A Council Cannot Judge a Reigning Pope for Heresy

“The heretical absurdity of the opinion that anyone or any power on earth can judge the pope, even for heresy, is made manifest by the consideration that the pope, in virtue of his primacy and infallibility, possesses the supreme jurisdiction and the infallible power to judge all questions of faith and morals – even his own propositions. Hence, the proposition that a council can judge a pope’s doctrine and declare it heretical; and from that premise, that the council could then judge the pope personally guilty of the crime of heresy directly opposes the dogma of pope’s universal primacy of jurisdiction defined in Pastor Æternus.”

Kramer, Paul. To Deceive the Elect: The Catholic Doctrine on the Question of a Heretical Pope (Kindle Locations 2954-2958). Kindle Edition.

Fr. David Hewko on the “Non-Resignationist” Theory – January 19, 2020

In the following sermon, Fr. David Hewko again speaks against the “Non-Resignationist” (a commenter on this website corrected pointed out that “Resignationist” should be reserved for those who accept that Benedict XVI validly resigned the papacy) theory. Unfortunately, again, Father condemns it as “absurd” without sufficient evidence.

The first point Father makes is that Benedict XVI recognizes Jorge Bergoglio as pope.  This was already answered in this post:

“The term ‘pope’ as used by Benedict XVI in reference to Jorge Bergoglio needs to be understood in a qualified sense.  Benedict XVI renounced the active exercise of the ministry, that is, the government of the Church.  Meanwhile, he retained the office and the passive exercise of the ministry.  See here for a diagram.  Because he renounced the active exercise of powers that belong to his own office, he calls that person who exercises them ‘pope’.  Big deal.  It is still Benedict XVI who has the charism of infallibility and universal and supreme jurisdiction over the whole Church because these belong to the office.”

The second point Father makes is that Benedict XVI announced publicly that he resigned.  Father fails to qualify what exactly did Benedict XVI publicly renounce.  It was not the office (munus).  Therefore, he remains pope.

Thirdly, Father asks a question, “Would these ‘Resignationists’ be pushing their theory if we had a saintly pope on the throne?”  Father then answers his own question, “They wouldn’t be doing that.”  Well, I cannot speak for others, but I would be doing the same as I am doing now.  Facts are facts, and not even a saint can change that.  Nevertheless, I do not doubt that a saint would study the “resignation” formula of Benedict XVI, see the holes in it, and declare it invalid.

Father concludes that the answer to his own question shows the absurdity of the “Resignationist” theory.  Huh?  How does it show that?

I wish that Father would stop making gratuitous statements and providing empty side arguments.  He needs to carefully read the Declaratio, the only act with juridical force, and finally accept the fact of the matter:  Benedict XVI is the true pope!

The video will automatically start and stop at the relevant section after clicking the “Play” button. The section is 1.2 minutes long.

The Illogic of Accepting a Doubtful Pope as True Pope

There are Catholics who claim that the Novus Ordo Rites of the sacraments are at least doubtfully1 valid.  Whether due to the matter, form, minister, and/or intention, they advise us to stay away.  However, what these same Catholics don’t do is apply their reasoning to the man they accept as pope, Jorge Bergoglio.  In this, they are being illogical.  Let me explain.

In order for a man elected by the cardinals to be invested with the full powers given by Jesus Christ to the office of the papacy, he must be a valid bishop.  The pope, by definition, is the Bishop of Rome.  In the case of Jorge Bergoglio, he was consecrated a bishop in the Novus Ordo Rite.  Therefore, for those Catholics who claim that the Novus Ordo Rites are at least doubtfully valid, they must hold Jorge Bergoglio as a doubtful pope.  Here is the reasoning in syllogistic format:

Every true pope is a validly consecrated bishop.
But Jorge Bergoglio, elected by the cardinals in 2013, is doubtfully a validly consecrated bishop.
Therefore, Jorge Bergoglio is doubtfully a true pope.

The conclusion necessarily follows from the premises.  However, many implicitly reason like this:

Every true pope is a validly consecrated bishop.
But Jorge Bergoglio, elected by the cardinals in 2013, is doubtfully a validly consecrated bishop.
Therefore, Jorge Bergoglio is certainly a true pope.

Do you see the logical error?  The conclusion can never be more certain than the least certain premise.  Nevertheless, this is how they reason!  No.  They cannot have their cake and eat it too.  They must properly reason and then be honest and admit, “Jorge Bergoglio is a doubtful true pope.”2 They cannot even claim that it is their opinion that Jorge Bergoglio is a true pope.

What must they do, then?  Well, if they sincerely believe that Jorge Bergoglio was validly elected, then they should demand that he be consecrated in the Traditional Rite.  Until then, they should withhold their submission to him.  Otherwise, they would not be certain that anything he does in the exercise of papal or episcopal power would be valid.  However, the thing they must absolutely not do is speak and act like they are certain that he has papal jurisdiction over them and all other Catholics.

Blessed Emmerick’s Endtime Prophecy (Formal Schism of Rome)

In the following talk given by Mr. Eric Gajewski of TradCatKnight Radio on February 9, 2017, he speaks about Blessed Anne Catherine Emmerich’s prophecies that seem to relate to what we see going on now in regards to Pope Benedict XVI and antipope Jorge Bergoglio.  Mr. Gajewski was one of the first Traditional Catholics to take the position that Jorge Bergoglio is an antipope.  He explains that the conciliar church is in a material schism with the Catholic Church, but the apostate church led by Jorge Bergoglio is headed towards a formal schism.  I agree!