Br. Alexis Bugnolo tries to justify his agreement with the electors in choosing Jorge Bergoglio as pope by referring to Pope Eugene I who in the mind of Br. Bugnolo was a monothelite heretic before his election and then converted during his papacy. Br. Bugnolo refers to a book called A History of the Church that supposedly makes such a claim. I looked through this book and I could not verify Br. Bugnolo’s claim. Search the book yourself if you like and let me know if you find it. Nevertheless, the heresy of monothelism was solemnly condemned at the Third Council of Constantinople (680 – 681) which took place after the death of Pope Eugene I (+657). In regards to whether there has ever been a pope who fell into heresy, 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 it was answered during the First Vatican Council that there has never been the case of a heretic pope, thereby contradicting Br. Bugnolo’s claim. Now 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. So just as a pope who falls into heresy (if it were hypothetically possible) would be cease to be pope, a man who is a heretic could not be elected pope. A heretic is simply not a capable subject of receiving the form of the papacy. As Pope Pius XII taught in Mystici Corporis, the 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.
Now Br. Bugnolo would tell you that a papal candidate has the right to be such if he has not yet been juridically declared a heretic by the Church. But is this a sufficient objection? No. The reason is that (public) heresy separates all bonds that the heretic has with the Church from the moment he falls into (public) heresy and not from the moment he is declared a heretic by the Church (read again the account of Archbishop Purcell). The fall into (public) heresy can be determined, as evidenced by the facts, even by the simple layman. Br. Bugnolo has himself admitted that Jorge Bergoglio was a heretic prior to the election that he, Br. Bugnolo, organized. In effect, therefore, he ought to conclude that, even if he truly believed that the convening of the election and the election process itself were valid, the very fact that a heretic was elected makes the validity of the elected as pope null and void.
- Quoted in Rev. James J. McGovern, Life and Life Work of Pope Leo XIII (Chicago, 1903), p. 241.
- See this page for more information.
Without judging, people can not know that jorge bergoglio is NOT THE POPE. This is judgement that can follow from discernment of the TRUTH according to THE ONE, HOLY, CATHOLIC, and APOSTOLIC CHURCH instituted by JESUS CHRIST for ALL TIME and THE EVIDENCE which GOD has provided to facilitate proper discernment and proper judgement.
An example about motives is that the motives of the sankt gallen mafia group and jorge bergoglio can also be discerned and judged according to TRUTH and EVIDENCE which is available and which is always a matter of GOD providing the TRUTH and EVIDENCE according to HIS WILL.
Motives are not always available, but motives can sometimes be judged and discerned if they are made available by the WILL of GOD. There are certain motives that can be determined and also questioned without an individual person being sinful in doing so. For example, most assuredly joseph biden is NOT A faithful CATHOLIC nor was he lawfully elected. Certain motive[s] for this and other evils can be known and judged.
Also, those whom GOD places before us as HIS instruments such as popes, saints, Canon Law, Dogma, Father Kramer, and so forth guide us to proper judgement.
The daily Rosary, the Holy Sacraments, Faith, and Graces are also given to us along with other means according to GOD’S WILL for all manner of judgement and discernment in our daily lives and throughout salvation history.
What cannot be judged by any person is the state of the soul of any person, as GOD IS THE ONLY ONE WHO CAN AND WILL BE THE JUDGE of each and every soul.
I agree with you that with sufficient evidence motives can be judged, but I am not able, at least at this time, to judge Br. Alexis Bugnolo’s motives as being evil.
Not commenting on the Brother Bugnolo situation since I don’t know what iit’s about but this is a good opportunity to remind 1958 sedes that Paul IVs Bull was null and void. https://youtu.be/N4lcum8xetc
Please note that Fr. Hesse was speaking about former heretics who were no longer so before a papal election. My post about one is a heretic at the time of election.
The TRUTH repeated as follows is this:
Pursuant to the present age in which we now live, the conciliarists, sedevacantists, so called ”true resistance”, protestants, synodal church, and so forth and so on believe in a new church of their own making and their own opinions. The followers of these new churches do not believe in the ONE, HOLY, CATHOLIC, and APOSTOLIC CHURCH of all time instituted by JESUS CHRIST.
One or more additions of ”new church” members can be added as the TRUTH arises.
The category for Brother Bugnolo is those who rely on themselves and no longer need the TRUE CHURCH of ALL TIME to get in the way of their own firmly held and false opinions.
SO THEY THINK that they are the sheep when in TRUTH they choose to be the goats just like Luther, Arius, bergoglio, etc., etc., etc. . .
Brother Bugnolo is off the rails, and whether he is/will be willing to repent and convert is anyone’s guess. Could it be that Brother Bugnolo is trying to prop up his error[s], while his pride and self-love has led him into darkness?
I will not judge Br. Alex Bugnolo’s motives. I will only judge that he is incorrect that a heretic (understood as public manifest formal heretic) can be elected pope.
”The fall into (public) heresy can be determined, as evidenced by the facts, even by the simple layman. Br. Bugnolo has himself admitted that Jorge Bergoglio was a heretic prior to the election that he, Br. Bugnolo, organized. In effect, therefore, he ought to conclude that, even if he truly believed that the convening of the election and the election process itself were valid, the very fact that a heretic was elected makes the validity of the elected as pope null and void.”
The words above are yours, Tony. So, you think that this is not judgement, but it is no doubt THE TRUTH. Judging is what GOD requires us to do at times when we need to distinguish in order to discern TRUTH.
As jorge bergoglio made the statement ”Who am I to judge?”, the matter of judgement can be in TRUTH a matter of discernment. The confusion between discernment and judgement is a matter of purposeful misdirection and/or distraction when one buys into the deceptions that tend toward confusion.
I did not mean that I am judging Br. Bugnolo’s motives in the statement of mine that you quoted.
Thank you, very clarifying.