Friday, May 17, 2019

Is Anti-Open Letter Taylor Marshall calling Doctor of the Church St. Francis de Sales a "Sedevacantist"?

"Bishop Schneider tells Raymond Arroyo that the signatories were wrong to accuse Francis of heresy because he hasn't made a formal, universal declaration of heresy. Though he admits he has allowed wrong teaching Very disappointing hair splitting."

In responding to Donnelly's statement, anti-Open Letter Taylor Marshall, apparently, is implicitly calling Doctor of the Church St. Francis de Sales a "sedevacantist":

"I agree w Bishop Schneider. If you condemn Francis as “heretical pope” one must break communion with him. This is why I called the doc “practically sedevacantist”. It’s not formally sede but the natural conclusion is."
[https://mobile.twitter.com/TaylorRMarshall/status/1129334902153986050]

Doctor of the Church St. Francis de Sales wrote:

"Thus we do not say that the Pope cannot err in his private opinion, as did John XXIL.; or be altogether a heretic, as perhaps Honorius was. Now when he is explicitly a heretic, he falls ipso facto from his dignity and out of the Church, and the Church must either deprive him, or, as some say, declare him deprived, of his Apostolic See, and must say as S. Peter did: 'Let another take his bishopric.'"
(The Catholic Controversy by St. Francis de Sales, Pages 305-306)

Marshall appears to be saying by inference that the Doctor of the Church is a "sede" by "natural conclusion" when he wrote:

"[T]he  Pope... when he is explicitly a heretic, he falls ipso facto from his dignity and out of the Church, and the Church must either deprive him, or, as some say, declare him deprived, of his Apostolic See."

Do Marshall and Schneider think they are greater theologians than St. Francis de Sales?

Do Marshall and Schneider think that the Church can't depose a pope contradicting a Doctor of the Church or possibly that magically the Church doesn't have to "condemn Francis as [a] 'heretical pope'" before it "either deprive him, or, as some say, declare him deprived, of his Apostolic See"?

According to Donnelly, Bishop Athanasius Schneider said "the signatories were wrong to accuse Francis of heresy because he hasn't made a formal, universal declaration of heresy." Marshall agreed with this statement.

Are Schneider and Marshall waiting for "a formal, universal declaration of heresy" such as this:

Not privately, but Pope Francis officially acting as the pope explicitly contradicted traditional Catholic teaching on divorce and remarriage when he in a "official act as the pope" placed the Argentine letter in the the Acts of the Apostolic See (AAS) in which he said of the Buenos Aires region episcopal guidelines:

"There is no other interpretations."

The guidelines explicitly allows according to LifeSiteNews "sexuality active adulterous couples facing 'complex circumstances' to 'access the sacraments of Reconciliation and the Eucharist.'"
(LifeSiteNews, "Confusion explodes as Pope Francis throws magisterial weight behind communion for adulterers, December 4, 2017)

In a article on OnePeterFive, specialist in Magisterial authority Dr. John Joy said "It means that it is an official act of the pope." 

Moreover, the article said:

"Dr. Joy pointed out that adding the letter to the AAS could, in fact, damage the credibility of Amoris Laetitia by potentially removing the possibility that it could be intercepted in an orthodox way, via its publication in the official acts of the Apostolic See, that the unorthodox interpretation is the official one."
(OnePeterFive, "Pope's Letter on Argentinian Communion Guidelines for Remarriage Given Official Status," December 2, 2017)

The "official act of" Francis is a "unorthodox interpretation."

It is not just a private contradiction of traditional Catholic teaching.

The "official act of the pope" is a "unorthodox interpretation" which means it contradicts traditional Catholic teaching which is just another way of saying by "official act the pope" is teaching heresy.

Now, let us quote philosopher Ed Feser:

"(1) Adulterous sexual acts are in some special circumstances morally permissible... these propositions flatly contradict irreformable Catholic teaching. Proposition (1) contradicts not only the perennial moral teaching of the Church, but the teaching of scripture itself."
(Edwardfeser.blogspot, "Denial flows into the Tiber," December 18, 2016)

How's that for an understatement?

Marshall and Schneider might of heard that God commanded in one of the Ten Commandments:

"Thou shalt not commit adultery."

But, just in case they never heard of the Ten Commandments, Dubia Cardinal Walter Brandmuller said:

"Whoever thinks that persistent adultery and reception of Holy Communion are compatible is a heretic and promotes schism."
(LifeSiteNews, "Dubia Cardinal: Anyone who Opens Communion to Adulterers a Heretic and Promotes Schism," December 23, 2016)

Does this mean because Cardinal Brandmuller said that if a pope "open[ed] Communion to adulterers" he is "a heretic and promotes schism" that according to Marshall by inference he is a "sede" by "natural conclusion"?

Getting back to St. Francis de Sales' teaching that heretical popes can be deposed by the Church, just in case Schneider and Marshall don't think the Doctor of the Church knew what he was talking about here are some of his credentials as a great theologian. The Catholic websites Word on Fire and Catholic Culture.org wrote:

- "In addition to his devotional and apologetical writings, he also was a brilliant theologian who helped orchestrate something of a cease-fire in the debates between the Dominicans and Jesuits on grace and predestination. He also wrote the mystical Treatise on the Love of God, of which Pope Benedict XVI said: 'In an intensely flourishing season of mysticism The Treatise on the Love of God was a true and proper summa and at the same time a fascinating literary work.'”
- "The special importance of the teaching of St. Francis de Sales: The thought of this Doctor of the Church is of special importance since the Pope himself followed the advice of St. Francis in putting an end to the debates De Auxiliis. Pope Pius IX reports it as follows:1 '. . . our Predecessor of holy memory, Paul V, when the famous debate De Auxiliis was being held at Rome decided to ask the opinion of this Bishop on the matter and, following his advice, judged that this most subtle question, full of danger, and agitated long and keenly, should be laid to rest, and that silence should be imposed on the parties.' The special importance of his teaching is even clearer from the words of Pius XI:2 'But taking the opportunity, he lucidly explained the most difficult questions, such as efficacious grace, predestination, and the call to the faith.'"
But, again, just in case Schneider and Marshall need St. Francis de Sales' credentials as a great theologian on matters dealing with papal theology explained by another anti-Open Letter conservative Catholic here is what pro-Francis Dave Armstrong wrote about the Doctor of the Church:

"Historically, there were many expressions similar to 'papal infallibility', such as: papal authoritypapal primacyheadshippapal supremacyRoman primacy, etc. All of those can be traced back to very early times. Papal infallibility developed (i.e., became more fully understood in its detail) just as all Christian doctrines do."

"But if we restrict ourselves to uses of the word infallibility itself, (and with direct reference to the pope), one notable historical use comes from a Doctor of the Church, St. Francis de Sales, and his book, The Catholic Controversy, completed in 1596. Note how remarkably it anticipates the later fully developed dogma of papal infallibility, as pronounced at the First Vatican Council in 1870 (274 years before it):

'When he teaches the whole Church as shepherd, in general matters of faith and morals, then there is nothing but doctrine and truth. And in fact everything a king says is not a law or an edict, but that only which a king says as king and as a legislator. So everything the Pope says is not canon law or of legal obligation; he must mean to define and to lay down the law for the sheep, and he must keep the due order and form.'

'We must not think that in everything and everywhere his judgment is infallible, but then only when he gives judgment on a matter of faith in questions necessary to the whole Church; for in particular cases which depend on human fact he can err, there is no doubt, though it is not for us to control him in these cases save with all reverence, submission, and discretion. Theologians have said, in a word, that he can err in questions of fact, not in questions of right; that he can err extra cathedramoutside the chair of Peter. that is, as a private individual, by writings and bad example.'

'But he cannot err when he is in cathedra, that is, when he intends to make an instruction and decree for the guidance of the whole Church, when he means to confirm his brethren as supreme pastor, and to conduct them into the pastures of the faith. For then it is not so much man who determines, resolves, and defines as it is the Blessed Holy Spirit by man, which Spirit, according to the promise made by Our Lord to the Apostles, teaches all truth to the Church.' (The Catholic Controversy, translated by Henry B. Mackey, Rockford, Illinois: TAN Books, 1989, 306-307)"
Schneider and Marshall, although good men, appear not to be great theologians when compared to St. Francis de Sales.

Also, it appears that Schneider and Marshall, although good men, appear cowardly when compared to St. Athanasius.

Athanasius demanded the Arian semi-heretical and heretical Church leaders of his time be deposed unless they repented.

Schneider and Marshall are directly contradicting the traditional teaching of Doctor of the Church St. Francis de Sales in saying the Church can't depose a heretical pope.

And in saying there is no formal Church definition saying the Church can depose a heretical pope so let's sit in our hands they are showing they are very unlike Athanasius.

Again, Athanasius shows Schneider and Marshall to be a bit cowardly as compared to him by his defense of the as yet not formally defined traditional teaching that Jesus is God and demanding a Church formal definition that Jesus is God.

We need to act like Athanasius did, and not act like Schneider and Marshall, in demanding that the traditional teaching that a heretical pope can be deposed be formally defined by the Church.

Sadly, the sincere Schneider and Marshall are apparently like many good men in the Church in our time and I hope they prove me wrong. They speak well of the truths of the Church, but are afraid to act on those truths.

There is only one bishop in our time acting with the bravery of St. Athanasius. That is Bishop Rene Gracida.

All good, but fearful Catholics needs to hear the following:

 - Bishop Fulton Sheen:

"Cowards go to Hell. Never forget that. No matter what happens in your life never forget that basic truth."
(CatholicMilitant.com, "Saints and Popes Quotes")


- Pope Pius IX (1792-1878) 

"If a future pope teaches anything contrary to the Catholic Faith, do not follow him. (Letter to Bishop Brizen)"

- Francisco Suarez S. J. (1548-1617)

"If the pope gives an order contrary to right customs, he should not be obeyed; if he attempts to do something manifestly opposed to justice and the common good, it will be lawful to resist him; if he attacks by force, by force he can be repelled, with a moderation appropriate to a just defence. (De Fide, Disp. X, Sec. VI, N. 16)"

- St. Robert Bellarmine, S. J. (1542-1621) 

"Just as it is lawful to resist the pope that attacks the body, it is also lawful to resist the one who attacks souls or who disturbs civil order, or, above all, who attempts to destroy the Church. I say that it is lawful to resist him by not doing what he orders and preventing his will from being executed. (De Romano Pontifice, Lib. II, Ch. 29)"
[https://www.patheos.com/blogs/davearmstrong/2018/10/resisting-heretic-popes-classic-catholic-reflections.html]

Pray an Our Father now for the restoration of the Church.



4 comments:

Praypraypray said...

Excellent article... I may have already shown you this, but I figure it’s pertinent to this subject..
I found this...
Father Gianfranco Ghirlanda, former rector of the Gregorian University, studied the past millennia of canonical tradition concerning the loss of papal office. Such an extensive study by a canonist of his caliber is quite rare, and hence his findings should carry great weight. This is what he wrote about the topic in an article published in 2013 by Civiltà Cattolica:

Fr. Gianfranco Ghirlanda: “The vacancy of the Roman See occurs in case of the cessation of the office on the part of the Roman Pontiff, which happens for four reasons: 1) Death, 2) Sure and perpetual insanity or complete mental infirmity; 3) Notorious apostasy, heresy, schism; 4) Resignation. In the first case, the Apostolic See is vacant from the moment of death of the Roman Pontiff; IN THE SECOND AND IN THE THIRD FROM THE MOMENT OF THE DECLARATION ON THE PART OF THE CARDINALS; in the fourth from the moment of the renunciation.”

He went on to explain that the Cardinals do not depose the pope, but only declared the fact of his heresy. It is “from the moment of the declaration on the part of the Cardinals” that the see becomes vacant, NOT BEFORE.

In the case of Francis, there have been no solemn warnings and no declaration from the Cardinals. Hence, he remains pope...

Fred Martinez said...

Thank you very much Praypraypray for that excellent comment. I knew that from another source which is why I say Pope Francis at some point in my posts. Also, thanks for praying that the Cardinal I mentioned to you receive the grace to join Bishop Gracida in his call for a investigation of the Benedict resignation and the validity of the Francis conclave.

marysong said...

Thank you from the heart for the decade. Just when I needed some prayers badly. I still cannot find the letter. I could be the very technology challenged person! I left a message for Bishop on the bottom of his latest post which is titled HORROR STORY (and more) I follow him on WordPress where I have a site. He really is the St. Athanasius of our day!! maryanne84.wordpress.com

Fred Martinez said...

You're welcome Mary Anne. You're so right about Bishop Gracida being the St. Athanasius of our time. I will be praying a Hail Mary to Our Lady for you for nine days. Please pray for me.