Pope Francis: the question of Papal Heresy and the temptation to Schism

I have been warning readers of the temptation to schismatic dissidence for some time now. As the crisis in the Church increases, so too will the temptation to schism and heresy. I, for one, will not be leaving the Church, and wander off to some Synagogue of Satan. Nor do I intend to leave the Church in my heart. Do you realize, dear friend, what a grave mortal sin it is to deny that Pope Francis is Pope, yet attend a Mass that prays for him in the Canon, as Pope? 

The Church is visible, is She not? 

The Church is hierarchical, is She not? 

We have a Pope, do we not? 

The Church, though gravely ill, will not die. The Church needs Catholics by Her bedside, caring for Her, though Her injuries are heavy, grotesque; Her body covered with open sores. It is now, more than ever, that we should be caring lovingly for Our Mother. 

The Church is sustained by Christ and Our Lord is far, far more powerful than popes, who come and go. Have we ever considered that God knows exactly what He is doing? 

Now, there have been claims that Pope Francis cannot be "deposed", but rather, "lose his Office"! He would, according to this fantastical theory that tries to square a circle, remain Pope until his "heresy has become manifest" in this delusion. 

Manifest to whom? 

Who will judge what is "manifest"? 

From where will these self-appointed judges receive their authority?

This is a fine work of schism. If he has lost office, he can hardly be the Pope. Let us not quibble over semantics! What this is, is a mental exercise in denying the Pope in praxis, but not in theory. 

I am no theologian. Therefore, I shall refer to a theologian: the Abbe de Nantes. The Abbe himself wrote once that a Catholic has a thousand reasons more to follow the Pope than the opinion of a priest. Therefore, in this humble opinion of this priest let us review the possibility that the "Church" (??) can declare the Supreme Pontiff, "deposed". The Abbe certainly was prescient in his belief that this will cause grave confusion. 

" Papa hæreticus depositus est… A heretical Pope is deposed. ” This is the solution advocated by Robert Bellarmine in the heyday of the Counter-Reformation. “ Heresy being a form of spiritual death, a withdrawal from the Church, any Pope who should fall into heresy, would find himself ipso facto cut off from the Church. He is, by this very fact, deposed. He ceases to occupy the Apostolic See of his own accord. ” This theory was well adapted to an epoch when everyone clearly distinguished the Catholic Faith from error.

 What neither Suarez nor Bellarmine could have foreseen, is that a time would come when evolutionism and subjectivism would spread such darkness in people’s minds that it would be impossible for them to immediately identify heresy, particularly in the private doctrines of a pope. Given the current confusion, in which Protestant private judgement is further complicated by Modernist immanentism, if we were to accept this solution, anyone might declare the Pope a heretic according to his own private whim and conclude that, as far as his own direction was concerned, there was no longer any pope. ” (CRC no. 30, March 1970, p. 7) Thus, the theologian of the Catholic Counter-Reformation was of the opinion that this solution would be impracticable as it would have no effect other than to cause confusion and lead to contesting any Pope whoever he might be.

“ Papa haereticus deponendus est, a heretical Pope must be deposed. ” This is the solution proposed by Cardinal Cajetan and other theologians. It implies two important consequences. “ If it so happens that a Pope is a heretic, he must be deposed for him to cease being the Pope. Furthermore, the person who accuses the Pope of heresy must not leave it at that, but must ask for the legal process for his deposition to be undertaken, since he cannot make a universally and immediately executory decision of his personal judgement. ” (CRC no. 69, June 1973, p. 10)

This is a wise solution, yet it raises further questions, in particular, who will judge the Pope  ? Cajetan’s answer is unsatisfactory. He maintains that in undertaking such a process of deposition of a heretical Pope, the Church is not in fact passing a verdict on the offender, but is merely bringing him to the attention of the Sovereign Judge Who is God Himself. “ It is hard to see just what Cajetan had in mind, ” Fr. de Nantes comments. “ He is in an obvious dilemma. We are left only with the idea that any ecclesiastical tribunal in such a trial would be competent merely to institute proceedings, but not to pass sentence. "