Question: Can a True Pope Teach Doctrinal Error?

Answer:  Yes.

In a Facebook posted titled “Archbishop Vigano Is Correct”, Fr. Paul Kramer responds to a commenter.

Fr. Paul Kramer, in his two volumes of “To Deceive the Elect“, references the following section, particularly Paragraphs 2 and 3, of the work of Don Curzio Nitoglia .

The following is a Microsoft English translation of Paragraphs 2 and 3:

Fr. Paul Kramer on Cum Ex Apostolatus Officio

“It is declared by Paul IV in Cum Ex Apostolatus Officio, and confirmed by St. Pius V in Inter Multiplices, that the election of a heretic to the papacy is invalid, even if he receives universal acceptance and obedience (adorationem, seu ei praestitam ab omnibus obedientiam) from the whole Church.”
(Kramer, Paul. To deceive the elect: The catholic doctrine on the question of a heretical Pope, p. 13. Kindle Edition.)

“…..as Pope Paul IV ruled, and based his ruling on the doctrine, (taught solemnly but not ex cathedra), in Cum ex apostolatus officio (and then confirmed and renewed by St. Pius V in Inter Multiplices), that an external heretic, (even an occult one), even if canonically elected cannot validly occupy the throne of Peter. If he would be proven to have been a heretic before being elected, he would not be the pope and his election would not be valid, even if his election would have been procedurally correct; and that would be so even if he had been generally accepted as pope. This doctrine was taught by medieval canonists since the time of the early Decretists in the twelfth century, and was raised to the level of the papal ordinary magisterium by Paul IV, who made it the basis of his ruling, which he enacted as a statute for the universal Church.”
(Kramer, Paul. To deceive the elect: The catholic doctrine on the question of a heretical Pope, p. 38. Kindle Edition.)

“The virtue of faith as the absolutely necessary disposition for a man to validly receive and preserve the form of the Supreme Pontificate can also clearly be seen to be the basis of the teaching of Paul IV in Cum ex apostolatus officio, which, although not dogmatically defined, was the basis of disciplinary canonical provisions set forth in that decree which clearly remained in force until 1983 (and some of which can be argued to remain in force even after the 1983 code), but its doctrinal basis, founded on divine law, remains perpetually valid. The doctrine expressed in that decree teaches that if one who has been elected pope is discovered to have been a heretic before his election, that election would be invalid. This teaching was already found in the writings of some of the early Decretists.”
(Kramer, Paul. To deceive the elect: The catholic doctrine on the question of a heretical Pope, p. 410. Kindle Edition.)

“The question of a true and valid pope falling into heresy is not even considered as a possibility in Cum ex apostolatus officio, which simply declares that the pope is judged by no one and presumes that he is not a heretic – and thus the doctrinal basis of its teaching is clearly Opinion No. One.”
(Kramer, Paul. To deceive the elect: The catholic doctrine on the question of a heretical Pope, p. 412. Kindle Edition.)

“It is declared by Paul IV in Cum Ex Apostolatus Officio, and confirmed by St. Pius V in Inter Multiplices, that the election to the papacy of even an occult heretic who is discovered afterwards to be a heretic is invalid, even if he receives universal acceptance and obedience (adorationem, seu ei praestitam ab omnibus obedientiam) from the whole Church. That rule remains forever in force, even if the statute of human positive law, i.e. the ‘merely ecclesiastical law’, were to be abrogated, because it is easily shown to be a statutory application of a precept of divine law. The decree states that even if the heretic pope-elect not yet known to be a heretic would receive obedience from all, his election is null and void, and needs only to be declared so. The ruling is founded on the doctrinal principle that a heretic per se is an incapable subject of the papacy. Thus, not only would a public heretic be an incapable subject of the papacy for the reason that as a manifest heretic he would no longer be a member of the Church, but heresy per se and simpliciter renders a man an illegitimate subject of the papacy, so that a heretic is simply incapable of assuming the form of the papacy and thereby being conjoined to it.”
(Kramer, Paul. On the true and the false pope: The case against Bergoglio, p. 216. Gondolin Press. Kindle Edition.)

“Thus it can be seen that it is not merely a point of law but a doctrine of divine revelation that a heretic as such is intrinsically incapable of assuming or preserving in himself the form of the pontificate, and that a true and valid pope cannot defect into formal heresy. Consequently, as a strict corollary, it is according to divine law that universal acceptance effects a sanatio in radice for a canonically invalid election only if the one who is elected is not a heretic, and therefore, is a capable subject and as such, valid matter for assuming the papacy; and for there to be a sanatio in radice by universal acceptance, that universal acceptance must be absolute, which is to say, unconditional, unequivocal, and exclusive; so if a heretic were capable of validly assuming the papacy and would be elected and universally accepted (which in reality would be impossible), he would be constituted a valid pope according to divine law, and therefore no merely human law would have the power to overrule divine law and deprive him of the papacy, for which reason it is evident that the above cited provision of Cum Ex Apostolatus Officio on the invalidity of the election of secret heretic to the papacy, even if he has been universally accepted, is not a merely human law, but pertains to divine law. Secondly, for the same reason that no merely human law could cause a pope to fall from office ipso facto by his heresy, but only one that is founded on divine law, no pope who validly obtains the papacy by sanatio in radice according to divine law can be deprived of the papacy by papal decree of a previous pope, because: 1) Par in parem non habet potestatem, and more importantly, 2) No pope has the power to nullify the law of God. Yet it was decreed in that cited provision of Cum Ex that one who is elected pope and is later discovered to be a heretic is not a valid pope even if he would have been universally accepted, which can only be possible if that provision itself pertains to divine law, because it decrees an exception to the principle of universal acceptance, which itself pertains to divine law. Thus, it follows strictly that it is of divine law that a heretic is simpliciter et absolute an incapable subject of the papacy; and consequently, if a man exhibits the dolus of formal heresy, it is proven with absolute certitude by that fact alone that his election was invalid and he is not a valid pope even if he were to receive universal acceptance. Conversely, since it is by divine right that one who is truly accepted universally is the true pope, a heretic could not actually receive such unconditional, unequivocal, and exclusive universal acceptance, but the acceptance would be defective, and therefore would at best only exist according to appearance, as it indeed does, or at least did for some time in the case of Jorge Mario Bergoglio.”
(Kramer, Paul. On the true and the false pope: The case against Bergoglio, pp. 220-221. Gondolin Press. Kindle Edition.)

To purchase the two volumes of To Deceive the Elect, please see the following links:

Hardcover versions: see here.
Softcover and electronic versions: see here and here.

Chris Ferrara’s Position on the Pope and Heresy Most Closely Resembles Opinion No. 3

Fr. Paul Kramer states in his first volume of To Deceive the Elect that Chris Ferrara’s position regarding the pope and heresy is essentially Opinion No. 3.  Wow!  This opinion of the Five Opinions expounded upon by St. Robert Bellarmine seems to have gained much traction in this age, whereas it has historically never been even remotely close to being so popular.  This is surely a time of disorientation even amongst Traditionalists.

“At the opposite extreme to the error that a pope can be judged by his subjects, is the opinion that even a manifestly formal heretic intruding onto the papal throne cannot be removed by any power on earth. This was the opinion of the nineteenth century Jesuit trained canonist, Marie Dominique Bouix, and it is also the opinion adopted by Christopher A. Ferrara. According to St. Robert Bellarmine’s classification of the opinions on the deposition of a heretic pope, Mr. Ferrara’s opinion is the Third Opinion: ‘The third opinion thinks that the Roman Pontiff does not automatically forfeit his power and cannot be deprived of it by deposition even for manifest heresy. This assertion is very rightly said by Bellarmine to be extremely improbable.’ [Jus Canonicum by Franz Xavier Wernz S.J. and Pedro Vidal S.J. (1938) Chapter VII; and, Jus Canonicum, Roma, Gregoriana, 1943, vol. II, p. 517]”

“There has been no theologian of repute subscribing to the third opinion since Marie Dominique Bouix, a French canonist who died in December 1870. As I mentioned above, Bouix was the last to hold this opinion, and is only one out of 137 authors listed by Arnaldo Xavier da Silveira as having held this opinion. Yet, it is precisely this untenable opinion which is at present becoming popular among lay Catholic writers who seem unaware of the theologically problematic difficulties that beset this opinion. In his article, A Defector Pope?, Chris Ferrara writes, ‘While the possibility of an heretical Pope falling from office is certainly entertained by theologians, there is no mechanism by which the universal Church could be assured that such an event has occurred during the reign of a Pope accused of heresy.’ The statement is absurd on its face, since, if there is no means by which the Church can arrive at certitude in judging that a pope is a formal heretic, then neither is there any means by which any other baptized person can be judged with certitude to be a heretic without a solemn ex cathedra judgment. Mr. Ferrara argues, ‘Not even the idea of an imperfect council of cardinals to declare that an heretical Pope has deposed himself would provide the necessary surety because it would probably be contested by that Pope’s loyalists should he refuse to resign, leading to something like the Great Western Schism with rival claimants to the papal throne.’  This statement erroneously assumes that without a unanimous or nearly unanimous consensus, a judgment made by the College of Cardinals would not provide ‘the necessary surety’ – as if the probability that the judgment would be contested somehow renders such a judgment uncertain.”

“Mr. Ferrara then states his conclusion: ‘Thus, whether a given Pope has lost his office on account of heresy remains essentially an academic question while that Pope is reigning. Only a future Pope or council presided over by a Pope could declare that a predecessor Pope had fallen from office due to heresy — a declaration that has never occurred in Church history.’ The statement is a hypothetical proposition founded on a false premise.”

“The question of whether or not a particular claimant is a heretic, who therefore is an incapable subject of the papacy, would not be a hypothetical question, but a simple question of fact — a fact that can be determined with certitude. Hence, the false premise: ‘Only a future Pope or council presided over by a Pope could declare that a previous claimant to the papacy had fallen from any office he may have held due to heresy.’ It would also be false to assert that such a declaration that has never occurred in Church history, because precisely such a declaration was made by the Council of Constance in the thirty-seventh session. Thus, Chris Ferrara’s prescription for the present crisis in the papacy is essentially the Bouix prescription, according to which, if the putative pope falls into heresy, he presumably retains the pontificate, but the faithful must not remain passive, but should manifest the error to the pope so that he may be corrected, without, however, being able to declare him depositus or to be deposed deponendus. This opinion has been unanimously rejected for good reason by theologians for the last one and a half centuries.”

Kramer, Paul. To deceive the elect: The catholic doctrine on the question of a heretical Pope . Kindle Edition.

The article to which Fr. Kramer is referring can be found here (see pdf version here).

To purchase the two volumes of To Deceive the Elect, please see the following links:

Hardcover versions: see here.
Softcover and electronic versions: see here and here.

Pope Falls from The Papacy for Heresy

The following is a good video on the pope and heresy. However, please keep in mind that the video heavily emphasizes the hypothetical scenario of a true pope falling in public manifest formal heresy. Ecclesia Militans holds to the position that a true pope cannot become a public manifest formal heretic which is Opinion No. 1 of the Five Opinions expounded upon by St. Robert Bellarmine who himself held to this position.  Fr. Paul Kramer holds that to deny Opinion No. 1 is proximate to heresy.

Bishop Williamson’s Foreword to Contra Cekadam Opposes the Magisterium of Vatican I and Pope Pius XII

For Fr. Francois Chazal’s book titled “Contra Cekadam” (see pdf version here), His Excellency Bishop Richard Williamson wrote the foreword.  Here is the quote of interest for our purpose:

“…..for the sake of the Church as a whole, God preserves the Pope’s headship until the highest competent Church authorities can make a public declaration of his heresy (to prevent chaos in the Church), and then and only then does God dispose him. No such declaration has been made since Vatican II.”

Bishop Williamson here essentially expresses Opinion No. 4 of the Five Opinions expounded upon by St. Robert Bellarmine:

“That a manifest heretic does not fall from the pontificate by himself ipso facto, but must be judged by the Church to fall from office.”

(Kramer, Paul. On the true and the false pope: The case against Bergoglio, p. 49. Gondolin Press. Kindle Edition.)

Let us see what St. Robert Bellarmine, Doctor of the Church and great ecclesiologist, writes about Opinion No. 4:

“The fourth opinion is of Cajetan. There, he teaches, that a manifestly heretical Pope is not ipso facto deposed; but can and ought to be deposed by the Church. Now in my judgment, such an opinion cannot be defended. For in the first place, that a manifest heretic would be ipso facto deposed, is proven from authority and reason.”

(Source: https://novusordowatch.org/de-romano-pontifice-book2-chapter30)

So Bishop Williamson’s position opposes the teaching of St. Robert Bellarmine.

Let us see what Fr. Paul Kramer, who has extensively studied this subject and written two volumes on it, writes about Opinion No. 4:

“Opinion Number Four is heretical, because it attributes to the pope’s inferiors a power to judge him who is absolutely immune from judgment; and to act as final arbiter in a dispute on a matter of faith, which pertains exclusively to the full and supreme jurisdiction of the Roman Pontiff as the supreme judge of all disputes.”

(Kramer, Paul. On the true and the false pope: The case against Bergoglio, p. 51. Gondolin Press. Kindle Edition.)

So Bishop Williamson’s position opposes the scholarly work of Fr. Paul Kramer.  However, please note that Fr. Paul Kramer is basing his commentary on the teaching of Vatican I which dogmatically asserts that the pope has full and supreme jurisdiction over the whole Church.  Therefore, no Church authority, whether singly or together, has jurisdiction over a valid (or presumably valid) pope such that they can canonically judge him for heresy (or anything else).  Fr. David Hewko, to his credit, does not hold this error (refer this post).

In addition to the above error, Bishop Williamson’s position (and Fr. Hewko’s in this case) opposes the Magisterium of Pope Pius XII because it in effect denies Pope Pius XII’s teaching in Mystici Corporis that the public sin of manifest formal heresy per se (i.e., by its very nature) separates the heretic from the Church.  If the pope does not lose his office until the Church authorities publicly declare his heresy, then the public sin of manifest formal heresy does not per se separate the heretic from the Church.  I have written extensively on this matter in this post, so please refer to it.

Now to Bishop Williamson’s credit, he seems to be opening his eyes since writing his erroneous position in the foreword because he has in the past year admitted that it is not certain that Jorge Bergoglio is pope (see this post and this post).  However, he does not explain the reasons for his comments.  Hopefully, he will do so in the near future.

My friends, Opinion No. 4 is the one in my estimation held by most of the clergy and faithful in Traditionalist circles.  It is the position pushed by John Salza and Robert Siscoe in their dreadful work titled “True or False Pope”.  We must reject it.  If you want a solid scholarly work on this matter, please read Fr. Paul Kramer’s two volume set of “To Deceive the Elect”.

To purchase the two volumes of To Deceive the Elect, please see the following links:

Hardcover versions:  see here.
Softcover and electronic versions:  see here and here.

The So-Called Resistance’s Misrepresentation of Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre’s Position on the Pope and Heresy

I, like Fr. Paul Kramer, hold to the position that a true pope cannot have been just prior to his election or cannot become during his papacy a formal heretic, even an occult one.  This is known as the First Opinion of the Five Opinions expounded upon by the Doctor of the Church and great ecclesiologist, St. Robert Bellarmine, who himself held to the First Opinion.  Here is an extract of one of Fr. Paul Kramer’s works on this opinion:

“Since the First Vatican Council the ‘First Opinion’ has become the opinio communissima, as Don Curzio Nitoglia (quoted in Part III Section II of Volume One) points out; and is arguably (as I explained in Part III Section III) not merely probable, but theologically certain or at least proximate to faith. Fr Jean-Michel Gleize points out (in his article The Question of Papal Heresy) in reply to the question, ‘Can a pope fall into heresy?’: ‘In fact, the negative answer to this question is the common opinion of theologians of the modern era.'”
(On the true and the false pope: The case against Bergoglio, pp. 247-248. Gondolin Press. Kindle Edition)

Now in my estimation, the largest faction within the so-called Resistance hold to the Fourth Opinion:  that a manifest heretic does not fall from the pontificate by himself ipso facto, but must be judged by the Church to fall from office.  This opinion is heretical, as demonstrated by Fr. Paul Kramer in his two volumes of To Deceive the Elect, because one presumed to be pope can never be subject to the judgement of the Church.  There is smaller faction within the so-called Resistance that avoid this heresy by holding to the Third Opinion:  that a pope who is even a manifest heretic is not deposed ipso facto and cannot be deposed by the Church.  However, both factions hold to the heretical proposition, at least indirectly, that the public sin of manifest formal heresy does not per se (i.e., by its very nature) separate the heretic from the Church.  This smaller faction also holds to the proposition that only a future pope can make the judgment and that for the time being we must presume the current occupier to be pope.  Of course, this proposition is also false because a future pope would not have the power to judge a previous pope if that future pope started with the same presumption that the previous pope was pope.  This is because an equal does not have jurisdiction over another equal.

Now regardless of which of the Five Opinions the so-called Resistance hold to, there is one thing that most within it, according to my estimation, have in common, and that is that they appeal to Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre that we cannot make a private judgment that a putative pope is not pope.  Rather, we must wait for a future pope or the Church to make an official judgment.  Until then, the man occupying the Chair of Peter is presumed to be pope no matter how many heresies he spews, even if he manifests himself (not necessarily by admission) to be a formal heretic.  Now it is true that Archbishop Lefebvre accepted all the conciliar popes as popes until his death in 1991.  However, what the so-called Resistance have done is made his acceptance of all the conciliar popes as popes into a universal principle (i.e., we must always accept a putative pope as pope until a future pope or the Church decides otherwise).  But was this universal principle really the position of Archbishop Lefebvre?  The answer is “no“.  In the July 1986 Issue of the Angelus Magazine (see here as well), talks given by Archbishop Lefebvre on March 30 and April 18, 1986 related to this subject were published.  Here are some quotations [square brackets and italics are mine]:

“…..I cannot see how it is possible to say that the Pope [i.e., John Paul II] is not suspect of heresy, and if he continues, he is a heretic, a public heretic. That is the teaching of the Church.”

“Now I don’t know if the time has come to say that the Pope is a heretic; I don’t know if it is the time to say that. You know, for some time many people, the sedevacantists, have been saying ‘there is no more Pope,’ but I think that for me it was not yet the time to say that, because it was not sure, it was not evident, it was very difficult to say that the Pope is a heretic, the Pope is apostate.”

“Now I don’t wish yet to say it formally and solemnly, but it seems at first sight that it is impossible for a Pope to be publicly and formally heretical. Our Lord has promised to be with him, to keep his faith, to keep him in the Faith—how can he at the same time be a public heretic and virtually apostatize? So it is possible we may be obliged to believe this pope is not pope.”

“…..we prefer to wait until Providence gives us such evidence, that it is no longer possible to refuse to say that the Pope is a heretic.”

Now do you read anything in these quotes that the Archbishop Lefebvre held to some universal principle that we cannot make a private judgment that a putative pope is not the pope and that we must just wait for a future pope or the Church to decide?  No.  On the contrary, the Archbishop makes it clear that he just was not ready to make the judgment at that time that John Paul II was not pope due to heresy.  Why?  Because the evidence was not yet sufficient to make that judgment.  You see, my friends; the Archbishop used evidence as the basis for his position on whether John Paul II was pope, not the universal principle indicated above.  And this is precisely my position and the likes of Fr. Paul Kramer.  Evidence of formal heresy is the key, or as Fr. Paul Kramer would have it “the indicia (evidence, signs, indications) of heresy”, on whether a putative pope is truly pope, a doubtful pope, or no pope at all.  These “indicia” can range from light, vehement, or violent suspicion of heresy to morally certain proof.  If the indicia amount to morally certain proof of formal heresy, then a private judgment that the putative pope is not pope would be justified (and as a matter of fact morally obligatory) before any official judgement of a future pope or the Church.

In conclusion, the so-called Resistance needs to stop appealing to the Archbishop to hold to their heretical positions, in whatever format they take, on this subject.  Rather, it is the likes of Fr. Paul Kramer and me who can truly appeal to the Archbishop in support of our position (and which, more importantly, is the Catholic one).

Wake up so-called Resistance; wake up.

To purchase the two volumes of To Deceive the Elect, please see the following links:

Hardcover versions:  see here.
Softcover and electronic versions:  see here and here.

Question: Can a True Pope Be a Formal Heretic?

Answer:

“It will never happen because it cannot ever happen, and it cannot ever happen because the heresy of a pontiff would deprive the Church of her foundation; so the manifest heresy of a claimant would therefore be the ultimate and most certain proof that he is not a true pontiff but a false pope; and therefore the church that would follow him into heresy would be a false church.”

Kramer, Paul. On the true and the false pope: The case against Bergoglio (p. 232). Gondolin Press. Kindle Edition.

But Jorge Bergoglio is a formal heretic.  Therefore, Jorge Bergoglio is a false pope.

That a true pope cannot be a formal heretic, even occultly, was the position of St. Robert Bellarmine.  This is known as Opinion No. 1 of the Five Opinions expounded upon by the same saint.

To purchase the two volumes of To Deceive the Elect, please see the following links:

Hardcover versions:  see here.
Softcover and electronic versions:  see here and here.

Fr. David Hewko’s Position on the Pope and Heresy Opposes the Magisterium of Pope Pius XII

In previous posts (see here, here, here, and here), I have written about Fr. David Hewko’s positions on the pope, heresy, and related matters and that his positions oppose the Magisterium of the Church in her doctrine and Canon Law.  Unfortunately, Father continues to publicly teach his errors to the faithful.  The one that has recently received my greatest attention is the same one I presented in this post, that is, that a heretical pope, even if he admits to teaching heresy, would remain pope until a future pope judges him because the Church does not have jurisdiction over a pope.  Fr. Hewko repeated this error in two separate conferences he gave in July 2023 (see here at the 1 hr. and 7 minutes mark and here at the 1 hr. and 8 minutes mark).  I have already pointed out in this post that the proposition that only a future pope can judge a present pope for heresy is a falsity if the presumption is that the person being judged is pope because an equal does not have jurisdiction over an equal, so Father’s argument fails just on this point.  However, there is a bigger and more fundamental problem with Father’s position which I have also already briefly written about (see here) and that is that Father’s position indirectly denies the following proposition which must be believed with Divine and Catholic Faith:

The public sin of manifest formal heresy per se (i.e., by its very nature) separates the heretic from the Church.

I have made many posts demonstrating that this is the teaching of the Church, the Fathers, and theologians (see this page).  This infallible teaching is of the Universal and Ordinary Magisterium.  I have asked Fr. Hewko via private messages to unequivocally affirm or deny this proposition, but he has refused to do so.  It is my impression that he sees it as a theological opinion rather than Church teaching.  Note that my question of Father has nothing to do with its application to Jorge Bergoglio.  I simply wanted him to affirm or deny the proposition itself.  I have asked the same question of Fr. Rafael, O.S.B., and he unequivocally affirmed it (see here).  Fr. Rafael admitted to me that this proposition is of Divine and Catholic Faith even though he publicly acknowledges Jorge Bergoglio as pope.  The proposition is one thing; the application of it to a specific person is another.  Of course, I do not agree with Fr. Rafael regarding its application.  If Jorge Bergoglio has not shown himself to be a public manifest formal heretic, then I do not know who could ever be shown to be one barring the heretic’s own admission.

The proposition may alternatively be written as such:

One who knowingly, consciously, and willingly publicly asserts a proposition that is in direct contradiction to a Church teaching that must be believed with Divine and Catholic Faith separates himself from the Church by that very fact.     

Note again that Fr. Hewko’s position is that even if a pope were to admit he teaches heresy he would still remain pope.  Now how much more evidence does one need to condemn a heretic as a heretic when the heretic himself admits to teaching heresy???  Fr. Hewko’s strange position most closely resembles Opinion No. 3 of the Five Opinions expounded upon by St. Robert Bellarmine.  Opinion No. 3 is such:

“That a pope who is even a manifest heretic is not deposed ipso facto and cannot be deposed by the Church.”
(Kramer, Paul. On the true and the false pope: The case against Bergoglio, p. 49. Gondolin Press. Kindle Edition.)

Let us see what St. Robert Bellarmine, Doctor of the Church and great ecclesiologist, writes about Opinion No. 3:

“The third opinion is on another extreme, that the Pope is not and cannot be deposed either by secret or manifest heresy. Turrecremata in the aforementioned citation relates and refutes this opinion, and rightly so, for it is exceedingly improbable. Firstly, because that a heretical Pope can be judged is expressly held in the Canon, Si Papa, dist. 40, and with Innocent [321]. And what is more, in the Fourth Council of Constantinople, Act 7, the acts of the Roman Council under Hadrian are recited, and in those it was contained that Pope Honorius appeared to be legally anathematized, because he had been convicted of heresy, the only reason where it is lawful for inferiors to judge superiors. Here the fact must be remarked upon that, although it is probable that Honorius was not a heretic, and that Pope Hadrian II was deceived by corrupted copies of the Sixth Council, which falsely reckoned Honorius was a heretic, we still cannot deny that Hadrian, with the Roman Council, and the whole Eighth Synod sensed that in the case of heresy, a Roman Pontiff can be judged. Add, that it would be the most miserable condition of the Church, if she should be compelled to recognize a wolf, manifestly prowling, for a shepherd.”
(Source: https://novusordowatch.org/de-romano-pontifice-book2-chapter30)

So Fr. Hewko’s position opposes the teaching of St. Robert Bellarmine.

Let us see what Fr. Paul Kramer, who has extensively studied this subject and written two volumes on it, writes about Opinion No. 3:

“Number Three is false, because, (as I have proven in Volume One), it is de fide that a public heretic is severed from membership ipso facto by the very nature of heresy, and loses office ipso jure; but a public heretic who remains pope while no longer a member would still be the chief member; and he would still hold office even after losing his office ipso jure. The consideration of these absurdities proves that the opinion is against the Catholic faith; yet, this opinion is still popular among many ignorant Catholics.”
(Kramer, Paul. On the true and the false pope: The case against Bergoglio, p. 51. Gondolin Press. Kindle Edition.)

So Fr. Hewko’s position opposes the scholarly work of Fr. Paul Kramer.

Now the teaching of the most authoritative person I am presenting in this post (I previously wrote about this more briefly here) that Fr. Hewko’s position opposes is that of His Holiness Pope Pius XII in his encyclical Mystici Corporis.  I want to make clear from the start that Pope Pius XII does not write about papal heresy in this encyclical, but what he does teach has irrefutable implications for a heretical pope if it were possible for a pope to become a public manifest formal heretic.  Let us start with the following:

“In Ecclesiae autem membris reapse ii soli annumerandi sunt, qui regenerationis lavacrum receperunt veramque fidem profitentur, neque a Corporis compage semet ipsos misere separarunt, vel ob gravissima admissa a legitima auctoritate seiuncti sunt.”

“Actually only those are to be included as members of the Church who have been baptized and profess the true faith, and who have not been so unfortunate as to separate themselves from the unity of the Body, or been excluded by legitimate authority for grave faults committed.”
(Paragraph 22)

Note here that Pope Pius XII distinguishes between those who “separate themselves from the unity of the Body” of the Church from those who have “been excluded by legitimate authority“.  We learn in the following from the same encyclical how one separates himself from the unity of the Body:

“Siquidem non omne admissum, etsi grave scelus, eiusmodi est ut — sicut schisma, vel haeresis, vel apostasia faciunt — suapte natura hominem ab Ecclesiae Corpore separet.”

“For not every sin, however grave it may be, is such as of its own nature to sever a man from the Body of the Church, as does schism or heresy or apostasy.”

Let us in the following remove the terms “schism” and “apostasy” to make the statement more clear in regard to “heresy”:

“For not every sin, however grave it may be, is such as of its own nature to sever a man from the Body of the Church, as does…..heresy…..”

The first thing to note about this teaching is that Pope Pius XII is speaking about public heresy and not occult heresy.  This is understood from the term “Body of the Church” which signifies visibility.  The second thing to note is that Pope Pius XII uses the term “suapte natura” in the authoritative Latin which is translated into English by the Vatican as “of its own nature”.  See also this post which shows “suapte natura” translated into English in a dictionary of ecclesiastical Latin as “by its very nature”.  So the sin of heresy of (or by) its own (or very) nature severs a man (who publicly manifests formal heresy) from the Body of the Church.  Now a thing that causes a change due to its own nature allows for no exceptions to the change that that thing causes.  As an example in the physical order, fire due to its own nature causes the air around it to become warmer.  As an example in the moral order, adultery due to its own nature causes one who knowingly, consciously, and willingly engages in it to be guilty before God of mortal sin.  There are no exceptions in either case.  Likewise, the sin of heresy due to its own nature causes the heretic to be separated from the Church.  His sin of heresy causes him to change from being a member to being a non-member of the Church.  And this applies whether the heretic was formerly pope, bishop, priest, religious, or layman.  There are no exceptions.  Note that I do not specify “Body” of the Church in the proposition “the public sin of manifest formal heresy per se separates the heretic from the Church” because if one does not belong to the “Body” of the Church he is not a member of the Church at all.  Pope Pius XII makes this evident in the same encyclical when he states that “actually only those are to be included as members of the Church who have been baptized and profess the true faith“.  There is such thing as a partial member, member of only the Soul of the Church, member of only the Body of the Church, or any other similar nonsense.  One is either a member of the Church or he is not.  Period.  In regard to occult heresy, it is the more common opinion amongst theologians that occult heresy does not cause loss of Church membership.

Now going back to Fr. Hewko’s position, we can see how it opposes the teaching of Pope Pius XII.  Fr. Hewko holds that a pope remains pope (and a fortiori a member of the Church) even if he himself, the pope, admits that he teaches heresy, whereas Pope Pius XII teaches us that the sin of heresy of its own nature (suapte natura) separates a man from the Church.  Who do you believe?  The answer is obvious.  Now if Fr. Hewko would try to defend himself by stating (I don’t believe he would actually state this) that a man can still be pope despite being severed from the Church, then he would be admitting that the papal office can exist severed from the Church.  To admit such would positively oppose the divine constitution of the Church.

Now in addition to Fr. Hewko’s position being in opposition to a teaching of the Church that must be held with Divine and Catholic Faith, it becomes very dangerous in regard to a future formal schism.  Many foresee, including myself, that Jorge Bergoglio, a public manifest formal heretic and therefore an antipope, or one of his antipope successors will foment a formal schism.  If this occurs and if Fr. Hewko at that time still holds the same position he holds today, he (and those who think like him) will consider Jorge Bergoglio or his successor the true pope no matter what heresy he utters and consequently enter into a canonical formal schism.  At that point, my friends, we must all consider that the absolute red line in that we would no longer be morally permitted to support bishops or priests that go that route.  Let us pray and hope that our loved ones like Fr. Hewko do not end up going that route.  I encourage those readers who know him to speak to him about this post.

I know that I have written this many times in previous posts, but I cannot urge you enough to read Fr. Paul Kramer’s two volume set.  I have studied it diligently and it is a wealth of information on this subject.  It is an excellent scholarly work!

To purchase the two volumes of To Deceive the Elect, please see the following links:

Hardcover versions:  see here.
Softcover and electronic versions:  see here and here.

That We Must Wait for the Church to Decide Is an Absurdity – Fr. Paul Kramer

“…..the opinion expressed by some, (such as The Catacombs Forum), which asserts the necessity of an authoritative ‘judgment of the Church’  to resolve doubtful claims on the papacy, is quite absurd. Such a judgment of authority, in the absence of the authority of a certain pope, is a judgment that could not be made until a general consensus is first reached by means of private judgment which then becomes universal and thereby settles the doubt by reason of universal and peaceful acceptance. Without the doubt first being resolved in this manner, the doubt simply could not ever be resolved, since the judgment made by a doubtful authority would continue ad infinitum, unless there would already be a certain pope who can judge the question with authority and finality. It seems not to have occurred to those who posit the need for a judgment of authority to resolve the doubt, that if there exists a positive doubt about the validity of a putative pope’s claim on the papacy, that claimant’s jurisdiction is itself doubtful; and for so long as the doubt remains, there will be no certain authority on earth competent to rule on the question by an act of authority. Hence, in such cases when there is positive doubt about the validity of a claimant’s pontificate, the validity of the claim itself is doubtful, and therefore his jurisdiction is doubtful, and therefore the authority of his doubtful pontificate cannot be presumed valid: Papa dubius, Papa nullus. (A doubtful pope is no pope). In such a case when it cannot be determined that there is a certain pope, it is the general consensus of theologians, including St. Alphonsus, Ballerini, Bordoni, Pope Gregory XVI and many others who explain that the Apostolic See would be presumed vacant, and the interim authority would pertain to a Council to elect a pope. In fact, in such a situation, it is thus pronounced in the fourteenth session of the Council of Constance. The indefectibility of the Church guarantees that the Church will never err by universally rejecting the claim of a true pope and uniting to a false head.

“In the case of a manifestly pertinacious public heretic, the pertinacity itself is absolutely certain proof that the claimant is not a true pope even if he appears on the surface to have been validly elected and universally accepted. The opinion that such a one could validly occupy an ecclesiastical office directly opposes the Church’s teaching on the nature of heresy, as I have amply demonstrated in Volume One. Christ prescribed no directives to be observed in order to deal with a case of papal heresy; neither is there given in scripture or anywhere in apostolic tradition some precept for prosecuting and deposing a suspected pope-heretic who would still validly occupy the papal office, nor is there any law prescribing a procedure for expelling a pope who has fallen from office already by his heresy having ceased by himself to be pope; for which reason it is absolutely certain that divine law makes no allowance for a heretic to ever validly ascend to the throne of Peter, or for a valid pope to fall from the papacy because of heresy.”

Kramer, Paul. On the true and the false pope: The case against Bergoglio (pp. 179-180). Gondolin Press. Kindle Edition.

To purchase the two volumes of To Deceive the Elect, please see the following links:

Hardcover versions:  see here.
Softcover and electronic versions:  see here and here.

“We Do Not Have the Canonical Authority to Judge These Popes” – Fr. David Hewko and Fr. Hugo Ruiz

In a statement dated July 1, 2023 (see here), Fr. David Hewko and Fr. Hugo Ruiz asserted the following:

“We cannot accept Sedevacantism as a ‘solution’ to the crisis of the Church because denying that all the last popes are popes takes away from the Church even the very hope of finding a solution and an end to the tremendous crisis.  We do not have the authority to canonically judge these popes, only a truly Catholic pope in the future will have the authority to do it.”

From one point of view, it is true that the Fathers do not have the authority to canonically judge Jorge Bergoglio.  Since they presume that Jorge Bergoglio is pope, it is not morally licit for them to even think that they can bring him to trial, even if they were the lawfully appointed inquisitors.  This is because, as taught by Vatican I, the pope has supreme and universal jurisdiction over all ecclesiastical matters.  However, it is also true that a future pope could not judge Jorge Bergoglio if he too were to presume that Jorge Bergoglio was pope.  This is because an equal does not have jurisdiction over an equal.  But what if a putative pope were to be considered as being vehemently suspect of heresy and therefore a doubtful pope?  Since a doubtful pope is different than one presumed to be pope, the situation changes:

“It is only if the pope’s opinions, being indicia of heresy, were to qualify him as a suspect of heresy, that those opinions themselves would render doubtful the validity of his pontificate. In such a case it would fall within the jurisdiction of the Church to determine whether or not the suspect is pertinacious, and therefore disqualified by heresy from holding office as an incapable subject of the papacy, or just a valid pope who holds an honestly mistaken opinion, as was the case with Pope John XXII.”
(Kramer, Paul. On the true and the false pope: The case against Bergoglio, p. 48. Gondolin Press. Kindle Edition)

In this case (of a doubtful pope because of vehement suspicion of heresy), the Church would not have to wait for a future pope to judge the case:

“‘For a doubtful pope is considered no pope, and thus, to have power over him is not to have power over the pope.’ For this reason, Bellarmine explains in CAPUT ix. (De utilitate vel etiam necessitate celebrandorum comciliorum) of De Concilliis et Ecclesia, that one of the reasons which would necessitate the convening of a council would be ‘suspicion of heresy in the Roman Pontiff if it should happen’. Bordoni also explains that only a true and certain pope is above a council, but doubtful popes and pertinacious heretics (because they are incapable subjects) are subject to a council: ‘solus verus & indubitatus Papa est supra Concilium, et non alii de quibus dubitatur, ergo subijciuntur Concilio.'”
(Ibid. pp. 106-107)

So we see that the Church has the right to try a putative pope vehemently suspect of heresy.

From another point of view, Canon Law does give any Catholic the right to form a private judgment, when there is sufficient evidence, that a putative pope has lost office.  I will use the 1917 Code since the Fathers hold to this Code rather than the 1983 Code.  Canon 188.4º states the following:

“Ob tacitam renuntiationem ab ipso iure admissam quaelibet officia vacant ipso facto et sine ulla declaratione, si clericus: A fide catholica publice defecerit.”

“Any office becomes vacant upon the fact and without any declaration by tacit resignation recognized by the law itself if a cleric: Publicly defects from the Catholic faith.”

Note that the Canon does NOT require a declaration from a competent Church authority for the loss of office to take place.  Why?  Because it recognizes the doctrine that public defection from the Catholic faith (of which being a public heretic is one kind) is an act which per se (i.e., by its very nature) separates one from the Church.  No longer being a member of the Church due to his public defection, he loses his office.  This Canon is the Church’s legislative formulation of that doctrine.  Note that the Canon states that the office becomes vacant by the FACT of public defection from the Catholic faith.  It does not state that the office becomes vacant because of a DECLARATION of the Church; it actually asserts the opposite, that is, “without any declaration”.  A fact is perceived by the senses and apprehended by the intellect.  Therefore, a judgment (private, without juridical force) of public defection, when there is sufficient evidence, can be made by a simple layman.  If this was not the case, then Canon 188.4º would not make sense in stating that the loss of office occurs without any declaration because if one cannot make the judgment on his own despite the factual evidence and the Church does not make a declaration, how would anybody know that the loss of office took place?  Canon 188.4º is therefore made futile by such an erroneous interpretation.

But doesn’t public defection from the Catholic faith mean joining a sect?  It CAN mean joining a sect, but one does not have to join a sect for public defection from the Catholic faith to occur:

“On page 139 of The Renunciation of an Ecclesiastical Office, Fr. Gerald McDevitt writes: ‘The defection of faith must be public. It is to be noted immediately that adherence to or inscription in a non-catholic sect is not required to constitute the publicity that the canon demands.‘ The Very Rev. H. A. Ayrinhac comments on Canon 2197 in his General Legislation in the New Code of Canon Law (pp. 349-350), that public defection from the faith means: ‘Public defection from the faith, by formal heresy or apostasy, with or without affiliation with another religious society. The offense must be public, that is, generally known or liable to become so before long. (Can. 2197)'”
(Kramer, Paul. To deceive the elect: The catholic doctrine on the question of a heretical Pope . Kindle Edition)

But does Canon 188.4º apply to a pope?  It applies to any office whatsoever.  This is indicated by the Latin term “quaelibet”:

“That the canon is applicable to all ecclesiastical offices is stated explicitly with the words, ‘quælibet officia vacant ipso facto’ – and therefore necessarily includes the office of the Supreme Pontiff. The Very Rev. H. A. Ayrinhac explained, in his General Legislation in the New Code of Canon Law, on Loss of Ecclesiastical Offices, that such loss of office (Canons 185-191) ‘applies to all offices, the lowest and the highest, not excepting the Supreme Pontificate.’ (p. 346)”
(Ibid.)

Fr. Hewko and Fr. Ruiz would do well to carefully study Fr. Paul Kramer’s outstanding two volumes on the question of a heretical pope (IF it were possible for a pope to become a heretic).  It would assist them in leading the faithful in the correct direction on this matter.

To purchase the two volumes of To Deceive the Elect, please see the following links:

Hardcover versions:  see here.
Softcover and electronic versions:  see here and here.