[Catholic Caucus] A Word of Caution in Light of the ongoing Vigano Testimony Drama (MUST READ)

Keeping things in perspective…A Word of Caution in Light of the ongoing Vigano Testimony Drama

The 11-page testimony letter of “Abp.” Carlo Maria Vigano published on Aug. 25, 2018, has put the Modernist sect in Rome into a credibility crisis so severe that, depending on what happens in the next few days and weeks, it may never be able to recover from it.

After over one full week of this controversy, which saw testimony and silence, accusations and denials, claims and counter-claims, verification and contradiction, it is becoming increasingly difficult to keep track of where the whole matter stands. While we will continue to keep you posted in our daily updates, which are very time consuming to produce, we must not lose sight of a very important fact: The Vigano drama about morally corrupt individuals in Rome obscures the fact that the much more serious problem is that the Vatican is doctrinally corrupt, which proves beyond any possible doubt that the See of Rome is not being governed by a valid Pope. In 1853, Pope Pius IX reminded the faithful that “religion itself can never totter and fall while this Chair remains intact, the Chair which rests on the rock which the proud gates of hell cannot overthrow and in which there is the whole and perfect solidity of the Christian religion” (Encyclical Inter Multiplices, n. 7).

The controversy about moral corruption at the Vatican has also given new impetus to the Gallican heresy that a Pope’s pontificate can be taken away from him in consequence of — or at least in punishment for — immoral behavior. Earlier this year, this very heresy was advocated in the “traditional Catholic” flagship publication The Remnant:

The College of Cardinals should immediately convene and remove Francis, the Bishop of Rome for his gross and grave negligence and personal complicity in the systematic flouting and abuse of his own zero tolerance policy causing a scandal of epic proportions brought upon the global Catholic Church and the Chilean Catholic Church.

(Elizabeth Yore, “Anatomy of a Coverup: An Open Letter to Pope Francis”, The Remnant, May 25, 2018) This is not just wrong, it is heresy. Pertinaciously clinging to this idea puts one outside of the Church and makes one no better than a Modernist, an Arian, or a Nestorian. It does not matter how noble and justified one’s outrage is about personal sins and crimes of a true Pope, for the Pope remains Pope — as long as we are not talking about public sins that are of such a nature as “to sever a man from the Body of the Church, as does schism or heresy or apostasy” (Pope Pius XII, Encyclical Mystici Corporis, n. 23) — and as such he has no superior on earth who could take the pontificate away from him. One could ask that he resign because he is a disgrace to the Chair of Peter, but one could not remove him nor cease being subject to him in matters of Faith and — yes — even morals. This is what separates the Catholics from the heretics; it is what dissociates those who believe in the Catholic Church as a divinely instituted indefectible society from those who believe the church to be a merely human institution that can corrupt and fail as any other can.

Canon 1556 enshrines this dogmatic truth in the Church’s law: “Prima Sedes a nemine iudicatur” (Canon 1556) — “The First See is judged by no one.” One of the most famous canonists in the 20th century, Fr. Charles Augustine, explains what this means for the situation of a gravely immoral and scandalous Pope:

But even the person of the Supreme Pontiff was ever considered as unamenable to human judgment, he being responsible and answerable to God alone, even though accused of personal misdeeds and crimes. A remarkable instance is that of Pope Symmachus (498-514). He, indeed, submitted to the convocation of a council (the Synodus Palmaris, 502), because he deemed it his duty to see to it that no stain was inflicted upon his character, but that synod itself is a splendid vindication of our canon. The synod adopted the Apology of Ennodius of Pavia, in which occurs the noteworthy sentence: “God wished the causes of other men to be decided by men; but He has reserved to His own tribunal, without question, the ruler of this see.” No further argument for the traditional view is required. A general council could not judge the Pope, because, unless convoked or ratified by him, it could not render a valid sentence. Hence nothing is left but an appeal to God, who will take care of His Church and its head.

(Rev. Charles Augustine, A Commentary on the New Code of Canon Law, Vol. VII [St. Louis, MO: Herder, 1921], p. 12; italics given; underlining added.) Canonist Fr. Stanislaus Woywod elucidates:

The Supreme Pontiff has the highest legislative, administrative and judicial power in the Church. The Code states that the Roman Pontiff cannot be brought to trial by anyone. The very idea of the trial of a person supposes that the court conducting the trial has jurisdiction over the person, but the Pope has no superior, wherefore no court has power to subject him to judicial trial.

(Rev. Stanislaus Woywod, A Practical Commentary on the Code of Canon Law, rev. by Rev. Callistus Smith [New York: Joseph F. Wagner, 1952], n. 1549, p. 225; underlining added.) The Popes themselves have explicitly taught that moral failings cannot be a pretext for refusing submission to the Roman Pontiff, because God has constituted the Petrine office such that personal sins cannot thwart its validity or efficacy (cf. Lk 22:32):

But if one wishes to search out the true source of all the evils which We have already lamented, as well as those which We pass over for the sake of brevity, he will surely find that from the start it has ever been a dogged contempt for the Church’s authority. The Church, as St. Leo the Great teaches, in well-ordered love accepts Peter in the See of Peter, and sees and honors Peter in the person of his successor the Roman pontiff. Peter still maintains the concern of all pastors in guarding their flocks, and his high rank does not fail even in an unworthy heir. In Peter then, as is aptly remarked by the same holy Doctor, the courage of all is strengthened and the help of divine grace is so ordered that the constancy conferred on Peter through Christ is conferred on the apostles through Peter. It is clear that contempt of the Church’s authority is opposed to the command of Christ and consequently opposes the apostles and their successors, the Church’s ministers who speak as their representatives. He who hears you, hears me; and he who despises you, despises me [Lk 10:16]; and the Church is the pillar and firmament of truth, as the apostle Paul teaches [1 Tim 3:15]. In reference to these words St. Augustine says: “Whoever is without the Church will not be reckoned among the sons, and whoever does not want to have the Church as mother will not have God as father.”

All who defend the faith should aim to implant deeply in your faithful people the virtues of piety, veneration, and respect for this supreme See of Peter. Let the faithful recall the fact that Peter, Prince of Apostles is alive here and rules in his successors, and that his office does not fail even in an unworthy heir. Let them recall that Christ the Lord placed the impregnable foundation of his Church on this See of Peter [Mt 16:18] and gave to Peter himself the keys of the kingdom of Heaven [Mt 16:19]. Christ then prayed that his faith would not fail, and commanded Peter to strengthen his brothers in the faith [Lk 22:32]. Consequently the successor of Peter, the Roman Pontiff, holds a primacy over the whole world and is the true Vicar of Christ, head of the whole Church and father and teacher of all Christians.

Indeed one simple way to keep men professing Catholic truth is to maintain their communion with and obedience to the Roman Pontiff. For it is impossible for a man ever to reject any portion of the Catholic faith without abandoning the authority of the Roman Church. In this authority, the unalterable teaching office of this faith lives on. It was set up by the divine Redeemer and, consequently, the tradition from the Apostles has always been preserved. So it has been a common characteristic both of the ancient heretics and of the more recent Protestants — whose disunity in all their other tenets is so great — to attack the authority of the Apostolic See. But never at any time were they able by any artifice or exertion to make this See tolerate even a single one of their errors.

(Pope Pius IX, Encyclical Nostis et Nobiscum, nn. 16-17; underlining added.) We see the truth of these teachings verified in Church history. For example, consider the case of the scandalous Pope John XII (reigned 955-963). Prince Octavian (his birth name) was only 16 years of age when elected, and he was a complete moral reprobate, as historian Fr. Fernand Mourret attests:

Nothing in his life marked him for this office, and everything should have kept him from it. He was rarely seen in church. His days and nights were spent in the company of young men and of disreputable women, in the pleasures of the table and of amusements and of the hunt, or in even more sinful sensual enjoyments. It is related that sometimes, in the midst of dissolute revelry, the prince had been seen to drink to the health of the devil. Raised to the papal office, Octavian changed his name and took the name of John XII. He was the first pope thus to assume a new name. But his new dignity brought about no change in his morals, and merely added the guilt of sacrilege.

Divine providence, watching over the Church, miraculously preserved the deposit of faith, of which this young voluptuary was the guardian. This Pope’s life was a monstrous scandal, but his bullarium is faultless. We cannot sufficiently admire this prodigy. There is not a heretic or a schismatic who has not endeavored to legitimate his own conduct dogmatically: Photius tried to justify his pride, Luther his sensual passions, Calvin his cold cruelty. Neither Sergius III nor John XII nor Benedict IX nor Alexander VI, supreme pontiffs, definers of the faith, certain of being heard and obeyed by the whole Church, uttered, from the height of their apostolic pulpit, a single word that could be an approval of their disorders.

At times John XII even became the defender of the threatened social order, of offended canon law, and of the religious life exposed to danger.

(Rev. Fernand Mourret, A History of the Catholic Church, Vol. 3 [St. Louis, MO: Herder Book Co., 1946], pp. 510-511; underlining added.) The Papacy is specially protected by God. Sinful though Popes may personally be, no Catholic is permitted to deviate from their Magisterium.

Pope Leo XIII explicitly pointed out that it is not permissible to refuse submission to the current Pope by appealing to a past one, a future one, or an ecumenical council:

Similarly, it is to give proof of a submission which is far from sincere to set up some kind of opposition between one Pontiff and another. Those who, faced with two differing directives, reject the present one to hold to the past, are not giving proof of obedience to the authority which has the right and duty to guide them; and in some ways they resemble those who, on receiving a condemnation, would wish to appeal to a future council, or to a Pope who is better informed.

(Pope Leo XIII, Apostolic Letter Epistola Tua) This is required of the faithful because God has guaranteed the Pope — any true Pope — to always be the safe and ultimate doctrinal guide for Catholics:

…the Church has received from on high a promise which guarantees her against every human weakness. What does it matter that the helm of the symbolic barque has been entrusted to feeble hands, when the Divine Pilot stands on the bridge, where, though invisible, He is watching and ruling? Blessed be the strength of his arm and the multitude of his mercies!

(Pope Leo XIII, Allocution to Cardinals, March 20, 1900; excerpted in Papal Teachings: The Church, p. 349.)

The Pope has the divine promises; even in his human weaknesses, he is invincible and unshakable; he is the messenger of truth and justice, the principle of the unity of the Church; his voice denounces errors, idolatries, superstitions; he condemns iniquities; he makes charity and virtue loved.

(Pope Pius XII, Address Ancora Una Volta, Feb. 20, 1949) The Pope, then, is guaranteed to always be Catholic. God has promised it! Do we believe this? To be Catholic, we must. Once again, the unconditional adherence to Catholic dogma is what separates the Catholic from the heretic. More about this topic can be found in our post, “The Impossibility of Judging or Deposing a True Pope.”

Cardinals do not have power over the Pope, not singly nor collectively. To those who object that just as the cardinals can confer the Papacy on someone when they elect him Pope in conclave, so they can also withdraw this same Papacy from him, it must be answered that this is not true: Cardinals merely designate the person to receive the Papacy. All the electors can do is choose someone to receive the Papacy from God; they do not give him the Papacy, as though this power came from themselves.

As reprehensible as the moral conduct of Francis and his henchmen and of other individual Novus Ordo clerics may be, and as much as we ought to join in condemning them for it, we must always remember that this is not what makes them false popes, false bishops, or false priests. A true Pope covering up sex abuse is possible; a Pope, cardinal, bishop, or priest can commit very wicked deeds against young men and women, even children, and he would not be any less valid of a Catholic hierarch because of it, although he would be, of course, incredibly evil and on his way to eternal punishment in hell (cf. Mk 9:41), and in the eyes of men his credibility would be severely curtailed.

Against the Protestants, the Council of Trent defined dogmatically: “If anyone shall say that together with the loss of grace by sin faith also is always lost, or that the faith that remains is not a true faith, though it be not a living one, or that he, who has faith without charity, is not a Christian: let him be anathema” (Session VI, Canon 28; Denz. 838). It is absolutely crucial to affirm this truth, and the current Vigano affair is threatening to obscure it. What makes the Vatican II Church not Catholic is not that some of its clerics are moral scoundrels but that they do not profess the true Faith but a different, foreign one (cf. Gal 1:8-9).

John XXIII (1958-63) Paul VI (1963-78) John Paul I (Aug. 26, 1978 – Sep. 28, 1978) John Paul II (1978-2005) Benedict XVI (2005-13) Francis I (since 2013) These people are simply not Roman Catholics. Their church, their entire religion, is essentially different from that of Pope Pius XII and his predecessors, as is proved all over this web site. This is why we can and must reject them. They cannot be Catholic Popes because they are not even Catholics. And they cannot be true Popes because they have done things true Popes, possessing “the divine promises”, are divinely protected from doing.

To conclude this post, since we are to be “wise as serpents” (Mt 10:16), it befits us to ponder a hypothetical scenario, a scenario we might very well see materialize in the coming days or weeks, depending on how things progress with the Vigano affair: Suppose that Vigano lied in his testimony, at least with regard to Francis himself. What would this mean?

One of the most powerful ways to enhance one’s own credibility and generate sympathy from the masses is to orchestrate a very serious accusation against oneself that is afterwards uncovered as a lie. People naturally sympathize with someone who has been publicly demonstrated to be the victim of vicious slander. With regard to the Vigano testimony specifically, if it were to be proved false, it would confer on Francis and his cabal, in the minds of men, a status of victimhood and moral uprightness. It would also immensely weaken any opposition against him, whether it be concerning church governance, doctrine, or anything else.

It would behoove us, therefore, to keep in mind, just as a possibility, that the entire campaign against Francis is a ploy — a ploy to trigger sympathy for Francis and to root out his opponents by identifying them in this way and then removing them from their positions. It is noticeable that most of those who side with Vigano are those who oppose Francis already on other grounds; and those who side with Francis also generally agree with his open Modernism.

Under this hypothesis, Vigano could himself be part of the plan or not. In 2013, he was considered part of Francis “magic circle” of advisors and a “great enemy of Ratzinger” (source). This may just be the opinion of a single journalist and may not mean much. But then again, it might. Regardless of whether this is all a big game being played, the end result could be the same: Francis’ enemies would have revealed themselves by coming out against him, and he could remove them all essentially for a “treason” of sorts, and the world would applaud him or at least show sympathy for his action.

This would ensure three things: (1) It would be a warning to any future “traitors” never to cross him; (2) Francis could appoint countless new “bishops” after his own heart to fill the vacancies created by his bulk removals; and (3) any potential objections against Francis and his henchmen would forever be dismissed from the get-go as just another baseless conspiracy set up to bring him down. The result would be that Club Francis would, effectively, have become untouchable, and Bergoglio would emerge looking like a saint, a hero, incredibly powerful. This additional power boost would come in very handy for Francis and allow him to kick his revolution into even higher gear. And higher gear is surely what he is aiming for — considering his advanced age, he knows he doesn’t have decades left on this earth.

In pondering this possible scenario, one is reminded of Agatha Christie’s tale Witness for the Prosecution, in which a woman testifies in court against her husband, who stands accused of murder. Upon research and examination, the wife’s testimony is found wanting and she is exposed as a liar, thus resulting in her husband’s acquittal. This is precisely the outcome the woman had intended, for she knew that testifying in his defense would not have convinced the jury much, she being his wife and therefore naturally given to defend him. That the exonerated defendant then confesses his guilt is only one of the many twists to the movie’s ending.

Too fanciful? Too cynical? Perhaps. But don’t underestimate the ultimate force at work in all this wickedness: Satan himself, who is “a liar, and the father thereof” (Jn 8:44). As a being angelic in nature, the devil, for all his wickedness, is incredibly intelligent. Christ our Lord warned that before His Second Coming “there shall arise false Christs and false prophets, and shall shew great signs and wonders, insomuch as to deceive (if possible) even the elect” (Mt 24:24). We must keep this in mind, that we will see not only a masterful deception but presumably the greatest deception ever perpetrated against souls.

Alternatively, there could be something else afoot: Assume all of Vigano’s allegations are true and Francis is somehow persuaded to resign (or perhaps he dies), and anyone who was ever involved with some kind of sex abuse scandal or cover-up is found out and removed. The remaining “cardinals” proceed to a new conclave and elect someone like Raymond Burke, who would, of course, choose the name Benedict XVII. Then it would all return to the Ratzinger days, and the Vatican II Sect would still be as heretical and pernicious to souls as ever, but this time everyone will have deceived himself into thinking that the Catholic Church has been re-established and purged of all error and corruption, having overcome Francis and all his wickedness.

No matter how you look at it, it is a big farce, veritably the “operation of error” prophesied by St. Paul (2 Thess 2:10).

Regardless of how this plays out, we hope that this new week will allow us to breathe a bit so we can focus again on other topics, those that truly prove the Vatican II Sect to be a false church and essentially different from the Catholic Church. We have a lot of new content in the pipeline, including: a treatise on the case of the fourteenth-century Pope John XXII and his alleged “heresy” on the Beatific Vision; an article on “Pope” Benedict XVI and the Jews; a long-overdue response to The Remnant‘s Chris Jackson regarding the suppression of the Jesuits; further posts on Francis’ recent Catechism revision on the death penalty; and much more.

Novus Ordo Watch offers all its content free of charge to the public, for the glory of God and the salvation of souls. We are a non-profit organization. People who would like to support our work financially may do so here (tax-deductible in the United States). Thank you.

“...How could a true Pope be elected when there are no true Cardinals left alive to elect him?”

+_+_+_+_+_+_+_+_+_+

Actually, the First Vatican Council does not teach that there will always be a Pope. The council could not possibly teach such a thing because this is obviously false, since there is always a period of no Pope (a so-called “interregnum”) after one Pope dies and before a new one is elected, and in Church history this period has sometimes lasted even for years. What Vatican I truly teaches is this: “Therefore, if anyone says that it is not by the institution of Christ the lord himself (that is to say, by divine law) that blessed Peter should have perpetual successors in the primacy over the whole church; or that the Roman pontiff is not the successor of blessed Peter in this primacy: let him be anathema” (Dogmatic Constitution Pastor Aeternus). The key phrase is “in the primacy”. The council is teaching that the primacy that was conferred upon St. Peter is retained in all his valid successors perpetually. In other words, for as long as there is a valid Pope, this Pope will enjoy the same primacy that St. Peter had received from our Lord — there will never be a Pope who will be a successor to St. Peter but not also have the same primacy, and this is guaranteed in perpetuity. That is what the council is teaching; it has nothing to do with how long of an interregnum the Church can endure. We explain this in greater detail in this post.

As far as the accusation that Sedevacantism would mean that the gates of hell have prevailed against the Church, which Christ our Lord promised would never happen (see Mt 16:18), nothing could be further from the truth. In fact, the opposite is true: Only if the Vatican II “popes” are invalid can we affirm that the gates of hell have not prevailed. This is easy to see once we understand what the Church teaches is meant by the gates of hell prevailing. We have put all the evidence together in this detailed article, and we also have a brief video that explains the essentials.

From https://novusordowatch.org/faqs/

(Question 8)

“...It sounds to me like your position means the gates of hell have truly prevailed against the church.”

But on the same token, how about the idea that the Church is being led by a heretic or apostate? Wouldn’t that more so demonstrate that the gates of hell have prevailed?

Anyway, maybe there is a misunderstanding as to the meaning of that key phrase.

Please read the whole article on this very question right here:

https://novusordowatch.org/2015/12/have-gates-of-hell-prevailed/

Below is a significant snippet toward the conclusion:

What of the gates of hell, then? Does Manning not say that “the Son of God shall permit, for a time, the powers of evil to prevail”? Indeed he does, but a little bit further on he explains in what sense this must be understood:

We have already seen reason to believe that as our Divine Lord delivered Himself into the hands of sinners when His time was come, and no man could lay hand upon Him, until of His own free will He delivered Himself over to their power, so in like manner it shall be with that Church of which He said, “Upon this rock will I build my Church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it” [Mt 16:18]. As the wicked did not prevail against Him even when they bound Him with cords, dragged Him to the judgment, blindfolded His eyes, mocked Him as a false King, smote Him on the head as a false Prophet, led Him away, crucified Him, and in the mastery of their power seemed to have absolute dominion over Him, so that He lay ground down and almost annihilated under their feet; and as, at that very time when He was dead and buried out of their sight, He was conqueror over all, and rose again the third day, and ascended into heaven, and was crowned, glorified, and invested with His royalty, and reigns supreme, King of kings and Lord of lords,— even shall it be with His Church: though for a time persecuted, and, to the eyes of man, overthrown and trampled on, dethroned, despoiled, mocked, and crushed, yet in that high time of triumph the gate of hell shall not prevail. There is in store for the Church of God a resurrection and an ascension, a royalty and a dominion, a recompense of glory for all it has endured. Like Jesus, it needs must suffer on the way to its crown; yet crowned it shall be with Him eternally.

Let no one, then, be scandalised if the prophecy speak of sufferings to come. We are fond of imagining triumphs and glories for the Church on earth,— that the Gospel is to be preached to all nations, and the world to be converted, and all enemies subdued, and I know not what,— until some ears are impatient of hearing that there is in store for the Church a time of terrible trial: and so we do as the Jews of old, who looked for a conqueror, a king, and for prosperity; and when their Messias came in humility and in passion, they did not know Him. So, I am afraid, many among us intoxicate their minds with the visions of success and victory, and cannot endure the thought that there is a time of persecution yet to come for the Church of God. Let us hear, therefore, the words of the prophet Daniel. Speaking of the person whom St. John calls the Antichrist, whom he calls the king that shall work according to his own will, the prophet Daniel says, “He shall speak words against the High One,”— that is, the Almighty God,—“and shall crush the saints of the Most High.” Again he says, “It”— that is, the power of this king—“was magnified even unto the strength of heaven: and it threw down of the strength, and of the stars and trod upon them. And it was magnified even to the prince of the strength: and it took away from him the continual sacrifice, and cast down the place of his sanctuary.” Further, he says, “The victim and the sacrifice shall fail, and there shall be in the temple the abomination of desolation.” These three passages are taken from the seventh, and the eighth, and the ninth chapters of Daniel. I might add more, but they are enough, for in the Book Apocalypse (12:7) we find a key to these words. St. John, evidently referring to the Book of Daniel, writes of the beast, that is, the persecuting power which shall reign on the earth by might, “It was given unto him to make war with the saints and to overcome them.”

(Manning, Lecture IV, “Passion and ‘Death’ of the Church”, in The Present Crisis of the Holy See Tested by Prophecy, pp. 67-69; see The Pope and the Antichrist: The Great Apostasy Foretold)

The Son of God who guaranteed that the gates of hell would not prevail against His Church is the same Son of God (cf. Heb 13:8) who also taught, through St. Paul and St. John, that the mystery of iniquity would be successful for a time. Indeed, He is the same Son of God who was wholly victorious in His own apparent defeat, where it appeared that His enemies had triumphed over Him as He suffered His bitter but glorious Passion. We can only marvel at the beauty of God’s ways — when all seems lost and evil seems to have prevailed, He proves through the inscrutable designs of His infinite wisdom that the opposite is in fact the case. “For as the heavens are exalted above the earth, so are my ways exalted above your ways, and my thoughts above your thoughts”, says the Lord through His prophet Isaias (55:9).

Let us, therefore, not agonize over attempting to understand why God permits the operation of error, the mystery of iniquity, and the manifestation of the Antichrist to begin with. Let it suffice for us that the all-good, all-knowing, and all-powerful God has willed it so, and thus we know that, whether we understand it or not, it is ultimately to His glory and for the salvation of His elect (cf. Is 55:8-9; 1 Tim 2:3-4; 2 Thess 2:10-11; Rom 8:28).

Good points, but I never claimed that paragraph 32 did what we both acknowledge it didn't. You asked me to provide an official church document that says that the only method of electing a pope is for the college of cardinals to do so. I have done that.

But my overarching point was that if you accept that there has been no valid pope since Pius XII, you need to account for how we might choose a new pope, and I've never seen such a plan, based either on scripture or Tradition, from the sedevacantists. The fact that the document governing the election of Pius XII's successor doesn't account for the eventuality that there would be no valid cardinals only argues for his lack of foresight, which I, as a computer programmer, find appalling.

We've had bad popes before, and we can have them again. One problem I see with sedevacantism is that it relies on the teachings of the popes since Pius XII as proof that they can't really be pope. However, the doctrine of the infallibility of the pope is very limited in scope. It must be a matter of faith and morals, the pope (or the bishops in council with him) must clearly invoke the charism of infallibility, and he must be intending to bind the consciences of all generations to believe something that has always been believed by the Church up to that time, though not with the authority he is now invoking. It can't be a new teaching. It can't be a teaching that is now understood in a new sense than it was understood throughout history.

If any of those conditions are missing, it is not proof that the man isn't pope. It is, rather, merely proof that the teaching does not enjoy the gift of infallibility. Not everything a pope declares is infallible. If one can demonstrate how a pope's teaching that clearly seems to have the characteristics of infallibility, yet is clearly heretical, then that would argue for the pope not being a true pope. But even then, one would have to be very careful, because one would have to demonstrate that his interpretation is the only interpretation, and that there is no orthodox interpretation.

Rather than declare on his own authority that such-and-such proves the man claiming to be pope is not actually pope, the more prudent path for the non-theologian in such a situation would be to simply to hold on to what he knows to be true and let history run its course.

I'm not aware any teaching since Pope Pius XII that even comes close to claiming to meet all the criteria of infallibility, even assuming the men who claimed to be pope actually were. Nothing in Vatican II, nothing in the teachings of John XXIII, Paul VI, John Paul I, Benedict XVI, or Francis even came close to claiming to be an infallible teaching. The only exception I know of that could arguably be considered to have made that claim is John Paul II's declaration that women cannot be ordained priests, and that teaching is clearly in line with Tradition.

A much surer path to proving there has been no pope since Pius XII is to demonstrate that the election of John XXIII was invalid. And that's a very high bar to clear, since all the witnesses to his election are dead. All the evidence that has been laid out is circumstantial or hearsay, and there is plenty of evidence to the contrary. Further, given the law regarding the secrecy of conclaves, any hearsay is immediately suspect.

This will be my final word on the matter. Even though I do believe there is valid objective evidence that Francis' election was invalid, I am neither a canon lawyer, nor a theologian, so I am taking my own advice and simply holding on to what I know to be true, praying for both this pope (assuming he is pope) and the next one, and letting history take its course. Anything beyond that is in Jesus' hands.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.