[ 0 → 4] Tradcast Express. [ 30 → 36] The post in question is dated May 25th, 2019, and the writer says, [ 36 → 49] All the conservative and traditionalist anti-open letter Catholic commentators and all the Sedevacanists are united in rejecting or ignoring the teaching of Dr. of the Church St. Francis de Sales. [ 50 → 52] And then he quotes that teaching. [ 52 → 59] The Pope, when he is explicitly a heretic, he falls ipso facto from his dignity and out of the Church, [ 59 → 67] and the Church must either deprive him or, as some say, declare him deprived of his apostolic see. [ 68 → 71] And then that's where the quote from St. Francis de Sales ends. [ 72 → 75] And the blogger at Catholic Monitor continues, [ 75 → 85] The Sedevacanists reject the doctor of the Church's teaching that the Church must declare him, the explicit heretic Pope, deprived of his apostolic see, [ 86 → 89] because like neo-Protestants, they, the Sede, [ 89 → 97] get to declare him deprived of his apostolic see, not the successors of the Apostles, who Jesus Christ put in authority. [ 98 → 106] The Sedes love quoting that the explicitly heretical Pope falls ipso facto from his dignity and out of the Church, [ 106 → 111] but then dishonestly ignore or deliberately leave out the second part of the sentence. [ 112 → 115] Thus far the accusation. [ 115 → 117] So what's going on here? [ 117 → 119] Are we just dishonest cowards? [ 119 → 122] Can't face up to the teaching of a doctor of the Church? [ 123 → 124] Well, not quite. [ 124 → 132] When St. Francis de Sales says that the so-called heretical Pope must be deprived or be declared deprived of the apostolic see, [ 133 → 137] he's not talking about this needing to happen in order for him to actually lose his office. [ 138 → 142] After all, he just said, in the first half of the same sentence, [ 142 → 147] that this office is lost ipso facto, which is Latin for by that very fact. [ 148 → 149] The fact being him having... [ 149 → 151] become a Manifest Heretic. [ 152 → 160] So either the so-called heretical Pope loses his office immediately and automatically simply by becoming a Manifest Heretic, [ 160 → 165] or he doesn't lose it until the Church deprives him of the office. [ 165 → 167] Both cannot be true. [ 167 → 172] But obviously St. Francis isn't contradicting himself in one and the same sentence. [ 173 → 175] So what's going on here? [ 175 → 178] Well, St. Francis doesn't really elaborate, [ 178 → 182] but if we assume that he was not an airhead, and he wasn't, [ 183 → 189] then there is really only one explanation that I can think of that can make sense of what he says here, [ 189 → 197] and that is St. Francis' position was that the Pope who becomes a Manifest Heretic loses the papacy immediately, [ 198 → 206] but the Church cannot proceed to the election of a new Pope until the Church has made a declaration that the Holy See is now vacant. [ 208 → 215] Which makes very good sense, especially if they're going to send in the guards to drag the former Pope out of St. John Lateran or St. Peter's Basilica. [ 216 → 220] So yes, the former Pope must be deprived of his see in that sense, [ 221 → 225] in the sense of removing the trappings from him, getting him out of the building and such. [ 226 → 231] In other words, these things must happen before any other action can be taken. [ 231 → 238] And they can only happen at all because the man in question is already not the Pope anymore. [ 238 → 250] Otherwise, there would be no authority on earth that could do this because not even the Church as a whole has the power to take away the pontificate from a legitimate Pope. [ 251 → 255] And the denial of that is a great error of our times, a heresy actually, [ 255 → 261] because there are a lot of people among the Semitrads who seem to think that a Pope loses the papacy [ 261 → 267] if only enough bishops or cardinals get together and decide to take it from him. [ 268 → 273] So no, St. Francis de Sales does not present a refutation of the Sedevacanus position. [ 274 → 279] And that's not surprising because he was a saint and a doctor of the Church like St. Robert Bellarmine. [ 280 → 285] And among the big theologians who debated the whole issue of the possibility of a heretical Pope [ 285 → 290] and what would happen if, back in the 16th and 17th centuries, [ 290 → 295] the only one who was canonized a saint and declared a doctor of the Church is St. Robert Bellarmine, [ 296 → 298] the one we Sedevacanus agree. [ 298 → 303] All the others, Fr. Suarez, Cardinal Cajetan, and John of St. Thomas, [ 303 → 307] are neither doctors of the Church nor even canonized saints. [ 308 → 312] And yes, there is a Saint Cajetan, but that's a different person. [ 312 → 316] That's not the Cardinal Cajetan we're talking about here. [ 316 → 319] So just saying because people get these two confused sometimes. [ 320 → 327] Oh, and by the way, we're not even saying that Francis was Pope and then lost his office. [ 328 → 330] We're saying he was never Pope to begin with. [ 331 → 336] But time and again, our opponents come back to this loss of office business. [ 336 → 337] It's really frustrating. [ 338 → 341] But hey, while we're on the topic of answering our critics, [ 342 → 349] let's turn to a challenge posted on the Toronto Catholic Witness blog on June 29th of this year, [ 349 → 353] entitled, Pope Francis, is he the Pope or the false prophet? [ 354 → 357] The writer of this post is concerned by people concluding, [ 358 → 359] that Francis isn't the Pope. [ 360 → 361] And he asks, [ 361 → 374] Now, he's right to ask these questions, [ 375 → 379] but rather than looking up the answers in a pre-Vatican II theology book, [ 379 → 382] he instead turns to an anti-Sedevacanist essay [ 382 → 387] written by the Novus Ordo Finiite brother André Marie of the St. Benedict Center. [ 388 → 391] And so, what does brother André Marie write? [ 391 → 395] Well, the Toronto blogger uses two quotes from brother André Marie. [ 396 → 400] The first one is not relevant, and the second one is false. [ 401 → 402] Regarding the first one. [ 402 → 407] First, brother André Marie, of course, uses the argument from loss of office, [ 407 → 410] which is definitely not relevant to Francis. [ 410 → 412] But let's humor him for the moment. [ 412 → 417] Brother claims that the automatic loss of the papacy in the case of a manifest heretic, [ 418 → 420] is merely theological speculation. [ 420 → 424] Nothing more than an opinion that some authors hold. [ 425 → 426] And that's hogwash already. [ 427 → 428] St. Robert Bellarmine says, [ 429 → 435] And, of course, it's a conclusion that follows necessarily [ 435 → 438] from the fact that one cannot hold an office in the church [ 438 → 442] if one is not even a member of the church. [ 443 → 448] And membership of the church is lost through manifest defection from the faith. [ 448 → 453] If you look at the theology books after the First Vatican Council, in 1870, [ 453 → 458] if you look at the 1917 Code of Canon Law, that's all pretty clear. [ 459 → 464] So, for brother André Marie to act as though this were a topic that the church has no position on, [ 465 → 467] and is all just speculation, is wrong. [ 468 → 473] Secondly, with Francis, we're not even talking about a pope, or supposed pope, [ 473 → 478] who stubbornly clings to a heresy privately, in his capacity, [ 478 → 479] as a private theologian. [ 480 → 485] No, we're talking about a papal claimant who is promulgating heresy after heresy, [ 486 → 488] damnable error after damnable error, [ 488 → 492] to the entire church as part of his magisterium. [ 493 → 496] Now, that was considered completely out of the question [ 496 → 501] for any of the theologians who debated the issue with St. Robert Bellarmine. [ 501 → 504] They were all agreed that that was impossible. [ 505 → 507] That's why you find them debating only whether [ 508 → 511] a pope could become a heretic as a private teacher, [ 512 → 514] not as the head of the church. [ 515 → 522] And thirdly, there is absolutely no doubt regarding Francis' status as a non-pope. [ 523 → 525] Brother André Marie says, quote, [ 525 → 530] If I refuse my subjection to the Roman pontiff with a practical doubt [ 530 → 534] as to whether or not he is the pope, I commit an act of schism. [ 535 → 535] Unquote. [ 536 → 537] Well, but there is no doubt that Francis is a non-pope. [ 537 → 538] Well, but there is no doubt that Francis is a non-pope. [ 538 → 543] There is no doubt Francis is most definitely not the pope. [ 543 → 547] And if you think otherwise, then please take our Francis papacy test [ 547 → 549] and find out for yourself. [ 549 → 553] You can find that test at novosordowatch.org. [ 553 → 559] In the menu, just click on the issues menu option [ 559 → 563] and then click on the Francis papacy test option. [ 563 → 567] And that will take you right to that papacy test. [ 568 → 571] Now, regarding the second excerpt from Brother André Marie [ 571 → 575] that the Toronto Catholic Witness blog presents, [ 576 → 580] I want to quote that in full because it'll be a delight to refute. [ 581 → 582] Quote, [ 583 → 586] Yes, and we all know what our Lord did. [ 586 → 591] He deposed the high priest and declared the seat of Moses vacant, didn't he? [ 591 → 593] The point is simply this. [ 593 → 597] If the man-god himself had enough respect for the sovereign pontiff of the law, [ 597 → 603] of types and figures, as to say of the heretical Jew who was soon to murder him, [ 603 → 606] that he sat in the seat of Moses, [ 606 → 612] how does anyone in the present law, the more perfect law, dare to do the opposite? [ 612 → 614] Let me spell this out. [ 614 → 616] Our Lord was not a Sedevacantist. [ 617 → 621] The evil deicide heretic who had authority over the Church of Israel [ 621 → 624] was still the head of the true religion. [ 624 → 627] The religious society of the old law, [ 627 → 628] was still intact. [ 629 → 633] Anyone wishing to save his soul could look to this office for leadership. [ 634 → 636] Its sacrifices were accepted by God, [ 636 → 639] and despite the abusive views to which it was put, [ 639 → 643] the prophetical office was even maintained by this man. [ 644 → 648] What did St. John say about Caiaphas' prophecy of our Lord's death? [ 649 → 651] And this he spoke not of himself, [ 651 → 653] but being the high priest of that year, [ 653 → 656] he prophesied that Jesus should die for the nation. [ 656 → 658] No matter how you view it, [ 659 → 663] the present Pope's actions come nowhere near the iniquity of Caiaphas." [ 664 → 670] Now I should point out here that Brother André-Marie's essay was published in 2005, [ 670 → 674] the year of John Paul II and Benedict XVI, [ 674 → 676] so he was not referring to Francis. [ 677 → 681] But it really doesn't matter, because the argumentation is all wrong anyway. [ 682 → 685] When our blessed Lord appeared before Caiaphas, the high priest, [ 685 → 689] Caiaphas asked him to testify whether or not he was the Messiah. [ 690 → 692] And when our Lord affirmed that he was, [ 692 → 695] Caiaphas rejected him and tore his garments, [ 696 → 697] accusing our Lord of blasphemy. [ 698 → 700] What happened at that moment? [ 701 → 702] To answer that question, [ 702 → 705] let's turn to the church's greatest authority on the Bible, [ 706 → 707] St. Jerome. [ 708 → 711] In his commentary on Matthew 26, 65, [ 711 → 712] he wrote, [ 712 → 715] And by this rending of his garments, [ 716 → 720] Caiaphas shows that the Jews have lost the priestly glory, [ 721 → 724] and that their high priest's throne was vacant. [ 725 → 726] For by rending his garment, [ 727 → 730] he rent the veil of the law which covered him." [ 730 → 732] In other words, [ 733 → 737] St. Jerome tells us that when the high priest Caiaphas tore up his garments [ 737 → 739] and rejected Christ as the Messiah, [ 739 → 741] he lost his spiritual authority, [ 742 → 744] and his office, [ 744 → 747] automatically and without a declaration, [ 748 → 751] by publicly defecting from the true religion. [ 752 → 754] If that sounds familiar to you, [ 755 → 756] there's a reason for that. [ 757 → 759] So, what lesson have we learned here? [ 760 → 763] We've learned that if you want to know the traditional Catholic position, [ 764 → 766] don't go to Brother Andre Marie, [ 766 → 770] but go to the pre-Vatican II Catholic theology books, [ 770 → 772] and look it up. [ 772 → 774] What a concept, huh? [ 774 → 778] Tradcast Express is a production of Novos Ordo Watch. [ 778 → 780] Check us out at Tradcast.org, [ 780 → 782] and if you like what we're doing, [ 782 → 784] please consider making a tax-deductible contribution [ 784 → 786] at NovosOrdoWatch.org [ 786 → 788] slash donate.