Is It A Bad Father, A Misunderstood Father, Or No Father At All?

 

To My Readers: I hope you enjoy this week's erudite post from TradWarrior as much as I did! Please feel free to comment as per usual. If you have a question or comment for me, I will respond as I always do, but it may take me a bit longer to do so this week.

God bless you all, my dear readers---Introibo

Is it A Bad Father, A Misunderstood Father, Or No Father At All? 

By TradWarrior

I pulled the material for this article from many sources online. All I did was condense everything into a terse and readable post. I take no credit for the information herein, other than putting it together in a concise manner, making it easy to understand for the reader. ---TradWarrior

One of the many arguments brought up against Sedevacantists is that sometimes the pope is just a bad father that has to be resisted, but nevertheless, he is still the pope, and our spiritual father, and we have to recognize him as such. 

A few papal quotes on the papacy demonstrate how the highest office of the church cannot fail in Her Divine mission. 

Pope St. Leo IX:

“By the See of the chief of the Apostles, namely by the Roman Church, through the same Peter, as well as through his successors, have not the comments of all the heretics been disapproved, rejected, and overcome, and the hearts of the brethren in the faith of Peter which so far neither has failed, nor up to the end will fail, been strengthened?” (Apostolic Letter “In Terra Pax;” Denz. 351)

Pope Boniface VIII:

“Furthermore, we declare, we proclaim, we define that it is absolutely necessary for salvation that every human creature be subject to the Roman Pontiff.” (Bull “Unam Sanctam”)

Pope Leo XII:

“Peter still maintains the concern of all pastors in guarding their flocks, and his high rank does not fail even in an unworthy heir.”

“Teach your people great reverence for the Church’s authority which has been directly established by God.” (Encyclical “Ubi Primum,” para. #22-23)

Pope Pius IX:

“God Himself has set up a living authority to establish and teach the true and legitimate meaning of His heavenly revelation.”

“For this mother and teacher of all the churches has always preserved entire and unharmed the faith entrusted to it by Christ the Lord.” (Encyclical “Qui Pluribus,” para. #10-11)

Pope Leo XIII:

“Therefore God confided His Church to Peter so that he might safely guard it with his unconquerable power.” (Encyclical “Satis Cognitum,” para. #12)

Pope Pius XI:

“For the teaching authority of the Church, which in the divine wisdom was constituted on earth in order that revealed doctrines might remain intact for ever, and that they might be brought with ease and security to the knowledge of men, and which is daily exercised through the Roman Pontiff and the Bishops who are in communion with him, has also the office of defining, when it sees fit, any truth with solemn rites and decrees, whenever this is necessary either to oppose the errors or the attacks of heretics, or more clearly and in greater detail to stamp the minds of the faithful with the articles of sacred doctrine which have been explained.” (Encyclical “Mortalium Animos,” para. #9)

Pope Pius XII:

“For Peter in virtue of his primacy is only Christ’s Vicar; so that there is only one chief Head of this Body, namely Christ, who never ceases Himself to guide the Church invisibly, though at the same time He rules it visibly, through him who is His representative on earth.” (Encyclical Mystici Corporis, para. #40)

These citations could be multiplied and many more could be cited by even more popes, but the point is well taken. 

One of the most common statements that is used against Sedevacantists is that the pope can be a bad father but we still have to follow him, no matter what he does. There are problems with this statement. A pope can be a bad man and do many immoral things. He cannot be a heretic. There is a difference and for many in the Novus Ordo and Recognize-and-Resist camps, they do not understand the difference, for this point they raise against Sedevacantists gets rehashed time after time. If a pope is immoral and commands something immoral, that does not mean that we have to obey the command and follow him blindly. Surely, we still accept his pontificate, but we do not just idly follow his every word if he crosses a moral norm. If he tells you to go kill someone, you have a moral obligation to not follow such a command. This should be common sense. If he teaches something that is clearly contrary to a defined matter of faith and morals, then this is a clear sign that he does not hold the pontificate, but is a false pope. There is a difference here. One is bad morally, yet possible; while the other is completely impossible for the papacy is protected by The Holy Ghost. 

A Bad Father

Papal impeccability is the belief that a pope is completely free from personal sin and incapable of wrongdoing. This is a false notion of papal power, one that unfortunately many Protestants believe. There have been bad moral popes and a few cases should be briefly examined. 

Pope Steven VI: He is probably most famous for his “Cadaver Synod” where he exhumed the body of Pope Formosus and put him on trial before the Roman clergy. The corpse was propped up on a throne and a deacon was appointed to answer for the deceased pontiff (sort of like a puppet). During the trial, Formosus was condemned for performing the functions of a bishop when he had been deposed, as well as other charges brought against him. The corpse was found guilty, stripped of its sacred vestments, had three fingers cut off of its right hand (the blessing fingers), and had all of his measures and acts annulled. The corpse was buried in a grave, only to be re-exhumed and thrown into the Tiber River. 

Pope John XII: He was quite possibly the most vile man to ever ascend the papal throne. He ascended the papal throne at about 18 years old. He turned the Lateran into a brothel. He was known for his drinking and fornicating, as well as murder. It is not exactly known how he died. According to one report, he was struck by paralysis while in bed with a married woman. According to another report, the woman’s jealous husband caught John in bed with his wife and killed him. 

Pope Benedict IX: He was the youngest pope ever elected. Many sources say he was around 12 years old when he was elected. He is listed by many sources as having 3 papal reigns, though the history of what occurred is more detailed and that is not exactly the case. Benedict IX became pope in 1032AD and led an immoral life as pope. His enemies elected Sylvester III (an antipope) and had him installed because Benedict was such a terrible individual. In 1045, Benedict IX agreed to resign and appointed Gregory VI as his successor in exchange for money. Gregory VI was later told to resign because he “purchased” the papacy through simony. Another man eventually was elected as Clement II and after his death, Benedict IX tried to once again take the papacy. According to many lists, he had 3 reigns, but in actuality he did not. Historians disagree over the specifics of his case, but what remains clear is that Benedict IX was not a good pope, much less a good human being. 

Pope Urban VI: This pope was the first Roman pope during the Great Western Schism. He was abusive towards his cardinals, which prompted several cardinals to elect another “pope.” This 51 year fiasco caused confusion all throughout the church and wouldn’t be rectified until Martin V was elected pope. 

Pope Alexander VI: He father several children through illicit unions and had them by different mistresses. It is not known how many children he fathered, as the numbers vary between 7 to 12 children he had. He was a very immoral pope. 

There are other popes who reigned who were not very saintly men. The papacy is protected from teaching error. It is not protected by having impeccable men on the throne, for all popes are sinners (some are much worse sinners than others).  

A Misunderstood Father

Papal infallibility is the belief that a pope cannot error when speaking as the supreme shepherd of the universal church, definitively on a matter of faith and morals, with all of the faithful obliged to follow him. When certain criteria are met, infallibility applies. This can be via a solemn papal pronouncement, or by way of the Universal Extraordinary Magisterium (the bishops in union with a pope at an ecumenical council) or the Universal Ordinary Magisterium (the bishops united to the pope throughout the world on a teaching matter). There have been some misunderstood popes throughout the centuries, who often get charged with heresy, when in reality, they never proclaimed anything heretical. A few cases need to be briefly examined. 

Pope Liberius: The main charge against him is that he signed an Arian decree in support of the Arian heresy. There are several problems here. Pope Liberius was an opponent of Arianism. He was exiled by the Emperor Constantius because of his unwillingness to excommunicate St. Athanasius. There is not concrete evidence that Liberius signed a decree in favor of Arianism. Many claimed that he signed it under duress. Even if true, this would not be binding, as his free will in the matter was lacking. After his release from captivity, he continued to reign in Rome and he remained completely orthodox. He refused to compromise in the slightest degree on the orthodox doctrine of the Council of Nicaea, and he remained in full communion and friendship with St. Athanasius. Most scholars are of the opinion that Liberius remained fully orthodox while in captivity and always remained in full communion with St. Athanasius in his stand against the Arians. 

Pope Vigilius: His case is one that is often misunderstood. As pope, he pleased neither the monophysite heretics nor the orthodox. He vacillated back and forth on the issue. He appeared to appease both sides, the monophysites, yet also upheld Chalcedon. The issues here were complex. On one hand, some of the views of the three theologians (this was known as the Three Chapters) were problematic. On the other hand, the Council of Chalcedon had not questioned the orthodoxy of these three theologians and condemning them was seen by many as unjust and even an attack on Chalcedon. Vigilius refused to sign the condemnation but eventually changed his mind and did. Vigilius later withdrew his condemnation. Later, he once again agreed under pressure to the Three Chapters condemnation. There was nothing all along this process where a definitive matter by Vigilius came into play. He basically swayed back and forth on this. St. Robert Bellarmine in Book IV, Chapter 10 of his treatise “On the Roman Pontiff,” considers the thesis proposed by some that a letter where Vigilius had assured the monophysite heretics his sympathy was a forgery. Bellarmine says that Vigilius spoke against the orthodox position, but this was written while Silverius was still alive, and the actual pope. Vigilius at this time was an anti-pope. After Silverius’s death, Bellarmine argued that Vigilius was a true pope and never again sympathized with the monophysites. 

Pope Honorius I: This pope lived during the monothelite heresy. He was approached by Sergius, the Patriarch of Constantinople who was attempting to resolve the dispute. Honorius responded to Sergius with several letters. Their contents became public after the death of Honorius. Honorius supported the orthodox position. He mentioned “one will” of Christ, though he did not support the monothelite position. Pope Honorius I stated that the church professes one will of Jesus Christ. What is not as well known is that Pope John IV taught that Christ never had two contrary wills [his human will being perfectly subordinate to his divine will]. In a metaphorical sense, one could say it was “one will.” Honorius’s letter was not intrinsically heretical in its precise wording—because it did not state whether “one will” was meant literally or metaphorically. The church condemned Honorius for supporting the Monothelite heresy in practice but also ruled that the letter in which he did so was not technically heretical in principle. He was careless in his wording, though he supported the orthodox position. 

Pope John XXII: This pope taught that the souls of the blessed do not see the beatific vision until the General Judgment. This is erroneous as the souls of the blessed see the beatific vision when they enter Heaven. If a soul dies and goes immediately to Heaven, it sees the beatific vision. The soul does not have to wait until the General Judgement. There are two important things to remember here. The beatific vision was not yet a dogma of the faith. Once it was definitively taught, the denial of doctrine would be heresy. Even if it were a dogma (which it was not), Pope John expressly stated that he was open to change his view if corrected by the Church. He was expressing his privately opinion only and was not speaking in a way that was binding the whole universal church to the teaching.

Pope Sixtus V: This pope promulgated an edition of the Latin Vulgate that contained many errors. A biblical translation project and administrative printing choices are not matters of dogmatic teaching and do not touch upon infallibility. After Sixtus died, the College of Cardinals suspended its distribution, corrected the mistakes, and later replaced it with a revised version.

None of these cases here demonstrate any pope contradicting the doctrine of papal infallibility. They are cases that are misunderstood for sure, but they do not violate the church’s teaching on infallibility. 

No Father At All

Papal Indefectibility means that the Catholic Church’s teachings are immutable and always remain the same. It is impossible for her to contradict her own teaching. This runs hand in hand with papal infallibility. The Catholic Church cannot fail in her divine mission. Her teachings are safe because she cannot give those things which are erroneous or evil or incentives to piety to her children. The Magisterium teaches safely at all times through all ages and can never fail. 

When we examine the Vatican II “popes,” we see a completely different situation then the ones previously mentioned. The V2 “popes” have taught heresy officially in their official “magisterium,” an impossibility; thus, a sign that these men were not true popes. We will examine several examples.

John XXIII: 

*He was associated with notorious modernists such as Bishop Radini Tedeschi, Bishop Carlo Ferrara of Milan, Bishop Bonomello of Cremona, and Lamberdo Beauduin.

*He was a Professor of Patristics at the Lateran University, and was removed for several months “on suspicion of modernism” and for teaching the theories of Rudolf Steiner, an illuminati member. The Holy Office in 1925 had Angelo Roncalli listed as an individual who was suspected of modernism.  

*He was a sympathizer with modernists, communists, and freemasons. His name was attached with masonic lodges in Istanbul, Turkey and Paris, France.

*He contradicted previous Popes. He rejected  Gregory XVI’s “Mirari Vos” and “Singulari Nos,” and “Quanta Cura” of Pius IX. He said “I try to imagine what my predecessor would have done, and then I do just the opposite,” in response to his opposition to Pope Pius XII. 

*He called an ecumenical council that invited the Eastern Orthodox, Protestants, modernists, communists, etc. to take an active part in the council.  

*He removed St. John Vianney, St. Philomena, and other saints from the calendar. 

*His encyclical “Pacem in Terris” was praised by communists and freemasons. 

*Freemasons mourned his death, particularly in Mexico. 

*It was said that he made Montini a cardinal so that he could be elected in the next conclave. 

Paul VI: 

*He was a Modernist.

*He was known in his seminary days as a homosexual. 

*He was exiled to Milan by Pope Pius XII when it was discovered that he was communicating with the Communists. 

*It was reported that the failed masonic plan to have Rampolla elected was corrected when Montini was elected. 

*He approved all 16 documents of Vatican II, which are filled with heresy.

*He approved of cremation. According to some insiders, he was blackmailed by the freemasons into allowing cremation; otherwise, they were going to “spill the beans” and declare that he was a notorious homosexual. 

*According to several sources, he was the romantic partner of actor Paulo Carlini. 

*Freemasons and Communists praised Montini and said that he went much farther than his predecessor Roncalli did, which delighted both of these groups. 

*Montini created 7 new rites for all of the sacraments. 

*Montini created the “Novus Ordo Missae” with the help of 6 Protestants. 

*He championed the freemasonic principles of religious liberty, ecumenism, and collegiality, and met with different members of all different religions frequently.

*He spoke of a New World Order that was needed. 

*He said the United Nations was the last hope for peace for mankind. 

*He gave away the triple crowned papal tiara. 

*He gave his shepherd’s crown and fisherman’s ring away. 

*He abolished the “Oath Against Modernism.”

*He excluded all cardinals over 80 from voting in papal elections. This was to remove the older traditional clergy that remained. 

*He abolished the “Index of Forbidden Books.”

*He removed solemn exorcisms in the baptismal rite. 

*He granted over 30,000 requests from priests to return to lay status. 

*He spoke numerous times about how all honor goes to man. 

*He said at the end of Vatican II that he was about to blow the seven trumpets of the apocalypse. 

John Paul II:

*Fr. Garrigou-Lagrange remarked that Wojtyla wrote much but said little, in his early seminary days. Fr. Garrigou-Lagrange did not even consider Wojtyla Catholic. 

*His philosophy of phenomenology was very problematic. 

*He dispensed with the traditional papal coronation. 

*He kept the heretic Fr. Raymond Brown as the head of the Pontifical Biblical Commission. 

*He created the Luminous Mysteries of the rosary.

*He championed the “Divine Mercy” private revelation and Sr. Faustina, though her work was condemned by the Holy Office more than once. 

*He kissed the ring of Rowan Williams, the head of the Anglican sect. 

*He prayed that St. John the Baptist would protect Islam. 

*He “canonized” more saints than any of his predecessors. 

*He had females barely dressed at his papal “Masses.” 

*He allowed female altar servers, which were condemned strongly by 3 previous popes as a practice being erroneous and evil. 

*He prayed with heretics continuously and visited other places of worship like synagogues and mosques. 

*He said the Eastern Orthodox and Catholic Church were sister churches.

*He approved of a Mass with no words of consecration. 

*He agreed with the Joint Declaration of the Lutherans that we are justified by faith alone. 

*He kissed the Koran. 

*His Assisi events were blasphemous to say the least. 

*He endorsed the United Nations. 

*He received members of the B’nai B’rith (Freemasons). 

*He had a meeting with the Trilateral Commission in the Vatican. 

*The Grand Orient Lodge of Italian Freemasonry gave him the “Order of Galilee” award, which he graciously accepted. 

*He rejected the dogma “Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus” many times, most notably in “Ut Unum Sint.” 

We could add the heresies of Luciani, Ratzinger, Bergoglio, and Prevost to demonstrate that we are dealing with a false religion here, but there is no need. Statements by Ratzinger such as “Gaudium et Spes” being a counter-Syllabus to the Syllabus of Pius IX and Bergoglio’s many heretical statements such as “There is no Catholic God,” “Proselytism is solemn nonsense”, and “God willed the pluralism of all religions,” do not even scratch the surface when we look at their numerous heretical deeds and words that they did and spoke throughout their “pontificates”, not to mention the many sins of omission they also committed. 

It is important to note that Roncalli, Montini, and Wojtyla have all been “canonized saints” by the V2 sect. The Vatican 2 sect has formally approved them as “saints.” There are many more pages and pages that could be written about their various heresies that they promulgated, yet they have been “raised to the altars.” Either the Vatican 2 sect is Catholic or it is not. If these men are saints, then everything that came before them in church history has to be rightfully condemned. This means that for 19.5 centuries, there was no church, until Vatican II was born. This is preposterous of course, and the opposite must be true. The V2 sect is false and these men are false saints. 

Everything was new in the Vatican II sect. The 16 documents ushered forth new teachings that were condemned by the previous popes and councils. The V2 sect “canonized” men and women, many of whom who questionable at best, or horrendous heretics at worse. The V2 sect promulgated a new code of canon law and a new catechism. The V2 sect officially approved of new devotions that were previously condemned, like The Divine Mercy devotion. The V2 sect officially promulgated and sanctioned teachings such as religious liberty, ecumenism, and collegiality (3 freemasonic principles), not to mention many other things that were always condemned. 

If one is to say that the Conciliar Church is the same as the Traditional Catholic Church (an impossibility for anyone who seriously investigates this), then they must accept everything that the “popes” from Roncalli through Prevost have taught, for these teachings would then be safe and free from error and evil, since they came from true popes. We cannot play the game that the R & R’s always do (as do V2 sect members and Feeneyites too) and say that we will only accept teachings that are infallible, for we have many pre-Vatican II popes who clearly taught that popes must be followed, even when they are not teaching infallibly. We must still give our assent of intellect and will to these papal writings. This has been declared as such by Pope Pius IX in “Quanta Cura” (para. #5) as well as his “Syllabus of Errors” (Condemned Proposition #22), Pope Leo XIII in “Sapientiae Christianae” (para. #24), Pope Pius XI in “Casti Connubii” (para. #104), and Pope Pius XII in “Humani Generis” (para. #20). Non-infallible teachings are required for us to follow. If we believe that these true popes have errored in their non-infallible teachings, then we must accept that they too either didn’t hold the papal office, or they fell from it due to heresy, something most people would not assert. 

The Vatican II sect only goes so far in their thinking. The members of the V2 sect and the Recognize-and-Resist crowd will continuously say that the Vatican II “popes” said and did un-papal things and they espoused heresies, yet nevertheless, we must accept them as popes, just resist them when they taught something false. True popes cannot teach something false. This is the teaching of the Catholic Church. Popes are protected from teaching anything containing error or evil because of the divine assistance of The Holy Ghost. Their magisterial teachings are always clear and safe to follow (unlike the “magisterium” of the Vatican II sect). We have it on the authority of many holy popes, theologians, and saints that the papacy is divinely protected and will never fail. A few examples will suffice:

Pope Paul IV Bull: Cum Ex Apostolatus [16 Feb. 1559]:

“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.”

Pope Innocent III Si Papa [1198]:

“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.’”

Coronata - Institutiones Juris Canonici [1950]:

“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.”

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.”

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.”

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 …”

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.”

St. Alphonsus Liguori:

“If ever a Pope, as a private person, should fall into heresy, he should at once fall from the Pontificate. If, however, God were to permit a pope to become a notorious and contumacious heretic, he would by such fact cease to be pope, and the apostolic chair would be vacant.”

Theologian Prummer: "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 judgement 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."(Ius Canonicum. Rome: Gregorian [1943],  2:453). 

Theologian Iragui: "...theologians commonly concede that the Roman Pontiff, if he should fall into manifest heresy, would no longer be a member of the Church, and therefore could neither be called its visible head."

(Manuale Theologiae Dogmaticae. Madrid: Ediciones Studium [1959], pg. 371). 

It is entirely possible to have a lengthy papal interregnum spanning many years, but it is impossible to have a “heretical pope,” which is an oxymoron. If a papal claimant is teaching heresy, it is a sure sign that he is not the pope. As strange as it is to have a lengthy “sede vacante” period, it is still possible and it is The Holy Ghost who is actually protecting the Catholic Church, while chaos is ensuing with one papal pretender after another wreaking complete chaos on what appears to be the Catholic Church, but really isn’t. The captain of the ship and all of the crew members can fall overboard and no one may steer the ship for a very long time (if ever again), but it is impossible for the ship to strike an iceberg and sink. The Traditional Catholic Church is merely eclipsed during this lengthy time in The Great Apostasy. It is still visible in its traditional members, though it has been reduced greatly in number to very few left upon the Earth upholding the magisterial teachings of the true church. Theologians such as Van Noort, Dorsch, Billot, Cajetan, O’Reilly, and others spoke about the very real possibility (in the future) of the Catholic Church going for many, many years without a valid pope to guide it, as the enemies of the church continued over a long period of time to rise to higher and higher positions in the upper echelons of the Vatican. 

Conclusion

Confusion reigns supreme in this godless age that we live in. Many people mistakenly think that a non-pope is simply a bad pope or a misunderstood pope, or both, but he must still somehow be the pope, for God would never leave us orphans without a spiritual father to guide us. God does not leave us orphans, as He is always guiding us. The fact that His Holy Catholic Church may go a long time without a visible leader to teach, rule, and sanctify the church does not mean that He has left the church. If the Catholic Church was actually being led by men who were heretical popes, then this would be a sign that God did leave His Church, which we know is an impossibility. 

During these difficult and trying times, we must remain vigilant and faithful even as everything else around us continues to implode everywhere we look in the institutional church and the world as a whole. Only the person who perseveres to the end is sure to make it. We have Christ’s promise to us that Peter and his successors will guide the Catholic Church until the end of time, even in times when we go a long time without a legitimate successor on the papal throne. He promised that the gates of Hell would never prevail against His Catholic Church, and we take Him at His Word because His Word is always good.