Tradcast Express
to no serious documentation backing up their assertions.
Of course, there are exceptions to that,
but that's just the point.
They're exceptions.
A particularly egregious case in point is Crisis Magazine,
whose editor is Eric Sammons.
That's the fellow who recently published a book
claiming that the Catholic Church had lost her mission.
But hey, don't worry, we can reclaim it.
That's an interesting take on indefectibility.
Isn't it?
Anyway, on August 1st, 2023, Crisis Magazine
published an article by the insufferable Charles Coulombe,
who is described as a celebrated historian.
The article is entitled,
Pornocracy 2, Electric Boogaloo.
It's another one of those monographs
that attempts to persuade the reader
that there is historical precedent
for what Pope Francis has been doing,
lest you be tempted to think
that Sedevacantism might be an option.
Coulombe brings up the turbulent pontificate
of Pope Stephen VI,
who put the corpse of his predecessor,
Pope Formosus, on trial
at what is known as the infamous Cadaver Senate.
Among other things,
Pope Stephen declared that Pope Formosus
had never been a valid pope.
Coulombe adds,
quote,
Far worse, however,
was Stephen's heretical declaration
that because Formosus
was never pope,
his sacramental ministrations,
including priestly ordinations
and episcopal consecrations,
were invalid, unquote.
So he accuses Pope Stephen VI
of teaching heresy
as if such a thing were possible.
And this is what's so frustrating
about many of these recognize-and-resist characters.
They don't seem to grasp
that if what they argue were true,
then Catholicism would,
in fact, be false.
In any case,
Coulombe could have quoted
St. Robert Bellarmine on the issue,
but he didn't do that.
Here's how Bellarmine answers the charge
that Pope Stephen VI erred
in a matter of faith
when he commanded
that the priests or bishops
ordained by Pope Formosus
were to be ordained again,
an act that was later annulled
by Pope John IX,
but re-approved by Pope Sergius III.
Quote,
I respond,
Stephen VI and Sergius III
erred in a question of fact,
not of law,
and gave a bad example,
not false doctrine.
This is the history.
Formosus, the cardinal bishop of Portus,
was deposed by Pope John VIII
and demoted and returned to the lay state,
after which he swore
that he would never return to the city
or the episcopate.
A little after the death of John VIII,
his successor, Martin II,
absolved Formosus of his careless oath
and restored him to his original dignity.
Not long after that,
Formosus was created pope.
He lived for five years and died.
Stephen VI succeeded him,
who, being enkindled with great hatred
against Formosus,
or else unaware or not believing
that he was absolved,
was absolved of his oath by Pope Martin,
decreed publicly in a council of bishops
that Formosus was never a legitimate pope
and therefore all his acts were invalid.
He compelled all those
who had received orders from him
to be ordained again,
just as if they had received nothing.
This deed displeased everyone
and therefore three popes in succession,
Roman I, Theodore II,
and especially John IX,
after calling another episcopal council,
judged that Formosus was a true pope
and invalidated the sentence of Stephen VI.
Next, Sergius III succeeded him
and imitated Stephen VI in all things.
The particular question was
whether Formosus was a legitimate pope.
We do not deny that in such questions
popes can err,
and Stephen and Sergius erred in fact.
Unquote.
So, keep that in mind
for next time someone like Michael Voris
or whoever tells you
that a future pope will have to judge
whether Francis was valid or not.
According to St. Robert Bellarmine,
the future pope's judgment on that
could be wrong.
But let's continue with Bellarmine.
Quote,
But you will object.
Stephen and Sergius not only judged
that Formosus was not a true pope,
but even though he was not a true pope,
but even the sacred orders
which he conferred were not valid.
Such is a manifest error against faith.
For even if Formosus was not a pope
and always remained deposed and demoted,
still, because he was at one time a true bishop,
and insofar as the character and power of orders
cannot by any means be taken away,
it is an error in faith
to say that the sacred orders he conferred
were not true orders.
I respond,
Stephen and Sergius did not publish
some decree whereby they determined
the orders by a demoted bishop
or the orders that Formosus by name conferred
after he had been demoted
must be conferred again.
Rather, they only de facto commanded them
to be conferred again.
Such a command proceeded not from ignorance
or heresy, but from hatred against Formosus.
Siegbert remarks in his chronicle,
for the year 803,
that Stephen VI was forcefully opposed
by all those who were ordained by Formosus.
Unquote.
And that was St. Robert Bellarmine
from his book On the Roman Pontiff,
Book 4, Chapter 12.
And that was the Ryan Grant translation.
Well, it's too bad Sir Charles Coulombe
didn't have enough time
to include Bellarmine's comments on that.
He is only a doctor of the church,
after all.
Coulombe continues with the man
who was perhaps the most degenerate pope ever,
John XII.
Now notice I said degenerate,
not non-Catholic.
Pope John XII was a Catholic,
but a very immoral one.
That alone distinguishes him
from the false Pope Francis,
who is not only immoral,
but much more importantly,
does not even profess the true faith.
Coulombe,
very nonchalantly,
mentions in a half-sentence
that Pope John XII was deposed
by the Holy Roman Emperor,
Otto I.
And at the very end of his article,
Coulombe wishes that we could have
another Emperor Otto
who could depose Francis
the way Otto I deposed
Pope John XII.
Well, there's just one little problem here.
It is Catholic dogma
that the Holy See is judged
by no one.
There is no authority
on earth greater than that
of the Pope, the Roman Pontiff.
No court,
no council,
no cardinal,
no tribunal,
no bishop,
no army,
no one has the authority
to remove a true Pope
from office.
In the show notes,
I'm putting a link to an essay entitled
The Impossibility of Judging
or Deposing a True Pope,
which gives all the,
evidence in that regard,
all the documentation.
Let me here just give you one.
The First Vatican Council in 1870
taught dogmatically,
quote,
and since the Roman Pontiff
is at the head of the universal church
by the divine right of apostolic primacy,
we teach and declare also
that he is the supreme judge
of the faithful
and that in all cases
pertaining to ecclesiastical examination,
recourse can be had to his judgment.
Moreover,
that the judgment of the apostolic see
whose authority is not surpassed
is to be disclaimed by no one,
nor is anyone permitted
to pass judgment on its judgment.
Therefore,
they stray from the straight path of truth
who affirm that it is permitted
to appeal from the judgments
of the Roman Pontiffs
to an ecumenical council
as to an authority higher
than the Roman Pontiff,
unquote.
And you can find that
in Denzinger, number 1830.
For Charles Coulombe to assert
that the temporal ruler,
even if he's a monarch,
such as the Holy Roman Emperor,
has the authority,
the ability,
the right to remove the Pope,
is heresy.
Now, what of the claim
that Pope John XII
was deposed by the Emperor Otto
and, as some say,
that he was followed
by a Pope Leo VIII?
Well, all we need to do here
to answer Sir Coulombe
is consult some pre-Vatican II
Catholic history books.
Church historian
Father Charles Poulet, for example,
is very clear in his assessment
of what happened with regard
to the so-called deposition
of John XII.
Calling Emperor Otto's synod
a pseudo-council,
Father Poulet remarks,
quote,
it is impossible
to justify
a procedure of this kind
because no matter
how guilty John XII
may have been,
he was still
the lawful incumbent
of the Holy See
and Leo VIII
was a mere anti-Pope
created by the Emperor,
unquote.
And that's from volume one
of his history
of the Catholic Church,
page 420.
Another pre-Vatican II expert
in church history,
Father Fernand Mouret,
writes, quote,
Emperor Otto,
abusing his powers
and avenging himself
for some act of John XII,
had the Pope deposed
by a synod
and in his place
had the protoscrinierius
Leo elected
under the name of Leo VIII.
But John succeeded
in assembling a regular council
which quashed the decisions
of the assembly held by Otto.
Those decisions were null
for two reasons.
In condemning and deposing him,
in opposing the supreme head
of the church,
the pseudo-council
violated the principle
that the Pope cannot be judged
by anyone.
And in electing
the protoscrinierius Leo,
who was not in sacred orders,
it violated an ancient tradition
that the Pope must be taken
from the cardinalicial clergy,
that is,
from the clergy
attached to a church,
unquote.
So that was
Father Fernand Mouret,
history of the Catholic Church,
volume 3, page 512.
And the 19th century historian
Father Joseph Derriss
notes the same thing.
Quote,
Whatever he might be
as an individual,
John XII was lawful pope
and the attempt
against his spiritual authority
was of right null.
The 8th General Council,
which was the 4th Council
of Constantinople,
had just decreed
in its 20th year
if anyone strong
in secular power
seek to expel
the sovereign pontiff
from his see,
let him be anathema.
Unquote.
That was Father Derriss,
General History of the Catholic Church,
volume 2, page 594.
Concerning the emperor's fake synod,
presuming to depose Pope John,
Father Derriss says,
quote,
Their meeting was but a pseudo-council,
their decrees contrary
to all canon law,
and the pontiff of their election,
Leo VIII,
could be but an antipope.
Unquote.
With regard to the status
of Leo VIII,
Father Mouret
is likewise unmistakable,
calling him an antipope
whose election was an unlawful act.
And he adds,
quote,
True, a heavy responsibility
falls upon the unworthy pontiff
whose life had made possible
the terrible charges against him.
But, however guilty he may have been,
he was the legitimate pope.
Unquote.
The Catholic Encyclopedia
confirms all this in its entries
on Popes John XII and Leo VIII.
Quote,
With the imperial consent,
the synod deposed John
on the 4th of December
and elected to replace him
the protoscrinierius Leo,
yet a layman.
The latter received
all the orders uncanonically
without the proper intervals
and was crowned pope
as Leo VIII.
This proceeding was against
the canons of the church
and the enthroning of Leo
was almost universally regarded
as invalid.
Unquote.
In the show notes,
I will link to a response
to Professor Roberto de Mattei
where you can find
all these quotes
that I just gave you
with the proper documentation.
So, what do we learn from all this?
Well, for one thing,
quit reading recognize-and-resist websites
such as Crisis Magazine.
They do not give you
true pre-Vatican II Catholicism.
They give you agenda-driven propaganda.
If you want real Catholicism,
read the actual Catholic books
from before 1960, roughly,
and avoid today's Catholic experts
like Eric Sammons
or the Catholic Church.
Celebrated historians
like Charles Coulomb.
Tradcast Express is a production
of Novos Ordo Watch.
Check us out at tradcast.org
and if you like what we're doing,
please consider making
a tax-deductible contribution
at novosordowatch.org
slash donate.