The Ruthless Assassin And The Heretical Pope

I will keep this as short as I can because it’s late and I am tired, but I feel that I cannot go to sleep before writing this.

Let us say a man – a known criminal, of sound mind – is seen on the street killing three children in cold blood, in broad daylight, because they did not say “good morning!” to him.

There is no doubt he is an assassin. If the place where he lives has the death penalty (or Capital Punishment, if you want to be theologically exact), there is no reasonable doubt that he deserves it.

Is he, then, on the moment, an assassin? He certainly is. When one kills unjustly, that is, assassinates someone else, he is, ipso facto, an assassin. He is already that, before the need for any sentence.

Can he, therefore, be lynched? Of course not.

Even the obvious fact, already happened, of the assassination – and the fact that this man has, by his act, lost the right to live – must be ascertained and declared in the proper manner, by the proper authority. When this happens, the factual assassin is declared a legal assassin and punished as such. In the factual order, the assassination has already happened, and the assassin has been already such from the moment of the crime. But the declaration of such crime – the one that has consequences on his legals status: say, on his right to be free, or to live in the first place – only happens later. The sentence that states that the man is an assassin has a declaratory effect. It declares as assassin someone who, factually, has been an assassin since the time of the assassination. If he were to never be condemned, he would still die an assassin; but only a factual, not a legal one.

This is not difficult to understand, and it happens every day in various circumstances. If President XYZ (say: Clinton, or Obama) commits an impeachable offence, he is not deprived ipso facto of his rank. However, his offence is such that he can be declared to have committed such an offence and, therefore, can be deprived of his office. But it’s not for you or me to decide that he is not the President of the United States anymore.

You understand where I am going with this.

There can be no reasonable doubt that Francis has apostatised. I think that no reasonable Catholic would disagree with the statement that he has, with his behaviour, violated the First Commandment, like Marcellinus before him.

However, it is not for you or me to decide that he is not Pope, just as it is not for me or you to decide that Bill Clinton’s Presidency ended on a certain day, when he first committed perjury.

We do not know much of the trial that was held against Marcellinus. But one thing we know: he presented himself to the trial as the Pope. We can also have different opinions about the offence committed by Honorius, but it is a fact that he was condemned after his death, and still remained Pope until his death. John XXII, another obvious heretic, also died as Pope. Mind here that John XXIII maintained an obviously heretical (in the common usage of the term; please spare me the discussion) position until very shortly before his death, but was still allowed to remain the Pope and seen by everybody as such.

It is not for us to lynch the assassin, much less to declare Francis deposed. It is, however, for us to cry from the roofs that the man has clearly apostatised, and that he must be declared such – with the consequences of the case – by the relevant tribunal. Which is, obviously, no one of us, but is widely believed to be either an imperfect council called by enough quality bishops to make it qualitatively credible as Catholic, or a declaration by a smaller but, again, credible number of quality Cardinals, able to carry the voice of orthodoxy on their shoulders in a credible way.

It is as simple as that.

Whatever horrible acts Pope Formosus had committed (and to my knowledge the Church ended up, after a number of reverses and counter reverses, confirming his condemnation; but it’s too late to go and check and it is ultimately irrelevant anyway), the fact remains that he died a Pope, as we would say today, “in good standing” and, if memory serves, his acts were not even condemned by his successor, but by a successive pope (Stephanus VI). In fact, Stephanus’ unusual, but very “media effective” decision to have him trialled as a corpse dressed in his papal robes was exactly the confirmation that the one so accused was Pope.

Do not be confused by the apparent contradiction between an apostate pope and a pope in office. The man keeps remaining in office, until it is declared that he has – with acts committed in the past – renounced to it. This is why Pope Formosus was first trialled as Pope, and only after the sentence declaring his deposition had the three fingers of his right hand amputated, symbolising his unworthiness of giving a papal blessing.

This is the only reasonable way to look at it, and it appears (see the examples above) to have been consistently followed in the past.

Stray from this common sense approach, and you will find yourself believing that a quisque de populo can decide who is and who is not Pope. Which can be convenient, or – in these astonishing times – even consoling and, in a very dangerous way, deceptively reassuring; but certainly isn’t Catholic.

Francis needs to be declared an apostate and deposed, just in the same way as the assassin needs to be declared an assassin and, in case, executed. The one and the other could get away with it in this life. The one and the other will not escape the final judgement. God in His Goodness will remedy this situation at the time He has appointed.

For the time being, we remain, decidedly, no Popemakers.

 

 

 

Posted on November 10, 2019, in Catholicism, Conservative Catholicism, Traditional Catholicism. Bookmark the permalink. 13 Comments.

  1. So from now on we can refer to Francis as apostate Pope Francis. Correct?

  2. Whether Francis is legally the pope or not is hardly the question that anyone should concern himself with. The question is, do we follow his teaching? Obey him? Treat him as our spiritual father? The answers are, obviously : no, no, and no. Pope or no pope, he is not someone that any believing Christian can even be in communion with, much less follow and obey.

  3. catholictradition2

    Thank you, a number of commentating Catholics have forgotten these salient points.

  4. I can’t tell others what to do and wouldn’t want to. I don’t know Canon Law, so I can’t say what is Catholic teaching on all matters definitively so as to parse out the occasional Catholic remark he makes, and he does that once in awhile. For our part we don’t hear him anymore, we don’t read what he says, we don’t check up on statements. We’re done with him. I don’t feel the need to weigh in on his papal status, to me it’s irrelevant except to our fellow Catholics who sit in Novus Ordo pews each week and just don’t know. Those people I feel a sense of responsibility for, and lament that no Cardinal cares enough about them to warn them. Many of those Catholics probably don’t care, would follow Francis anyway, and that is up to them. But the ones who don’t know, there are surely many. It’s wrong to leave them there. They could be led astray by him. Shouldn’t Cardinals and bishops care for souls.

    I can’t declare him pope or not, but to our family he may as well be the papal cupcake decorator. He holds the office and I certainly can’t deprive him of it but I can pray and hope someone does. As a Catholic I can say I will not listen to him and that’s what I have said. Galatians 1:8 has been really all I needed to come to that sensible conclusion. Francis is obviously an apostate, that for sure. I can only go by the evidence of my eyes and the Catholic discernment that God gave us all for exactly this reason. We are not all theologians and Canon Law scholars and frankly, none of those have been much use in this situation either.
    There has to be a supernatural reality that will kick in once he is declared an apostate by the proper authority. We can say it but have no spiritual effect. A Cardinal or bishop or even better, a group of them can say it and supernatural realities will take over. Everything in it’s proper order. The church has a hierarchy, for a reason. This is for them to do. Either way, there are supernatural realities, they cannot escape that. This is their responsibility.

    • This is, I think, a very sensible attitude.
      I have been known to say that I don’t give a Francis for what Francis says, because I am a Catholic.
      It is this kind of statements, not us becoming Popemakers, that make the strongest impression on those who listen to us.

  5. Last year, when all the McCarrick stuff came out, I brought this up to my Dad- that some on the Internet are saying that Pope Francis is an Antipope, and that Benedict’s resignation was defective so he was actually still pope. I admit I was struggling with this at the time, but I’ve taken my father’s reply to heart: that’s not for me or someone on the Internet to decide. So don’t even worry about that. Even If some a whole lot higher on the chain start calling for an investigation into Benedict’s resignation (or, as you say, Francis’s apostasty), then they will let us know what they find. Our part is to know the faith, and not take scandal at what’s going on in Rome.

  6. i have cancer, for instance.
    i am not a doctor.
    i can no declare that my illness is cancer, until the doctor does.
    Sorry , but I Have Cancer.
    A Pope must not be Apostate.
    When a Pope has apostatised , he does not even belong to the church.
    He is no longer a Pope.
    I am not a Pope maker, but he is no longer a Pope, he may govern the church , but he Is not a Pope.
    Going to the extreme (but possible! since Pachamama, cardinals can elect a monkey as Pope….and the Catholics should wait the monkey dies , and a new Elected Pope declares something about the monkey.

    In the Middle Ages there “were” three “ Popes “
    Some saints thought that one of them was THE POPE, and he was not.
    Later , with the resignation , the Church established who the WAS THE POPE,

    Those saints which were wrong, were as matter of fact Holy See Vacantists.
    But there were saints….
    Time showed that this was Not so BIG DEAL, and that there were saints, that was THE BIG THING.
    So, you can sleep. “TODO SE PASA” , teaches Teresa the Great.

    Now , this is infinite worst than those “ three Popes” .

    He may be the second beast .
    The second beast is not a Pope, no matter who says that, now, or in the future.
    The important thing is what he is, not if we are Popemakers, specially if there are no more Popes in the future….

  7. And St Paul, an Apostle, in vs 9 continues, “As we have said before, so now I say again, If any one is preaching to you a gospel contrary to that which you received, let him be accursed.” Pretty strong words.

  1. Pingback: Canon212 Update: Cardinal Raymond ‘Leo’ Burke – My Hero! – The Stumbling Block

Leave a reply. Please be concise and to the point.

Please log in using one of these methods to post your comment:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

%d bloggers like this: