Those who say Francis isn’t the pope prefer the label ‘interregnumist’ as opposed to ‘sedevacantist,’ since the latter label refers to those who deny all the post-conciliar popes were actual pontiffs, which is not a claim that ‘interregnumists’ make.
YouTube
Spotify
Sources
© 2023, Anthony Stine. All rights reserved. You may reuse or copy this post by giving credit and providing a link.
My comment did not appear on Youtube. Interesting.
It is obvious that Father Nix here is quoting a source whose definition of “mainfest” and “material” heresy are different from those in Canon Law, at least the older Codex of 1917 which is relied on when the 1983 Code is deficient. Let us be clear: To say that the cardinals are the judges of the pope in matters of faith and/or heresy is not gnosticism. This is something taught by the Church for centuries. We the laity and lower clergy can, of course, recognize heretical words and actions, and we can take steps to defend our faith accordingly. But we do not sit in judgment of the pope. The old Canons has it succinctly: Prima sedes a nemine judicatur. Which means, “The First See is judged by no one.” The only exception allowed by Gratian (the father of Canon Law) is on matters of faith/heresy, and only by the cardinals in a body. We can “avoid” bad priests and ignore sinful utterances from Rome without having to judge the person involved. We judge what is being said or done and act according to the faith.
I’m sorry, Anthony. But both Fr. Altman and Fr Nix are arguing as sedevacantists. It is splitting hairs to call either of them “interregnumists.” This is only a shade of the same error. We have a pope who is a bad pope, who has espoused many of the prevailing errors. But this entire argument, replete though it is with quotes from saints, is typical of the sedevacantist camp. I have seen this over the last several decades. These are stubborn souls who will not accept the contrary arguments that we do not need to judge the pope in order to recognize and resist his heresies. So my question is this: Since they have judged the pope and the hierarchy as having left the Church, how then will they recognize and accept the pope who restores Tradition to its rightful place? Remember, the arguments of saints and scholars from centuries ago posited that this or that pope might perchance fall into heresy. Nobody ever envisaged the whole Church going over the edge. Since these modern polemicists have personally excommunicated all the prelates and pontiffs, how does the Church obtain another pope? They have painted themselves into a corner, and there is no rational solution to this dilemma. Tradition says that only the cardinals elect the pope, but now we supposedly have no valid cardinals, or only a tiny few who are all old and who would refuse to hold an election based on this sedevacantist argument.
So then, the Church has come to an end? Where is indefectibility? “The Church as Christ founded it will last to the end of time.” And Vatican I defined de fide: “St. Peter has perpetual successors in the same primacy.” So if we accept the argument that all the hierarchy has fallen, then either the gates of hell have prevailed against the Church–contrary to Our Lord’s very words–or we are about to have the Last Judgment. But I hear no trumpets and I see no resurrection of the dead. Therefore, the Church as Our Lord founded it is still with us, sick with error though it is. And so we still have a pope, as bad as he is. We must adhere to Tradition and do what is our duty to do: Pray the Rosary without ceasing and do penance for ourselves and for all sinners–as Our Lady has requested. In the end, she will triumph, and the Church will shine forth again in all her glory.
My comment apparently does not show up on Youtube. Interesting.
It is obvious that Father Nix here is quoting a source whose definition of “mainfest” and “material” heresy are different from those in Canon Law, at least the older Codex of 1917 which is relied on when the 1983 Code is deficient. Let us be clear: To say that the cardinals are the judges of the pope in matters of faith and/or heresy is not gnosticism. This is something taught by the Church for centuries. We the laity and lower clergy can, of course, recognize heretical words and actions, and we can take steps to defend our faith accordingly. But we do not sit in judgment of the pope. The old Canons has it succinctly: Prima sedes a nemine judicatur. Which means, “The First See is judged by no one.” The only exception allowed by Gratian (the father of Canon Law) is on matters of faith/heresy, and only by the cardinals in a body. We can “avoid” bad priests and ignore sinful utterances from Rome without having to judge the person involved. We judge what is being said or done and act according to the faith.
I’m sorry, Anthony. But both Fr. Altman and Fr Nix are arguing as sedevacantists. It is splitting hairs to call either of them “interregnumists.” This is only a shade of the same error. We have a pope who is a bad pope, who has espoused many of the prevailing errors. But this entire argument, replete though it is with quotes from saints, is typical of the sedevacantist camp. I have seen this over the last several decades. These are stubborn souls who will not accept the contrary arguments that we do not need to judge the pope in order to recognize and resist his heresies. So my question is this: Since they have judged the pope and the hierarchy as having left the Church, how then will they recognize and accept the pope who restores Tradition to its rightful place? Remember, the arguments of saints and scholars from centuries ago posited that this or that pope might perchance fall into heresy. Nobody ever envisaged the whole Church going over the edge. Since these modern polemicists have personally excommunicated all the prelates and pontiffs, how does the Church obtain another pope? They have painted themselves into a corner, and there is no rational solution to this dilemma. Tradition says that only the cardinals elect the pope, but now we supposedly have no valid cardinals, or only a tiny few who are all old and who would refuse to hold an election based on this sedevacantist argument.
So then, the Church has come to an end? Where is indefectibility? “The Church as Christ founded it will last to the end of time.” And Vatican I defined de fide: “St. Peter has perpetual successors in the same primacy.” So if we accept the argument that all the hierarchy has fallen, then either the gates of hell have prevailed against the Church–contrary to Our Lord’s very words–or we are about to have the Last Judgment. But I hear no trumpets and I see no resurrection of the dead. Therefore, the Church as Our Lord founded it is still with us, sick with error though it is. And so we still have a pope, as bad as he is. We must adhere to Tradition and do what is our duty to do: Pray the Rosary without ceasing and do penance for ourselves and for all sinners–as Our Lady has requested. In the end, she will triumph, and the Church will shine forth again in all her glory.
Even Peter was rebuked by Paul. The brilliant foundational doctrinal support provided by you (Dr. Stine) from the historical Saints and Church Doctors validates the rights of the clergy and laity to call out heresy, especially if it is obvious. Or, has the ambiguity of Vatican 2 now cancelled everything that preceded it for 2000 years. Are we no longer able to discern the difference between God and false gods. What is a more obvious example of this type of heresy than the one displayed during than the appalling Pachamama false god (or Andean false goddess) ceremonial WORSHIP orchestrated at the Vatican under the watchful eye of the Vicar of Christ? Did he call it out and reject it, or did he support it with his seemingly acquiescing participatory attendance? What convoluted word salad can rationalize this. But that is what you get with the “Katy bar the door” ambiguity of Vatican 2. I watched that ceremony in real time as it unfolded and was utterly shocked. We all saw what we saw through the eyes of our true Catholic faith, and that cannot be denied or unseen. As various other current Cardinals, Bishops, and Priests are now coming forth enumerating multiple heretical writings, practices, and teachings, we all should take heed, learn more about our faith, and pay attention. As my Catholic Mother and Grandmother used to tell me as a child, “If somebody tells you to jump off a cliff, would you obey and do it?” Well….. what if that cliff is hanging over the entrance to hell? If the words or teachings of Christ are changed, or are now considered incorrect, or are now worthy of change, and all of which seeks to invalidate the 2,000 years of Magisterium that preceded it, then by definition, it cannot be Catholic, and is thus a new church in formation. We Catholics have the right to speak out when we realize this is happening.
David Z.
Well said, Davis !
Fr Altman reference the “three saint popes” of the Council, and called Teresa of Calcutta “St Teresa of Calcutta”, so he is not a doctrinal SVist. The terror shows how traumatized people suffering from Cognitive Dissonance simply shut their eyes and ears as much as any anti-rational fideist does when their ARGUMENT is exploded. If Bergoglio is legitimately pope, then EVERY argument for the papacy is GONE. So I maintain the infallibility of popes & recognize Bergoglio is NOT a pope BECAUSE I have dogmatic certitude that God gave the charism of infallibility to the office.
AND thanks to Fr Nix for calling out appeals to “a battery of outdated canonical trials”!!
Most Loved Anthony,
My opinion , catechesis ( self taught ), can be sufficient for laity or priest to “call out” a heretic. Orthodoxy , to me, seems “secondary”, since to “know” Truth demands orthodoxy ( catechesis vs. orthodoxy ; what came first , chicken or egg ? ).
INTERESTING, I once had His Priest assign me,in confession, in persona Christi , to call out a priest heretic . He asked me to go to Bishop Kicanas if the priest did not listen. The priest refused to self correct or acknowledge His Real Presence; at issue a 24/7 Adoration Chapel , “perpetual” Adoration , attended to by homeless/mentally ill, a “space” for “exposure” desecrated and dedicated by an occult act ( Book release, October 2023 : The Mystical Journey Of Raphael ; One Man’s Contribution To The Synod On Synodality ).
Anyway , Bishop Kicanas did not listen either – he transformed a meeting of evangelization , His Real Presence , into an investigation of priest abuse at a Tucson parish; there were 4 priests with CREDIBLE allegations against them. Regardless, catechesis and orthodoxy went hand in hand with decorum and reverence of His Real Presence. By extension, if “no” belief in His Body,Blood,Soul and divinity, THEN “anything goes” ( the parish in manifestation a demonic LGBTQ ecumenical rats nest ). BTW , Archbishop Sheehan ( deceased ) may have listened and Cardinal Levada, I believe, listened.
All that to say, to share with His Magisterium, can be very painful. For laity or priest there will be push back .
The devil , obviously, does not want heresies or heretic’s exposed .
Yet , I encourage everyone and anyone, with discernment , to go forward and share His Truths . You might lose friends and family ? Yet, Jesus tells us to expect the same treatment shown Him . Our only choice (s) , pray for the virtues of loyalty , courage , and perseverance.
Blessings, Raphael ( aka Dr.Scott )
It is impossible for a true pope to teach against the infallible, immutable, indestructible, irreconcilable Catholic Faith. The point is that the Holy Spirit guides the pope. Obviously inconsistencies of Francis and his 5 predecessors proves that they are not protected to speak error in the matters of faith and morals. Countless times they have contradicted Magisterial Teachings safeguarded and handed on for 20 centuries by 260 true popes. True popes do not contradict their predecessors. Sedevacantism is a “posture and a position” not a new religion. Sedevacantism defends the Total Deposti of Faith without exception
Am I convinced Fr. Altman has the right to say
the things he did?
Going by Fr. Kramer’s DISPASSIONATE referencing
of the Sacred Deposit [ not influenced by strong
emotion, but impartial ] I myself as a layman, “orthodox
and catechized”, am now on firm ground as to the
judging and responding to actual heresy and
heretics.
But Fr. Altman [ “influenced by strong emotion” ? ]
simply APPLIES the rulings of St. Isidore and St.
Columban to the current “case” of incumbent Francis.
Can we ASSUME that Fr. Altman —without saying
so — has based his public and loud declaration on
the guidelines provided by St. Isidore & St. Columban?
And if we can’t assume that, then Fr. Altman is truly
inspired . . as a Catholic Priest, “Orthodox and Catechized”,
duly formed in the Church’s normal Priestly seminary
program before his Ordination.
But, I S this different from “God ALONE
being the JUDGE of Popes”? But Francis ISN’T
Pope 1/ because of his heretical statements
2/ because of his problematic, politically manipulated
“election”.
The Fathers of the EARLY Church [ St. Isidore
and St. Columban . . et al ] have no hesitation in
declaring the DUTY of laymen and laywomen
—”orthodox and catechized” — to call a Spade
a “Spade”, heresy “heresy”, a heretic “a heretic”.
I can only think that this DUTY truly makes the
“Sensus Fidelium” —the Sense of the Faith —
come alive, that Sense of the Faith which the
Laity POSSESS as the proper fruit of their
BAPTISM !