I wish things could be black and white, as we all do but they are not. The fact is, we have a Canon Law and there is a process for the declaration of a formal heretic. You are a sedevacantist, but you have to admit that you may yet be wrong. You must admit to this, as you do not possess infallibility, nor are your readings of CHurch documents covered with infallibility. Many of the speculations prior to Vatican One are no longer valid - see Pastor Aeternus. If you also go and read the entirety of Br. Andre Marie's article, you will see that he deals with the questions of papal heresy, schism and scandal. Like it or not, the Church has a head. The head of the Church is Pope Francis.

Barona said...

Anonymous, with respect, you have not dealt with the question of formal heresy. Neither you, nor I (nor our sedevacantist friend, Nazareusrex) have the authority to declare the Pope deposed and not Pope. I am not a protestant. We live in a society that is permeated with liberalism, individualism, protestantism, rebellion. Let us no be seduced emotionally into a hole we cannot climb out of. Sedevacantism is nothing but liberalism.

Irenaeus said...

I am no theologian, either, but I have experienced firsthand the lure of sedevacantism. I know how attractive it is. For a couple months last year, I toed the line between the two Churches (yes, sedevacantism is a different Church), until a friend gently called me out on it. I spent a few weeks on it, fearful I had done some grievous wrong (I had, in a sense.) I eventually came to terms with the scary situation at hand and concluded that even though he is who he is, he is still the pope and we must stay with the Bride.

Sedevacantism is a recent phenomenon which arose as a reaction to the Council. (This does not include the SSPX, which has remained faithful to the Bride.) It was a natural human response, but it was wrong. Sadly, it has persisted to this day.

Sedevacantists - I urge you to read also Pascendi Dominici Gregis, which is about modernism. Sedevacantism seems to be modernist in origin.

Somewhat Confused said...

To deal with the question of formal, black-and-white heresy, I suggest a plain reading of Amoris Laetitia. I did not declare the Bishop of Rome- who does not live in the papal apartment, does not wear the shoes of the Pope and eschews the title of Pope,- not the Pope. Having said that, What is your response to papal positivism? That’s papeolotry, also a heresy.

Barona said...

Somewhat confused, I am glad you rightly bring up the issue of formal heresy. Formal heresy requires a canonical trial. As to Papolatry, the Abbe de Nantes is as far away from papolatry as possible. In fact, he was the first and most consistent voice denouncing - that is demanding the Church and the Pope - judge the Acts of Vatican II. For all that, the Abbe refused to fall into schism. As he wrote, one schism does not deserve another.

nazareusrex said...

No sir Barona we maintain that the pope is still Benedict and Bergogio can not be pope because he was already a heretic we have the Magisterium of the Church that has decreed in perpetuity invalidates the elevation of a heretic to the papacy.
Canon Law confirmed the bull "Cum ex apostolatus" that annuls the elevation of a heretic to the papacy

Somewhat Confused said...

A canonical trial of the Pope? It has never happened, it is never going to happen and you believe it to be impossible, if not schismatic. The poor Abbe may be far from Papolatry, but your position seem to veer close to it. We can’t just sit in a pew and cry. It is not just my soul or yours that is at stake. Our ancestors raised armies against licit Popes. And have you no love for Jorge Bergoglio? Because it would seem he is on a path to Hell. But who am I to judge?

Irenaeus said...

Nazarusrex - Sorry, but Fr. Ratzinger isn't the pope anymore. The pope is Francis, formerly known as Fr. Bergoglio. Fr. Ratzinger stopped being Benedict XVI the moment he stepped down. Fr. Ratzinger has said many times that Francis is the pope and has repeatedly denied assertions he was coerced. Perhaps there is something to that, and we are just too set on our own opinions to believe otherwise. Believe me, I used to think like you do. It's a fool's errand.

Even though I wasn't the one who created this rather odd situation - that falls solely on Fr. Ratzinger - I am sorry there is such confusion about who is the pope.

Heretics have been popes before. It doesn't strip them of their office. Aside from what Barona has mentioned, the only time a pope's office is objectively taken away is when he passes away or he resigns, giving up his office willingly as he does so in the latter. He cannot lose it except in these and very specific circumstances. Francis has satisfied neither of these conditions.

Take care,

Barona said...

Somewhat confused,

What do you propose? I wrote yesterday of the Pope signing a document suppressing a very small priestly Order. The document is legal, though - I believe - unjust. God will judge. The Abbe de Nantes was struck legally, but unjustly with a sanction, suspended by his bishop. The Abbe had two choices before him: to suffer for the love of Christ (whilst still speaking out); or to ignore the bishop and begin to hear invalid "confessions", and witness invalid "marriages". The Abbe wisely chose the first and only option. The Abbe knew that the response to his bishop's sin and spiritual schism, was not another schism, by declaring himself an "independent" priest, a vagus. We cannot do evil that good may come of it. Christ is still in absolute, total control of His Church. The Abbe very strongly confronted both Pope Paul VI and John Paul II, with accusations of heresy, yet he considered the popes. He did not - ever - consider them as not pope. Pope Francis is pope and we need to pray for him. If we might have one devil pestering us, the pope will have whole legions of demons tempting him. Are Catholics praying enough for the Pope? Evidently not.

Somewhat Confused said...

We need to pray for the Pope: for his conversion to the OHC&A Church. Let me tell you how this can end. Bloggers such as yourself keep telling the truth as boldly and loudly as possible. The Pope IS a manifest (public) and pertinacious (repeatedly and without ever recanting his words and actions) heretic. The audience for this is not primarily the faithful, but the pontiff, his supporters and the cardinals and bishops who support him. Keep the pressure on, they know it and feel it. The rest is up to the Holy Father. He, struck by hubris, is well on his way to destroying his standing with his power base, the one that most Catholics listen to: the media. He’s already gotten close with the Barros case,
He is so vain, so power-mad, so besotted with himself that he will cross the line, and the world who once loved him will turn on him quickly. Then he will be forced to resign, as he will get no support from the majority of the bishops and cardinals, and will retire to the Vatican gardens with Benedict.The end.

john haggerty said...

Canon Law or not, the rogue priest James Martin has become Bergoglio's alter-ego.
Martin is saying what Bergoglio doesn't dare say directly.
This rogue priest (a product of the corruption into which the Jesuit order has fallen in America) is softening up the faithful for the betrayals ahead.
See Martin on YouTube:

The Bible is OK About Gay Sex.
Church Teaching on Homosexuality not 'received' or 'authorative'
Gay Marriage is not in the Church because of Sub-Saharan Africa/ disconnect in leaders.

Yup, let's blame those 'homophobic' African bishops. That's the way American Jesuits with their cushy lifestyles and their nice retirement homes think.

Canon Law or not, James Martin is NOT going to give up on this issue. Remember.
Martin has on his side the whole of the Western media, the Supreme Court of the USA, the United Nations, all democratic governments in the West, the music and entertainments industry, Hollywood, the professional sporting fraternity, schools, universities and colleges, local government, most young people, big business which makes an ocean of money from the pink economy, and Mr. George Soros who has invested millions in the gay-transgender movement.

They care nothing for Jesus Christ and His teaching on the sacramental nature of marriage.
They care nothing for the future of the Christian family.
It would take an Athanasius 'Contra Mundi' or a Bernard of Clairvaux to go up against that lot, and there is no such bishop in the Church today; no, not even among the brave Africans.

Liberal Catholics (academics) who have Bergoglio's ear are telling him that the Church does not want to get back into the Culture Wars, or it will be perceived by the media and by the young as reactionary and backward looking.

The spirit of the age is pro-homosexual and it cares nothing for Canon Law.
And Bergoglio, or his alter-ego, is unable to resist the many siren voices of our times.
Has anyone got the stomach to fight the sinful world on this issue?
Yes, members of the laity like Michael Voris (see his YouTube report 'Oh Canada!) and the faithful people of Toronto Catholic Witness.

Otherwise we are alone in the Wasteland of post-Christian Europe and soon post-Christian Canada.
See on YouTube:

Britain's War on Christianity, America's Future Fight?
Militant Secularization and Decline of Christianity in UK.
Europe's Christian Exodus.
Western Civilization will go extinct.
Europe is finished, nothing can save it.
Not Ashamed, UK Christians launch fightback.
Why is Western Christianity dying?
How the West really lost God: A New Theory of Secularization.
It's Dangerous to Believe: Mary Eberstadt.
Mary Eberstadt: Myths of Sexual Revolution.
Liz Yore: The New World Order Pope and Building the Resistance Movement.

Unless the laity resists, Bergoglio's Church of Darkness will become the Windswept House of Death.

Our Lord said: 'Men will hate you for my sake.'
Are we willing to be hated for the Gospel?