Some Vatican II apologists claim that the post-conciliar "popes", Paul VI, John Paul I, John Paul II, and Benedict XVI, never really professed heresy, and therefore could not lose authority. The statements were "ambiguous" or "able to be squeezed within the limits of orthodox teaching." Such is simply NOT the case. Let's look at (a) heresy defined and(b) heresy displayed by the alleged "pontiffs."
(A)Heresy
A heretic, according to Canon 1325.2 is “one who, after the reception of baptism pertinaciously denies or doubts any of the truths to believed by divine and Catholic faith.” The teaching must be an article “of divine and Catholic faith” that the Church has authentically proposed as such.
A prior ex cathedra or conciliar definition is not required. “The explicit teaching of the universal ordinary Magisterium suffices for a truth to be authentically proposed for adherence by the faithful.” (See Michel, DTC 6:2215)
The heretic may deny the doctrine “in explicit or equivalent terms,” (See R. Schultes, De Ecclesia Catholica: Praelectiones Apologeticae (Paris: Lethielleux 1931), 638. “verbis explicitis vel aequivalentibus.”) through either a contradictory or a contrary proposition.
(B) Heretical Teachings
(A)Heresy
A heretic, according to Canon 1325.2 is “one who, after the reception of baptism pertinaciously denies or doubts any of the truths to believed by divine and Catholic faith.” The teaching must be an article “of divine and Catholic faith” that the Church has authentically proposed as such.
A prior ex cathedra or conciliar definition is not required. “The explicit teaching of the universal ordinary Magisterium suffices for a truth to be authentically proposed for adherence by the faithful.” (See Michel, DTC 6:2215)
The heretic may deny the doctrine “in explicit or equivalent terms,” (See R. Schultes, De Ecclesia Catholica: Praelectiones Apologeticae (Paris: Lethielleux 1931), 638. “verbis explicitis vel aequivalentibus.”) through either a contradictory or a contrary proposition.
(B) Heretical Teachings
- Justification: The October 31, 1999 Joint Declaration on Justification , approved by Ratzinger and John Paul II. This overthrows the solemn dogmatic definitions of the Council of Trent concerning justification.
- The Church: The Declaration on Communion, the Ecumenical Directory and the Declaration Dominus Jesus, written by Ratzinger and approved by John Paul II.
These documents promote the “Subsistent Superchurch” heresy, as Fr. Cekada calls it, which, among other things, denies an article of the Creed (“I believe in one Church”), as well as the proposition “outside the Church there is no salvation.” - Actions such as JP II kissing the blasphemous Koran. Canonists and theologians teach that external heresy consists in dictis vel factis — not only in words, but also in “signs, deeds, and the omission of deeds.” (Merkelbach, Summa Theologiae Moralis, 1:746.) Vatican II apologist Jimmy Akin (http://www.jimmyakin.org/) has tried to defend this kissing of the Koran because JPII may have wanted to show respect for "elements of truth" that the Islamic unholy book contains. Using the same logic, one could excuse kissing the Satanic Bible because it teaches "elements of truth" as well!
- Declaring "valid" a "mass" with no words of Consecration!!!
The list could go on and on, but one thing is for certain: it's much easier to point to the few instances of NON-HERETICAL statements and actions of the post-conciliar "popes" than the plethora of heresy the Unholy Fathers of Modernist Rome regularly pour forth leading to the damnation of souls.
Read this and seriously reconsider your being in schism.
ReplyDeletehttp://www.scripturecatholic.com/feature-articles/Feature_-_The_Errors_of_Sedevacantism.pdf
Cardinal Cajetan: "If someone, for a reasonable motive, holds the person of the pope in suspicion and refuses his presence and even his jurisdiction, he does not commit the delict of schism, nor any other whatsoever."
DeleteEven if Bergoglio is the pope (which would mean the church is defectible) we would still not be in schism.
The article is down but I’m assuming it was the same rhetoric of
1. perpetual sucessors
2. Who are you to judge the pope!
3. Universal and peaceful acceptance
1. We can still have interregnums. There was a three year interregnum during the great western schism (but de facto 58 years!) and apostolic succession is still preserved by valid bishops, and Petrine succession is also preserved by the Cassiciacum thesis.
1b. (Attacks against the Cassiciacum thesis from sedeplenists) - the most I have found are quotes from Vatican 1 which are all dismantled when you realise that Sedeprivationism is a form of sedevacantism, and a pope elect is not a half pope but rather not a pope at all. Just like wood is not a half chair
2. We are not declaring him not pope on any authority nor are we saying that a valid pope lost their office. The theological principles of indefectibility simply necessitate that these men are not popes, this point can at most be used to attack totalism but it is not very strong against sedevacantism as a whole.
3. That could at most prove he was validly elected, and he would have to accept it himself anyway, UPA doesn’t prove that he had no defects in accepting the papacy also most of the people who accept him as pope are heretics, apostates or Latiae sentantiae apostates.
Self Correction, the great western schism was 51, not 58 years
Delete