[ 0 → 4] Tradcast Express [ 30 → 34] to no serious documentation backing up their assertions. [ 35 → 37] Of course, there are exceptions to that, [ 37 → 39] but that's just the point. [ 39 → 40] They're exceptions. [ 41 → 45] A particularly egregious case in point is Crisis Magazine, [ 46 → 48] whose editor is Eric Sammons. [ 48 → 51] That's the fellow who recently published a book [ 51 → 54] claiming that the Catholic Church had lost her mission. [ 54 → 57] But hey, don't worry, we can reclaim it. [ 57 → 60] That's an interesting take on indefectibility. [ 60 → 61] Isn't it? [ 62 → 66] Anyway, on August 1st, 2023, Crisis Magazine [ 66 → 70] published an article by the insufferable Charles Coulombe, [ 70 → 73] who is described as a celebrated historian. [ 74 → 75] The article is entitled, [ 75 → 78] Pornocracy 2, Electric Boogaloo. [ 79 → 80] It's another one of those monographs [ 81 → 82] that attempts to persuade the reader [ 82 → 85] that there is historical precedent [ 85 → 88] for what Pope Francis has been doing, [ 88 → 90] lest you be tempted to think [ 90 → 92] that Sedevacantism might be an option. [ 93 → 95] Coulombe brings up the turbulent pontificate [ 95 → 97] of Pope Stephen VI, [ 97 → 99] who put the corpse of his predecessor, [ 100 → 102] Pope Formosus, on trial [ 102 → 105] at what is known as the infamous Cadaver Senate. [ 106 → 107] Among other things, [ 107 → 110] Pope Stephen declared that Pope Formosus [ 110 → 112] had never been a valid pope. [ 113 → 114] Coulombe adds, [ 114 → 114] quote, [ 114 → 116] Far worse, however, [ 116 → 118] was Stephen's heretical declaration [ 118 → 119] that because Formosus [ 120 → 121] was never pope, [ 122 → 124] his sacramental ministrations, [ 124 → 126] including priestly ordinations [ 126 → 128] and episcopal consecrations, [ 128 → 130] were invalid, unquote. [ 131 → 134] So he accuses Pope Stephen VI [ 134 → 135] of teaching heresy [ 135 → 138] as if such a thing were possible. [ 139 → 140] And this is what's so frustrating [ 140 → 143] about many of these recognize-and-resist characters. [ 144 → 145] They don't seem to grasp [ 145 → 148] that if what they argue were true, [ 148 → 150] then Catholicism would, [ 150 → 151] in fact, be false. [ 152 → 153] In any case, [ 153 → 154] Coulombe could have quoted [ 154 → 156] St. Robert Bellarmine on the issue, [ 157 → 158] but he didn't do that. [ 159 → 161] Here's how Bellarmine answers the charge [ 161 → 164] that Pope Stephen VI erred [ 164 → 165] in a matter of faith [ 165 → 166] when he commanded [ 166 → 168] that the priests or bishops [ 168 → 170] ordained by Pope Formosus [ 170 → 172] were to be ordained again, [ 172 → 174] an act that was later annulled [ 174 → 176] by Pope John IX, [ 176 → 179] but re-approved by Pope Sergius III. [ 180 → 181] Quote, [ 181 → 183] I respond, [ 183 → 186] Stephen VI and Sergius III [ 186 → 188] erred in a question of fact, [ 188 → 189] not of law, [ 189 → 191] and gave a bad example, [ 191 → 193] not false doctrine. [ 193 → 195] This is the history. [ 196 → 199] Formosus, the cardinal bishop of Portus, [ 199 → 201] was deposed by Pope John VIII [ 201 → 205] and demoted and returned to the lay state, [ 205 → 206] after which he swore [ 206 → 209] that he would never return to the city [ 209 → 209] or the episcopate. [ 210 → 214] A little after the death of John VIII, [ 214 → 216] his successor, Martin II, [ 216 → 219] absolved Formosus of his careless oath [ 219 → 222] and restored him to his original dignity. [ 222 → 224] Not long after that, [ 224 → 226] Formosus was created pope. [ 227 → 229] He lived for five years and died. [ 230 → 232] Stephen VI succeeded him, [ 232 → 235] who, being enkindled with great hatred [ 235 → 236] against Formosus, [ 236 → 239] or else unaware or not believing [ 239 → 239] that he was absolved, [ 239 → 242] was absolved of his oath by Pope Martin, [ 243 → 245] decreed publicly in a council of bishops [ 245 → 248] that Formosus was never a legitimate pope [ 248 → 251] and therefore all his acts were invalid. [ 252 → 254] He compelled all those [ 254 → 255] who had received orders from him [ 255 → 257] to be ordained again, [ 257 → 259] just as if they had received nothing. [ 260 → 262] This deed displeased everyone [ 262 → 265] and therefore three popes in succession, [ 265 → 267] Roman I, Theodore II, [ 267 → 269] and especially John IX, [ 269 → 272] after calling another episcopal council, [ 273 → 276] judged that Formosus was a true pope [ 276 → 279] and invalidated the sentence of Stephen VI. [ 280 → 283] Next, Sergius III succeeded him [ 283 → 286] and imitated Stephen VI in all things. [ 286 → 288] The particular question was [ 288 → 291] whether Formosus was a legitimate pope. [ 292 → 295] We do not deny that in such questions [ 295 → 296] popes can err, [ 296 → 299] and Stephen and Sergius erred in fact. [ 299 → 301] Unquote. [ 302 → 303] So, keep that in mind [ 303 → 306] for next time someone like Michael Voris [ 306 → 308] or whoever tells you [ 308 → 310] that a future pope will have to judge [ 310 → 312] whether Francis was valid or not. [ 312 → 314] According to St. Robert Bellarmine, [ 315 → 316] the future pope's judgment on that [ 316 → 318] could be wrong. [ 319 → 321] But let's continue with Bellarmine. [ 321 → 322] Quote, [ 322 → 324] But you will object. [ 324 → 326] Stephen and Sergius not only judged [ 326 → 329] that Formosus was not a true pope, [ 329 → 329] but even though he was not a true pope, [ 329 → 330] but even the sacred orders [ 330 → 333] which he conferred were not valid. [ 333 → 336] Such is a manifest error against faith. [ 336 → 339] For even if Formosus was not a pope [ 339 → 341] and always remained deposed and demoted, [ 342 → 345] still, because he was at one time a true bishop, [ 345 → 348] and insofar as the character and power of orders [ 348 → 351] cannot by any means be taken away, [ 351 → 353] it is an error in faith [ 353 → 356] to say that the sacred orders he conferred [ 356 → 357] were not true orders. [ 358 → 359] I respond, [ 359 → 362] Stephen and Sergius did not publish [ 362 → 364] some decree whereby they determined [ 364 → 366] the orders by a demoted bishop [ 366 → 370] or the orders that Formosus by name conferred [ 370 → 372] after he had been demoted [ 372 → 373] must be conferred again. [ 374 → 377] Rather, they only de facto commanded them [ 377 → 379] to be conferred again. [ 380 → 382] Such a command proceeded not from ignorance [ 382 → 386] or heresy, but from hatred against Formosus. [ 387 → 389] Siegbert remarks in his chronicle, [ 389 → 391] for the year 803, [ 391 → 394] that Stephen VI was forcefully opposed [ 394 → 397] by all those who were ordained by Formosus. [ 398 → 398] Unquote. [ 399 → 401] And that was St. Robert Bellarmine [ 401 → 403] from his book On the Roman Pontiff, [ 403 → 405] Book 4, Chapter 12. [ 406 → 409] And that was the Ryan Grant translation. [ 410 → 412] Well, it's too bad Sir Charles Coulombe [ 412 → 414] didn't have enough time [ 414 → 416] to include Bellarmine's comments on that. [ 417 → 418] He is only a doctor of the church, [ 418 → 419] after all. [ 419 → 422] Coulombe continues with the man [ 422 → 425] who was perhaps the most degenerate pope ever, [ 425 → 426] John XII. [ 427 → 429] Now notice I said degenerate, [ 429 → 431] not non-Catholic. [ 432 → 433] Pope John XII was a Catholic, [ 434 → 436] but a very immoral one. [ 436 → 438] That alone distinguishes him [ 438 → 440] from the false Pope Francis, [ 440 → 442] who is not only immoral, [ 442 → 444] but much more importantly, [ 444 → 447] does not even profess the true faith. [ 448 → 449] Coulombe, [ 449 → 451] very nonchalantly, [ 451 → 453] mentions in a half-sentence [ 453 → 455] that Pope John XII was deposed [ 455 → 457] by the Holy Roman Emperor, [ 458 → 458] Otto I. [ 459 → 461] And at the very end of his article, [ 461 → 463] Coulombe wishes that we could have [ 463 → 465] another Emperor Otto [ 465 → 466] who could depose Francis [ 466 → 469] the way Otto I deposed [ 469 → 470] Pope John XII. [ 471 → 474] Well, there's just one little problem here. [ 474 → 476] It is Catholic dogma [ 476 → 478] that the Holy See is judged [ 478 → 479] by no one. [ 479 → 481] There is no authority [ 481 → 484] on earth greater than that [ 484 → 486] of the Pope, the Roman Pontiff. [ 486 → 487] No court, [ 488 → 488] no council, [ 489 → 490] no cardinal, [ 490 → 491] no tribunal, [ 491 → 492] no bishop, [ 492 → 493] no army, [ 493 → 495] no one has the authority [ 495 → 497] to remove a true Pope [ 497 → 499] from office. [ 499 → 500] In the show notes, [ 501 → 502] I'm putting a link to an essay entitled [ 502 → 505] The Impossibility of Judging [ 505 → 507] or Deposing a True Pope, [ 507 → 509] which gives all the, [ 509 → 510] evidence in that regard, [ 510 → 511] all the documentation. [ 512 → 513] Let me here just give you one. [ 514 → 517] The First Vatican Council in 1870 [ 517 → 518] taught dogmatically, [ 518 → 519] quote, [ 519 → 521] and since the Roman Pontiff [ 521 → 524] is at the head of the universal church [ 524 → 527] by the divine right of apostolic primacy, [ 527 → 529] we teach and declare also [ 529 → 531] that he is the supreme judge [ 531 → 531] of the faithful [ 531 → 533] and that in all cases [ 533 → 536] pertaining to ecclesiastical examination, [ 537 → 539] recourse can be had to his judgment. [ 539 → 540] Moreover, [ 540 → 542] that the judgment of the apostolic see [ 542 → 545] whose authority is not surpassed [ 545 → 547] is to be disclaimed by no one, [ 548 → 549] nor is anyone permitted [ 549 → 552] to pass judgment on its judgment. [ 553 → 553] Therefore, [ 553 → 555] they stray from the straight path of truth [ 555 → 558] who affirm that it is permitted [ 558 → 559] to appeal from the judgments [ 559 → 561] of the Roman Pontiffs [ 561 → 562] to an ecumenical council [ 562 → 564] as to an authority higher [ 564 → 566] than the Roman Pontiff, [ 567 → 567] unquote. [ 568 → 569] And you can find that [ 569 → 571] in Denzinger, number 1830. [ 572 → 574] For Charles Coulombe to assert [ 574 → 576] that the temporal ruler, [ 576 → 577] even if he's a monarch, [ 578 → 580] such as the Holy Roman Emperor, [ 580 → 581] has the authority, [ 581 → 582] the ability, [ 582 → 584] the right to remove the Pope, [ 585 → 586] is heresy. [ 587 → 589] Now, what of the claim [ 589 → 590] that Pope John XII [ 590 → 593] was deposed by the Emperor Otto [ 593 → 595] and, as some say, [ 595 → 596] that he was followed [ 596 → 598] by a Pope Leo VIII? [ 598 → 600] Well, all we need to do here [ 600 → 602] to answer Sir Coulombe [ 602 → 604] is consult some pre-Vatican II [ 604 → 606] Catholic history books. [ 607 → 608] Church historian [ 608 → 610] Father Charles Poulet, for example, [ 611 → 613] is very clear in his assessment [ 613 → 615] of what happened with regard [ 615 → 616] to the so-called deposition [ 616 → 618] of John XII. [ 619 → 621] Calling Emperor Otto's synod [ 621 → 622] a pseudo-council, [ 623 → 624] Father Poulet remarks, [ 624 → 625] quote, [ 625 → 626] it is impossible [ 626 → 627] to justify [ 628 → 630] a procedure of this kind [ 630 → 630] because no matter [ 630 → 632] how guilty John XII [ 632 → 633] may have been, [ 633 → 634] he was still [ 634 → 635] the lawful incumbent [ 635 → 637] of the Holy See [ 637 → 638] and Leo VIII [ 638 → 640] was a mere anti-Pope [ 640 → 642] created by the Emperor, [ 643 → 643] unquote. [ 643 → 644] And that's from volume one [ 644 → 645] of his history [ 645 → 647] of the Catholic Church, [ 648 → 649] page 420. [ 650 → 652] Another pre-Vatican II expert [ 652 → 653] in church history, [ 653 → 655] Father Fernand Mouret, [ 655 → 656] writes, quote, [ 657 → 657] Emperor Otto, [ 657 → 660] abusing his powers [ 660 → 661] and avenging himself [ 661 → 663] for some act of John XII, [ 664 → 666] had the Pope deposed [ 666 → 667] by a synod [ 667 → 668] and in his place [ 668 → 670] had the protoscrinierius [ 670 → 671] Leo elected [ 671 → 674] under the name of Leo VIII. [ 675 → 676] But John succeeded [ 676 → 678] in assembling a regular council [ 678 → 680] which quashed the decisions [ 680 → 682] of the assembly held by Otto. [ 683 → 685] Those decisions were null [ 685 → 686] for two reasons. [ 686 → 687] In condemning and deposing him, [ 687 → 689] in opposing the supreme head [ 689 → 690] of the church, [ 690 → 691] the pseudo-council [ 691 → 692] violated the principle [ 692 → 694] that the Pope cannot be judged [ 694 → 695] by anyone. [ 696 → 696] And in electing [ 697 → 699] the protoscrinierius Leo, [ 699 → 701] who was not in sacred orders, [ 702 → 703] it violated an ancient tradition [ 703 → 705] that the Pope must be taken [ 705 → 708] from the cardinalicial clergy, [ 708 → 708] that is, [ 709 → 709] from the clergy [ 709 → 711] attached to a church, [ 712 → 713] unquote. [ 713 → 714] So that was [ 714 → 716] Father Fernand Mouret, [ 716 → 717] history of the Catholic Church, [ 717 → 720] volume 3, page 512. [ 721 → 724] And the 19th century historian [ 724 → 726] Father Joseph Derriss [ 726 → 728] notes the same thing. [ 728 → 728] Quote, [ 728 → 730] Whatever he might be [ 730 → 731] as an individual, [ 732 → 734] John XII was lawful pope [ 734 → 736] and the attempt [ 736 → 738] against his spiritual authority [ 738 → 739] was of right null. [ 740 → 741] The 8th General Council, [ 742 → 744] which was the 4th Council [ 744 → 745] of Constantinople, [ 745 → 747] had just decreed [ 747 → 747] in its 20th year [ 747 → 750] if anyone strong [ 750 → 752] in secular power [ 752 → 753] seek to expel [ 753 → 755] the sovereign pontiff [ 755 → 755] from his see, [ 756 → 758] let him be anathema. [ 759 → 759] Unquote. [ 760 → 761] That was Father Derriss, [ 761 → 763] General History of the Catholic Church, [ 763 → 766] volume 2, page 594. [ 767 → 769] Concerning the emperor's fake synod, [ 770 → 771] presuming to depose Pope John, [ 772 → 773] Father Derriss says, [ 773 → 774] quote, [ 774 → 777] Their meeting was but a pseudo-council, [ 777 → 778] their decrees contrary [ 778 → 780] to all canon law, [ 780 → 782] and the pontiff of their election, [ 783 → 783] Leo VIII, [ 784 → 786] could be but an antipope. [ 787 → 788] Unquote. [ 789 → 790] With regard to the status [ 790 → 791] of Leo VIII, [ 792 → 792] Father Mouret [ 792 → 795] is likewise unmistakable, [ 795 → 797] calling him an antipope [ 797 → 800] whose election was an unlawful act. [ 800 → 801] And he adds, [ 801 → 801] quote, [ 802 → 804] True, a heavy responsibility [ 804 → 806] falls upon the unworthy pontiff [ 806 → 808] whose life had made possible [ 808 → 810] the terrible charges against him. [ 811 → 813] But, however guilty he may have been, [ 813 → 815] he was the legitimate pope. [ 816 → 816] Unquote. [ 817 → 819] The Catholic Encyclopedia [ 819 → 821] confirms all this in its entries [ 821 → 824] on Popes John XII and Leo VIII. [ 824 → 825] Quote, [ 825 → 827] With the imperial consent, [ 827 → 829] the synod deposed John [ 829 → 830] on the 4th of December [ 830 → 832] and elected to replace him [ 832 → 834] the protoscrinierius Leo, [ 835 → 836] yet a layman. [ 836 → 838] The latter received [ 838 → 840] all the orders uncanonically [ 840 → 841] without the proper intervals [ 841 → 842] and was crowned pope [ 842 → 844] as Leo VIII. [ 845 → 846] This proceeding was against [ 846 → 848] the canons of the church [ 848 → 849] and the enthroning of Leo [ 849 → 852] was almost universally regarded [ 852 → 853] as invalid. [ 854 → 854] Unquote. [ 855 → 856] In the show notes, [ 856 → 858] I will link to a response [ 858 → 860] to Professor Roberto de Mattei [ 860 → 862] where you can find [ 862 → 863] all these quotes [ 863 → 864] that I just gave you [ 864 → 866] with the proper documentation. [ 867 → 870] So, what do we learn from all this? [ 871 → 872] Well, for one thing, [ 872 → 875] quit reading recognize-and-resist websites [ 875 → 877] such as Crisis Magazine. [ 878 → 879] They do not give you [ 879 → 881] true pre-Vatican II Catholicism. [ 881 → 884] They give you agenda-driven propaganda. [ 885 → 887] If you want real Catholicism, [ 887 → 889] read the actual Catholic books [ 889 → 891] from before 1960, roughly, [ 892 → 895] and avoid today's Catholic experts [ 895 → 896] like Eric Sammons [ 896 → 896] or the Catholic Church. [ 896 → 898] Celebrated historians [ 898 → 900] like Charles Coulomb. [ 901 → 903] Tradcast Express is a production [ 903 → 904] of Novos Ordo Watch. [ 905 → 907] Check us out at tradcast.org [ 907 → 908] and if you like what we're doing, [ 908 → 909] please consider making [ 909 → 911] a tax-deductible contribution [ 911 → 914] at novosordowatch.org [ 914 → 915] slash donate.