“Thus the Word condescended to man’s engrossment in corporeal things, by even taking a body.”

15. Thus the Word condescended to man’s engrossment in corporeal things, by even taking a body. All man’s superstitions He met halfway; whether men were inclined to worship Nature, Man, Demons, or the dead, He showed Himself Lord of all these.

For as a kind teacher who cares for His disciples, if some of them cannot profit by higher subjects, comes down to their level, and teaches them at any rate by simpler courses; so also did the Word of God. As Paul also says: “For seeing (1 Corinthians 1:21) that in the wisdom of God the world through its wisdom knew not God, it was God’s good pleasure through the foolishness of the word preached to save them that believe.” 2. For seeing that men, having rejected the contemplation of God, and with their eyes downward, as though sunk in the deep, were seeking about for God in nature and in the world of sense, feigning gods for themselves of mortal men and demons; to this end the loving and general Saviour of all, the Word of God, takes to Himself a body, and as Man walks among men and meets the senses of all men half-way , to the end, I say, that they who think that God is corporeal may from what the Lord effects by His body perceive the truth, and through Him recognize the Father. 3. So, men as they were, and human in all their thoughts, on whatever objects they fixed their senses, there they saw themselves met half-way , and taught the truth from every side. 4. For if they looked with awe upon the Creation, yet they saw how she confessed Christ as Lord; or if their mind was swayed toward men, so as to think them gods, yet from the Saviour’s works, supposing they compared them, the Saviour alone among men appeared Son of God; for there were no such works done among the rest as have been done by the Word of God. 5. Or if they were biassed toward evil spirits, even, yet seeing them cast out by the Word, they were to know that He alone, the Word of God, was God, and that the spirits were none. 6. Or if their mind had already sunk even to the dead, so as to worship heroes, and the gods spoken of in the poets, yet, seeing the Saviour’s resurrection, they were to confess them to be false gods, and that the Lord alone is true, the Word of the Father, that was Lord even of death. 7. For this cause He was both born and appeared as Man, and died, and rose again, dulling and casting into the shade the works of all former men by His own, that in whatever direction the bias of men might be, from thence He might recall them, and teach them of His own true Father, as He Himself says: “I came to save and to find that which was lost.”

St. Athanasius, On the Incarnation of the Word

It’s still Christmas, everyone! The feasting shall continue unabated!

https://www.newadvent.org/fathers/2802.htm

Brief meditation on the meaning of Christ’s Nativity

The following was posted last Christmas by the Discalced Hermits of Our Lady of Mount Carmel at Fairfield, PA. Please consider supporting them.

“Our Savior, dearly-beloved, was born today: let us be glad. For there is no proper place for sadness, when we keep the birthday of the Life, which destroys the fear of mortality and brings to us the joy of promised eternity. No one is kept from sharing in this happiness. There is for all one common measure of joy, because as our Lord the destroyer of sin and death finds none free from charge, so is He come to free us all…

“Therefore the Word of God, Himself God, the Son of God who in the beginning was with God, through whom all things were made and without whom was nothing made (John 1:1-3), with the purpose of delivering man from eternal death, became man: so bending Himself to take on Him our humility without decrease in His own majesty, that remaining what He was and assuming what He was not, He might unite the true form of a slave to that form in which He is equal to God the Father, and join both natures together by such a compact that the lower should not be swallowed up in its exaltation, nor the higher impaired by its new associate. Without detriment therefore to the properties of either substance which then came together in one Person, majesty took on humility, strength weakness, eternity mortality: and for the paying off of the debt, belonging to our condition, inviolable nature was united with passible nature, and true God and true man were combined to form one Lord, so that, as suited the needs of our case, one and the same Mediator between God and men, the Man Christ Jesus, could both die with the one and rise again with the other.

“Such then beloved was the nativity which became the Power of God and the Wisdom of God even Christ, whereby He might be one with us in manhood and surpass us in Godhead. For unless He were true God, He would not bring us a remedy, unless He were true Man, He would not give us an example. Therefore the exulting angel’s song when the Lord was born is this, Glory to God in the Highest, and their message, peace on earth to men of good will (Luke 2:14). For they see that the heavenly Jerusalem is being built up out of all the nations of the world: and over that indescribable work of the Divine love how ought the humbleness of men to rejoice, when the joy of the lofty angels is so great?

“Let us then, dearly beloved, give thanks to God the Father, through His Son, in the Holy Spirit, Who for His great mercy, wherewith He has loved us, has had pity on us: and when we were dead in sins, has quickened us together in Christ (Ephesians 2:4-5), that we might be in Him a new creation and a new production. Let us put off then the old man with his deeds: and having obtained a share in the birth of Christ let us renounce the works of the flesh. Christian, acknowledge your dignity, and becoming a partner in the Divine nature, refuse to return to the old baseness by degenerate conduct. Remember the Head and the Body of which you are a member. Recollect that you were rescued from the power of darkness and brought out into God’s light and kingdom. By the mystery of Baptism you were made the temple of the Holy Ghost: do not put such an Inhabitant to flight from you by base acts, and subject yourself once more to the devil’s slavery: because your purchase money is the Blood of Christ, because He shall judge you in truth Who ransomed you in mercy, who with the Father and the Holy Spirit reigns for ever and ever. Amen.”

A most blessed Christmas to you and your loved ones!

Glory to the newborn King!

A mix of Anglican and Methodist notes and lyrics, performed in a stolen Catholic church? Well yes, please! Just so long as we can agree that there will be no cheap grace of prot folly when we sing, “God and sinners reconciled.”

Note the First Violin absolutely shredding it the last 30 seconds.

Happy Christmas, which continues unabated.

Hark! The herald-angels sing
“Glory to the newborn King;
Peace on earth and mercy mild,
God and sinners reconciled”
Joyful all ye nations rise,
Join the triumph of the skies
With the angelic host proclaim
“Christ is born in Bethlehem”
Hark! The herald-angels sing
“Glory to the new-born King”

Christ, by highest heaven adored
Christ, the everlasting Lord,
Late in time behold Him come
Offspring of a Virgin’s womb:
Veiled in flesh the Godhead see,
Hail the incarnate Deity
Pleased as man with man to dwell
Jesus, our Emmanuel
Hark! The herald-angels sing
“Glory to the newborn King”

Hail the Heaven-born Prince of Peace!
Hail the Sun of Righteousness!
Light and life to all He brings,
Risen with healing in His wings;
Mild He lays His glory by
Born that man no more may die
Born to raise the sons of earth
Born to give them second birth
Hark! The herald angels sing

”Glory to the new-born King”

Word of the Father, now in flesh appearing

“And behold an angel of the Lord stood by them, and the brightness of God shone round about them; and they feared with a great fear. And the angel said to them: Fear not; for, behold, I bring you good tidings of great joy, that shall be to all the people: For, this day, is born to you a Savior, who is Christ the Lord, in the city of David.” Luke 2:9-11

 

I find the latter verses of Adeste Fideles, verses 5-7, written by Abbé Étienne Jean François Borderies (1764-1832), to be particularly worthy of water works when the pipe organ, stops out, reverbs your internal organs:

Yea, Lord, we greet Thee, born this happy morning,
Jesu, to Thee be glory given.
Word of the Father, now in flesh appearing;

See how the shepherds, summoned to His cradle,
leaving their flocks, draw nigh to gaze.
We too will thither bend our hearts’ oblations;

There shall we see Him, His eternal Father’s
everlasting brightness now veiled under flesh.
God shall we find there, a Babe in infant clothing;

Child, for us sinners, poor and in the manger,
we would embrace Thee, with love and awe.
Who would not love Thee, loving us so dearly?

O come let us adore Him, O come let us adore Him, O come let us adore Him, Christ the Lord.

Merry Christmas!

(Apologies, but here is eight minutes of Anglican greatness)

“Thou art knocking at the doors… and in the morning you shall see Thy glory”

INTROIT Ex. 16:6-7 This day you shall know that the Lord will come and save us; and in the morning you shall see Thy glory. Ps. 23:1. The earth and its fullness is the Lord’s; the world and all those who dwell therein.

“O ineffable mystery! how grand is this apparent littleness! how mighty this divine weakness! But God has still lower to descend than merely coming on our earth. He goes from house to house of His people: not one will receive Him. He must go and seek a crib in the stable of poor dumb beasts. There, until such time as the angels sing to Him their hymn, and the shepherds and the Magi come with their offerings, He will meet “the ox that knoweth its Owner, and the ass that knoweth its Master’s crib!” (Isaias 1:3) O Savior of men, Emmanuel, Jesus! we, too, will go to this stable of Bethlehem. Thy new birth, which is tonight, shall not be without loving and devoted hearts to bless it. At this very hour, Thou art knocking at the doors of Bethlehem, and who is there that will take Thee in? Thou sayest to my soul in the words of the Canticle: “Open to me, my sister, my beloved! for my head is full of dew, and my locks of the drops of the night!” (Song of Soloman 5:2) Ah! sweet Jesus! Thou shalt not be refused here! I beseech Thee, enter my house. I have been watching and longing for Thee. Come, then, Lord Jesus! come! (Revelation 22:20)”

The Liturgical Year, by Dom Prosper Gueranger

https://stlouiscatholic.wordpress.com/2024/12/24/christmas-eve/

“Pope Francis’” public heresy means he isn’t a member of the Catholic Church: Dr. Edmund Mazza

Featured Image 

Matt Gaspers and I have previously—and charitably—debated the likelihood that Francis was ever a valid Pope due to Benedict’s innovation of becoming Pope Emeritus. It is in the same fraternal spirit that I take up the challenge again.

Virtually no one disputes that Pope Francis is at least a public material heretic (whether he is formally heretical, that is to say, subjectively guilty is a subject for another debate).

In his recent LifeSite article, however, Mr. Gaspers disputes Matthew McCusker’s position (and the authorities he cites) that Francis is not Pope because public material heretics are not members of the visible Church (and thus automatically lose office). Gaspers writes:

With all due respect for Msgr. Van Noort, it seems to me that material heretics — those “who externally deny a truth … or several truths of divine and Catholic faith … ignorantly and innocently,” in his words — must necessarily remain members of the Church, given that pertinacity (obstinate denial or doubt) is the hallmark of heresy in its full and proper sense. If full knowledge and full consent are lacking, it is simply not the case that one is a true heretic, canonically speaking.

In the first place, with all due respect to Mr. Gaspers, if he doesn’t believe Msgr. Van Noort’s claim that material heresy by itself is enough to place a person outside the visible Church and thus automatically lose office, perhaps he will listen to Ludwig Ott, the beloved author of Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma? Ott writes:

Public heretics, even those who err in good faith (material heretics), do not belong to the body of the Church, that is, the legal commonwealth of the Church. [1]

But if Mr. Gaspers doesn’t believe Ott that material heresy by itself is enough to place a person outside the visible Church and thus automatically lose office, perhaps he will listen to the young Karl Rahner? Rahner states that this is, in fact, not just his opinion but the almost unanimous [2] position of theologians up to and including the 1940s:

…even those public heretics and schismatics who either cannot be proved to be, or in fact, are not in heresy or schism through formal sin or subjective guilt are outside the Church. In short, even heretics and schismatics in good faith…do not belong…to the visible Church…

It was the almost universal teaching of theologians even before 1943, and…it follows from the very nature of things, that even material heretics and schismatics do not belong as members to the visible ChurchFor if those who are outside the Church by a non-imputable, but nevertheless public and juridical act, belonged…to the Church, then the visible Church could no longer be one in respect of her visibleness…[3]

But if Mr. Gaspers doesn’t believe Rahner that material heresy by itself is enough to place a person outside the visible Church and thus automatically lose office, perhaps he will listen to the eminent Louis Cardinal Billot? Billot writes:

The excommunication of vitandi is a consummated excommunication…they are quite simply outside the Church, no differently than are heretics and schismatics, though by a different means.

I say, ‘by a different means’…For heretics and schismatics—even purely material ones—are separated from the communion of the Catholic Church by the natural divine law itself[4]

But if Mr. Gaspers doesn’t believe Billot that material heresy by itself is enough to place a person outside the visible Church and thus automatically lose office, perhaps he will listen to Doctor of the Church St. Robert Cardinal Bellarmine? Bellarmine writes:

The Fathers teach unanimously not only that heretics are outside of the Church, but also that they are ‘ipso facto’ [automatically, without Church declaration] deprived of all ecclesiastical jurisdiction and dignity…

[A] pertinacious heretic is condemned by his own judgment, that is, as Jerome explains, he is not expelled from the Church by excommunication like a lot of other sinners, but he himself expels himself from the Church. [5]

But if Mr. Gaspers still insists, despite the unanimous judgment of the Fathers (like St. Jerome) that current Canon Law somehow prevents the course of Divine Law from taking effect, perhaps he will grudgingly accept Bellarmine’s rebuttal of his position?

Nor does the response which some make avail that these Fathers speak according to ancient laws, but now since the decree of the Council of Constance they do not lose jurisdiction unless excommunicated by name…this avails to nothing. For those Fathers when they say that heretics lose jurisdiction, do not allege any human laws…rather they argued from the nature of heresy.[6]

Through notorious and openly divulged heresy, the Roman Pontiff, should he fall into heresy, by that very fact 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.[7]

The heretic Pope “is deemed to be deprived of the power of jurisdiction even before any declaratory judgement by the Church.”

But if Gaspers should insist on subsequent canonical confirmation of Wernz and Vidal (favoring Bellarmine’s position) perhaps he will accept the position of leading canonist Dr. Edward Peters? Peters writes:

I know of no author coming after Wernz who disputes this analysis [that of Wernz and Vidal]. See, e.g., Ayrinhac, CONSTITUTION (1930) 33; Sipos, ENCHIRIDION (1954) 156; Regatillo, INSTITUTIONES I (1961) 299; Palazzini, DMC III (1966) 573; and Wrenn (2001) above. As for the lack of detailed canonical examination of the mechanics for assessing possible papal heresy, Cocchi, COMMENTARIUM II/2 (1931) n. 155, ascribes it to the fact that law provides for common cases and adapts for rarer; may I say again, heretical popes are about as rare as rare can be and yet still be.

In sum, and while additional important points could be offered on this matter, in the view of modern canonists from Wernz to Wrenn, however remote is the possibility of a pope actually falling into heresy and however difficult it might be to determine whether a pope has so fallen, such a catastrophe, Deus vetetwould result in the loss of papal office. [8]

Or again, as Rahner put it in 1947:

 Moreover, a bishop or Pope, according to the universal teaching…keeps his ecclesiastical powers even if he is occultly unbelieving in the purely internal forum [i.e. in his heart, not public]. But possession of ordinary ecclesiastical authority [office holding] and non-membership in the Church [for public material heresy] are mutually exclusive notionsit is contrary to the nature of an ordinary sovereign power in a community, that it should be capable of being exercised by a non-member or outsider. For ordinary, enduring exercise of a function proper to the nature of a community does, in fact, constitute membership.

It is a little-known fact (but extremely important that it become widely known) that St. Thomas Aquinas, in his Commentary on Galatians, teaches that although no Churchman has power from God to excommunicate a co-equal successor of the Apostles, or a superior, i.e. a Successor of St. Peter (or for that matter, an Angel from Heaven), yet:

…the Apostle [Paul] says the dignity of the Gospel teaching which comes directly from God, is so great that if a man or even an angel preach another gospel …he is anathema, i.e., must be rejected and expelled.

… [W]e must solve the objections which arise on this point. The first is that, since an equal has no authority over his peers and much less over his superiors, it seems that the Apostle [Paul] has no power to excommunicate the apostles, who are his peers, and less so, angels who are superior… Therefore, the anathema is invalid. The answer to this is that the Apostle passed this sentence not on his own authority, but on the authority of the Gospel teaching [Deposit of Faith], of which he was the minister, and the authority of which teaches that whoever says anything contrary to it must [emphasis added] be expelled and cast out.[9]

Yet Gaspers claims that St. Thomas supports his view that pertinacity must be present:

it is evident that a heretic who obstinately disbelieves one article of faith is not prepared to follow the teaching of the Church in all things; but if he is not obstinate, he is no longer in heresy but only in error (ST II-II, q. 5, art. 3).

But Thomas is speaking about the subjective guilt of the person, not whether he is still a member of the visible Church. In his Commentary on Galatians, he keeps the door open to the possibility that even material heretics who have not been warned and found pertinacious are ontologically outside the Church, again, as when St. Paul said: “Let them be anathema”:

But whether he [Paul] was then and there passing sentence on heretics by these words is open to question, since sentence was later passed against heretics in the Councils. Yet it can be said that perhaps he was showing that they deserved to be excommunicated.[10]

At any rate, the Church has had 750 years since St. Thomas to reflect, refine and clarify.

If after all this, Mr. Gaspers should insist that only a public FORMAL heretic Pope could ever lose office, then allow me to inform him that Canon Law itself (Canon 1321. 3) asserts that Francis is presumed to be a formal heretic, not merely a material one:

Unless it is otherwise evident IMPUTABILITY IS PRESUMED whenever an EXTERNAL VIOLATION has occurred.[xi] (emphasis mine)

Francis, by his remorseless and repeated materially heretical declarations—such as stating that the death penalty is illicit or that that all religions are paths to God—is, by these EXTERNAL VIOLATIONS PRESUMED a formal heretic because it is NOT “otherwise evident that he is not.”

But if Canon Law says that Francis is to be presumed to be formally heretical, then even Raymond Cardinal Burke must agree that Francis is not Pope, for this is exactly what he told Catholic World Report in December 2016:

If a Pope would formally profess heresy he would cease, by that act, to be the Pope. It’s automatic. And so, that could happen.[12]

Hundreds of thousands of Catholics are now waiting for His Eminence to follow through on this statement.

Not that we cannot presume the invalidity already. For as I have been at pains to demonstrate above, it is the near unanimous opinion among theologians that even a material heretic, that is to say, a man who is NOT  a heretic even in the eyes of God, is nevertheless, NOT a member of the visible Church and therefore loses his office ipso facto. As Bellarmine says of Pope Liberius losing his office to Pope Felix:

Then two years later came the lapse of Liberius, of which we have spoken above. Then indeed the Roman clergy, stripping Liberius of his pontifical dignity, went over to Felix, whom they knew [then] to be a Catholic. From that time, Felix began to be the true Pontiff. For although Liberius was not a heretic, nevertheless he was considered one, on account of the peace he made with the Arians, and by that presumption the pontificate could rightly [merito] be taken from him: for men are not bound, or able to read hearts; but when they see that someone is a heretic by his external works, they judge him to be a heretic pure and simple [simpliciter], and condemn him as a heretic. [13]

It is worth mentioning that although many writers quote Thomas Cardinal Cajetan that a Pope only loses office AFTER an imperfect council declares him so, it is a little-known fact (but extremely important that it become widely known) that Cajetan later changed his position to that of Robert Cardinal Bellarmine:

… [Cajetan] abandoned his thesis, so strongly defended in De Comparatione, that in the case of a heresy the pope is not ipso facto to be considered deposed.” [14]

In conclusion, against the position of Matt Gaspers (and others) it seems it simply must be the case that a public material heretic Pope loses office BEFORE any declaratory action on the part of the Church. For as former Vatican Librarian Alfons Cardinal Stickler writes:

…[in] the first millennium of the Church…in the light of that tradition…it appears clearly that the pope stands for the Church which has never erred, which cannot err, in questions that involve eternal spiritual salvation. Therefore, he is the absolute (and consequently, implicitly infallible) guarantor of the truth which one who wishes to be Catholic must profess…if the pope really errs [publicly] in matters already defined (and this is something to be proved because it is often erroneously asserted [by Sedevacantists for example]), he is no longer pope and therefore does not compromise and cannot compromise papal infallibility…[15]

I have long argued that the preponderance of the evidence indicates that Pope Benedict’s resignation was invalid (Cf. The Third Secret of Fatima and the Synodal Church, Vol. I Pope Benedict’s ResignationAmazon). But if somehow the election of Pope Francis were valid, it is hard to see how the preponderance of the evidence does not now indicate that he has lost his office due to material heresy—even if he were somehow not formally guilty of heresy. [16]

ENDNOTES

[1] Ludwig Ott, Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma (TAN Books, 1974), pp. 309-311.

[2] As Gaspers points out: “merely material heretics, even if manifest, are members of the Church, is defended by Franzelin, De Groot, D’Herbigny, Caperan, Terrien, and a few others.”

[3] Karl Rahner, “Die Zugehörigkeit zur Kirche nach der Lehre der Enzyklika Pius XII Mystici Corporis Christi,” Zeitschrift für katholische Theologie, 69 Band (1947), pp. 129-188. Cf. https://archive.org/details/theologicalinves0002karl/page/12/mode/2up?view=theater&q=universal+teaching+of+theologians

[4] Louis Cardinal Billot, S.J. Tractatus De Ecclesia Christi 5th Edition (Rome: Gregorian Pontifical University, 1927), pp. 310-311.

[5]  St. Robert Cardinal Bellarmine, On the Roman Pontiff, Vol. 1, Book II, Chapter 30, trans. Ryan Grant (Mediatrix Press, 2015), pp. 308-310. As cited by Billot, p. 295. Cf. https://wmreview.co.uk/2023/01/09/tradivox-vi/#_ftnref9

[6] Bellarmine, On the Roman Pontiff, Vol. 1, Book II, Chapter 30, pp. 308-310.

[7] Fr. Franz Wernz and Fr. Pedro Vidal, Ius Canonicum II, p. 453.

[8] https://canonlawblog.wordpress.com/2016/12/16/a-canonical-primer-on-popes-and-heresy/

[9] https://isidore.co/aquinas/english/SSGalatians.htm#12

[10] https://isidore.co/aquinas/english/SSGalatians.htm#12

[11] Canon 1321 P. 4 in the latest revision of the 1983 Code. A thank you to Canonist Marc Balestrieri for bringing this to my attention.

[12] https://www.catholicworldreport.com/2016/12/19/cardinal-burke-no-i-am-not-saying-that-pope-francis-is-in-heresy/

[13] De Romano Pontifice, lib. II, cap. 30.

[14] Ulrich Horst, Juan de Torquemada and Thomas de Vio Cajetan, (Akademie Verlag, Berlin, 2012), p. 172. Horst is likely referencing Cajetan’s response to Luther in De divina institutione pontificatus Romani Pontificis.

[15] The Catholic Historical Review, vol. 60, no. 3 (October 1974), pp. 427-441; Cf. https://www.obeythepope.com/2017/12/the-indefectible-church-of-rome.html

[16]Sedevacantist critics undoubtedly claim the same of all the Popes since John XXIII, but we must remember that we are not merely talking about error on the part of the Popes, but heresy. And heresy means the denial of a teaching to be believed with divine and Catholic faith. It is up to them to prove that any of these Popes publicly denied De Fide dogmas of the Church in the unmistakable manner that Bergoglio has; Cf. https://www.padreperegrino.org/2022/10/infallible/.

8 critical flaws in Bishop Schneider’s defense of “Francis is Definitely Pope”

By Matthew McCusker via (LifeSiteNews)

Schneider’s article is mainly directed against those who reject the claims of Francis to the papacy because of (a) questions about the abdication of Benedict XVI and/or (b) the papal conclave which apparently elected Francis. However, Schneider reaches a conclusion which is much broader than simply refuting what has been called the “benevacantist” (“Benedict was still pope”) position. He asserts without qualification that “Pope Francis is certainly the valid Pope.”

This conclusion does not follow from the arguments which he makes in this article. His arguments may have some force against the “benevacantist” position, but they are not adequate to address the position which eschews consideration of resignations, conclaves, and conspiracies, and instead bases its argument for the current vacancy of the Holy See on theological principles rather than contingent events.

There are, I contend, eight critical flaws in Bishop Schneider’s argument, seen from this perspective:

  1. He prioritizes history over theology in resolving a question which is primarily theological in nature
  2. He fails to distinguish between what is of human law and what is of divine law in the law concerning papal elections
  3. He denies that the Holy See can be vacant for a “considerable time”
  4. He appears to deny that there can be temporary doubt over the identity of the pope
  5. He appears to make “the wish the father of the thought” in denying the possibility of a vacant see because of the evil consequences that would follow from it
  6. He assumes that it is certain that new ordinaries cannot take up office if the Holy See is vacant
  7. He encourages the faithful to make a profession of faith directly opposed to the teachings of the man whom he holds to be the pope, and thus the man who is “the living rule which the Church must follow in belief and always follows in fact” (Cardinal Billot).
  8. He categorizes the errors and heresies of Francis as “ambiguities.”

I will now explain each of these critical flaws in Bishop Schneider’s article, and their significance, in more detail…

https://www.lifesitenews.com/analysis/8-critical-flaws-in-bishop-schneiders-defense-of-a-francis-papacy/

The Roman Catechism Teaches that Heretics Separate Themselves from the Church

By  via Ecclesia Militans:

“St. Pius V teaches in the Roman Catechism: ‘Heretics and schismatics are excluded from the Church, because they have defected (desciverunt) from her and belong to her only as deserters belong to the army from which they have deserted’; whereas those who have not left the Church by defecting, but are excluded from the Church by excommunication, are ‘cut off by her sentence from the number of her children and belong not to her communion until they repent.’”

“As can be seen from the above quoted text of St. Pius V’s Catechism, heretics withdraw (descisco, desciscere, descivi, descitum – withdraw, leave, revolt from, desert defect), they leave the Church on their own, as opposed to the excommunicati, who are expelled by act of authority. By the act of heresy, i.e., by the sin of defecting from the Catholic faith by an external act of manifest formal heresy, the heretic, by that act of heresy suapte natura, i.e., by the effect that is intrinsic to the nature of the act of manifest formal heresy, leaves the Church and ceases to be a member of it. It is not by the force of law in virtue of a latæ sententiæ excommunication, or in any manner by means of, or after any ecclesiastical judgment, that the heretic ceases to be a member of the Church by having been expelled from the Church by the authority of ecclesiastical law (ob gravissima admissa a legitima auctoritate seiuncti sunt), nor is it necessary for a heretic to formally declare his separation from the Church, join another religious sect or denomination, or explicitly admit that he is in heresy, but the desertion itself that is intrinsic to the nature of the public act of formal heresy, suapte natura, separates the heretic from the body of the Church, so that any judgment or censure does not in any manner separate the heretic, or play any role in the heretic’s ipso jure separation from the Church, nor does it merely dispose the heretic to be actually separated from the Church, but only gives juridical recognition and adds force of law to the fact of separation accomplished suapte natura by heresy. The severing of the juridical bond is accomplished by the heretic per se by his own actions. Consequently, any censure merely gives juridical recognition to the fact of separation, and thus imposes the obligation of absolution from the censure as a condition for reconciliation with the Church.”

Kramer, Paul. To deceive the elect: The catholic doctrine on the question of a heretical Pope . Kindle Edition.

To purchase the two volumes of To Deceive the Elect, please see the following links:

Hardcover versions:  see here.
Softcover and electronic versions:  see here and here.