Ecclesia Militans

Does this sound right? Does this sound logical?

Has Francis been “generally accepted” as pope?

This is a purely hypothetical question as a true pope cannot become a formal heretic (see this post).  Nevertheless, let us read the words of Archbishop John Baptist Purcell who recounted what happened during his attendance at the First Vatican Council:

“The question was also raised by a Cardinal, ‘What is to be done with the Pope if he becomes a heretic?’ It was answered that there has never been such a case; the Council of Bishops could depose him for heresy, for from the moment he becomes a heretic he is not the head or even a member of the Church. The Church would not be, for a moment, obliged to listen to him when he begins to teach a doctrine the Church knows to be a false doctrine, and he would cease to be Pope, being deposed by God Himself.

“If the Pope, for instance, were to say that the belief in God is false, you would not be obliged to believe him, or if he were to deny the rest of the creed, ‘I believe in Christ,’ etc. The supposition is injurious to the Holy Father in the very idea, but serves to show you the fullness with which the subject has been considered and the ample thought given to every possibility. If he denies any dogma of the Church held by every true believer, he is no more Pope than either you or I; and so in this respect the dogma of infallibility amounts to nothing as an article of temporal government or cover for heresy.”¹

So you see that if it were possible for a pope to become a heretic, he would cease to be a member of the Church from the very moment that he fell into (public) heresy.  Consequently, he could be deposed by a council of bishops since he would no longer be pope at the time of the deposition.  What Archbishop Purcell heard is in agreement with the Magisterium of Pope Pius XII who taught in Mystici Corporis that the (pubic) sin of heresy per se separates the heretic from the Church.²  Being separated from the Church, the heretic is no longer a member.  Being no longer a member he could not be the head.  To claim otherwise is to admit that the papal office can exist separated from the Church because the heretic being separated from the Church would nonetheless be pope.  Hence, the claim is absurd.  What Archbishop Purcell heard is also Opinion No. 5 (see this post) of the Five Opinions expounded upon by St. Robert Bellarmine.

The Catacombs Forum, which is closely allied with Fr. David Hewko, seems to have officially taken on Opinion No. 3 of the Five Opinions expounded upon by St. Robert Bellarmine regarding the pope and heresy:

That a pope who is even a manifest heretic is not deposed ipso facto and cannot be deposed by the Church.

The reason why I write that it seems to have officially taken on Opinion No. 3 is because the forum administrator, who goes by the name of “Stone”, posted (see picture of post here) a sermon of Fr. David Hewko given on September 19, 2023, in which Father spoke about and agreed with a letter written by His Excellency Bishop Athanasius Schneider (refer to this post).  In that letter, Bishop Schneider defends the “pontificate” of Jorge Bergoglio by holding to the position that a heretical pope does not lose his office automatically and cannot be deposed by the Church (which is essentially Opinion No. 3).  The forum administrator posted this without making any other comment.  Therefore, it is fair to presume that Opinion No. 3 is also the opinion of the Catacombs Forum.  If I am incorrect, I welcome a clarification.

Unfortunately, the Catacombs Forum, together with Fr. Hewko and Bishop Schneider, oppose the Magisterium of Pope Pius XII by indirectly denying that the public sin of manifest formal heresy by its very nature separates the heretic from the Church.  See this post and this post in defence of my assertion.

Do you see how error spreads from the clergy to the faithful and from the faithful to each other?