1 2

Robert Sungenis responds

 

 

Mario: Dear Bob,

Re:An Important Message for all Catholics about the Pope

Let me just bring up a few things here. You indicate that the current bishops and JPII himself have embraced errors that contradict the very heart of the Gospel. This is called apostasy. If they have embraced such errors and these errors are public and notorious (that's the canonical criterion), then they have, by divine law, lost their office (Canon 188.4, 1917 Code; Paul IV, Cum Ex Apostolatus).

R. Sungenis: Cum Ex Apostolatus is only enforceable by a canonical court of law, not you or me. That was the whole point of my essay.

Mario: You write that "unless our next pope is strong and orthodox...." Bob, if the Pope is not orthodox, he is not a Pope.

R. Sungenis: If that were true, then the pope could make no mistakes outside of ex cathedra statements, which is certainly not the case.

Mario: Someone who is not orthodox is heterodox, and that means not a Catholic.

R. Sungenis: A person can be unorthodox on one point, but be orthodox on all required dogma. Unless he deliberately and persistenly rejects a dogma, he is Catholic, and neither you nor I have the authority to judge it differently. The magisterium is his judge, not you.

Mario: You are saying that "Unless our next Pope is a Catholic......." It is a matter of divine law, as shown by Pope Paul IV, that a non-Catholic cannot be Pope.

R. Sungenis: No, I'm not saying that. You are reading into my words and creating a straw man.

Mario: Now you speak of losing office, but I say go back further and look at Wojtyla before his "election," and you will see he was already not a Catholic and therefore unable to obtain the pontificate to begin with.

R. Sungenis: Unless Cardinal Woytyla was proved in a canonical court of law to be a manifest heretic, then his ascension to the papal throne is legitimate. Your opinion carries no weight in this argument. It is only what the magisterium determines that counts.

Mario: Again, Pope Paul IV is clear on a non-Catholic being unable to be elected Pope (as is the Catholic Encyclopedia).

R. Sungenis: Certainly, if it can be proved in a canonical court of law that he was not a Catholic prior to his election. The Catholic Encyclopedia does not endorse lay people as vigilante judges.

Mario: I agree no one has the authority to *legally declare* JPII a non-Pope, but no one is doing that. We're talking about DISCERNING his status, not about making a legally binding declaration that by itself binds other Catholics. Whether JPII is Pope or not is first of all a matter of fact, and only secondarily a matter of law. Remember how St. Robert speaks of the fall of NEstorius. Before any official condemnation, the people *discerned* that he had lost his office of bishop because he was no longer a Catholic.

R. Sungenis: Then you're on my side, since what we "discern" is not necessarily what the magisterium discerns. Until if and when the magisterium validates the consensus of "discernment," then it remains just that -- a popular opinion of discernment. Your "discernment," as I said in my essay, can be used to protect yourself, but you have no right to turn your "discernment" into a indisputable legal indictment against the pope, as for example, you do on your website, stating as fact that John Paul II is an anti-pope.

Mario: Didn't Pope Leo II clarify the anathema about Pope Honorius? In any case, I don't think Pope Honorius could be compared in any way to John Paul II. JPII's denial of the Faith is all over the map.

R. Sungenis: I'm not comparing Honorius to John Paul II. I used the example of Honorius only to show that a pope can err in matters of the faith, but not lose his office because of it.

Mario: The authority of St. Robert Bellarmine -- Bob, I can't believe you wrote he has no authority because he is not the Magisterium. Neither was St. Thomas Aquinas the Magisterium and yet his authority is great. St. Robert Bellarmine was declared a Doctor of the Church by Pope Pius XI -- just in time, I would say. :) I know of no other Doctor who has written about the papacy in such detail as St. Robert. I think he is very much an authority on the subject, for he is a Teacher of the Church. I don't see why a Catholic could not listen to him on the issue of heretical "Popes."

R. Sungenis: St. Robert is my patron saint. If anyone would like to give him the benefit of the doubt, it would be me. But the fact is, whether it is St. Robert or St. Thomas, neither of them were the magisterium, and they would both admit to that fact, and did on several occasions. In fact, St. Robert was censored by the reigning pope for a disagreement they had over a point of doctrine.

Mario: But you write that if a Pope can err in statements not ex cathedra, then of course he won't lose his office if he errs. But Bob, Vatican I also teaches the Infallibility of the Ordinary and Universal Magisterium. John Paul II teaches, and the bishops in union with him do as well, that religious liberty is a human right. This falls under the infallibility of the Universal Ordinary Magisterium and therefore proves JPII and his hierarchy to be bogus.

R. Sungenis: Vatian II teaches that religious liberty is a CIVIL human right, not a MORAL human right. I haven't seen John Paul II contradict that teaching, at least not in any official statement. And even if he did, such an error would not mean that he loses his office, since Honorius and many other popes have already shown us that papal error does not mean the pope loses his office.

Mario: Fr. Cekada has done an excellent job putting together the Church's laws and principles about papal elections and loss of office:

http://www.stjosephschurch.net/pope.htm

R. Sungenis: I have read Fr. Cekada's material. I believe he is in error. He simply has not thought out all the issues.

Mario: But let me ask you something:

--DO Catholics and Muslims worship the same God, as JPII and VII teach? (it says they ADORE Him; not just they PROFESS to do so)

R. Sungenis: I've already answered this question at length. You will find it in my dialogues with John Pacheco.

Mario: --Does man as man indeed retain the image and likeness of God, as JPII perfidiously teaches in Redemptor Hominis? This is what JPII teaches in his ordinary Magisterium.

R. Sungenis: I don't know anywhere this has been defined by the Church. If you know of something, I'd be interested to see it. As far as I understand, man retains the image of God but it is a marred image. James 3:9 understands the "likeness of God" as applying to mankind in general, but there is also the perfected image we attain as Christians (Romans 8:29; 2 Cor 3:18)

Mario: Concluding with St. Robert: "Then two years later came the lapse of Liberius, of which we have spoken above. Then indeed the Roman clergy, stripping Liberius of his pontifical dignity, went over to Felix, whom they knew [then] to be a Catholic. From that time, Felix began to be the true Pontiff. For although Liberius was not a heretic, nevertheless he was considered one, on account of the peace he made with the Arians, and by that presumption the pontificate could rightly [merito] be taken from him: for men are not bound, or able to read hearts; but when they see that someone is a heretic by his external works, they judge him to be a heretic pure and simple [simpliciter], and condemn him as a heretic." (http://www.sedevacantist.com/bellarm.htm)

R. Sungenis: Unfortunately, one piece is missing, and that is verification of the magisterium. As it stands, anyone who "judged" Pope Liberius as an illegitimate pope would have been wrong, since it is clear from history that he was indeed a legitimate pope.

The Dimond brothers are precisely the epitome of the vigilante judges I condemned in my essay. They are quite deceived. Stay far away from them, Mario. They will corrupt your soul.

R. Sungenis: Unless Cardinal Woytyla was proved in a canonical court of law to be a manifest heretic, then his ascension to the papal throne is legitimate.

Mario: No, because of Canon 188.4, undoubtedly in force in 1978, and because of Cum Ex Apostolatus, which already legally declares that a non-Catholic cannot become Pope. It doesn't say a non-Catholic cannot become Pope when the Church declares him to be a non-Catholic. IPSO FACTO!

R. Sungenis: Mario, this is your whole problem. You think you are the judge. You are not. This is why we are Catholics -- because we have a magisterium, under canon law, that decides these things for us. You are playing with fire, Mario. Objections are one thing; taking the law into your own hands is quite another.

Mario: Wojtyla to publicly defect from the Catholic Faith before 1978 in order to be "non-popeable." And this is he certainly did as is evident, for instance, in his book "Sign of Contradiction." Sorry, Bob, but the facts are not on your side this time.

R. Sungenis: Mario, I'm going to say it one more time: The only way Karol Wojtyla would have been considered a "defector from the faith," as you put it, is by a canonical court of law. If and when they did so, Fr. Woytyla would not have been a candidate for the papacy. But they didn't do so, so there is no "ipso facto" issue here. It is not YOU who decides who is a "defector," whatever you mean by that term in your present state of mind.

Mario: Bob, I know this is inconvenient for you but please face the facts here:

RS: Mario, I'm going to say it one more time: The only way Karol Wojtyla would have been considered a "defector from the faith," as you put it, is by a canonical court of law. <<

Mario: Then Canon 188.4 is meaningless.

R. Sungenis: No, your interpretation of it is meaningless, because you have neither confirmation from the magisterium that your interpretation is right, nor do you have the right to enforce it or impose it on others who don't agree with you.

RS: If and when they did so, Fr. Woytyla would not have been a candidate for the papacy.

Mario: Exactly. In which case Cum Ex Apostolatus would have been meaningless / useless.

RS: It is not YOU who decides who is a "defector," whatever you mean by that term in your present state of mind.

Mario: We are Catholics, not gnostics. Someone who is in public and notorious heresy cannot hold Catholic office. Bob, I didn't make these laws. God did. I do not mean to be rude, bothesome, or harsh, but this is too serious business to pass over. You are simply wrong in what you're writing out there on this matter.

R. Sungenis: That's right. It is "too serious." That's why I've told you what I have told you. Vigilante Catholicism never works, Mario. Stop circumventing the canonical process. The "God" you mentioned above put it there for a reason -- to stop precisely what you are trying to do.

Mario: Please tell me then what Canon 188.4 means. It reads: "188: Any office becomes vacant UPON THE FACT and WITHOUT ANY DECLARATION by TACIT RESIGNATION recognized BY THE LAW ITSELF if a cleric: (4) publicly defects from the Catholic faith."

For the record, YOUR argument was that "there is no ipso facto issue here" and that "The only way Karol Wojtyla would have been considered a defector from the faith, as you put it, is by a canonical court of law." The text of Canon 188.4 *plainly* disproves you on both counts. It specifically says WITHOUT DECLARATION and UPON THE FACT (ipso facto).

R. Sungenis: Mario, you're just proving my point.

First of all, Canon 188.4 of the 1917 Code is no longer in force, since that code has been superceded by the 1983 code. (And you can't argue that the 1983 code has no force, since you can't use as proof what you haven't proven, that is, that John Paul II has no power to enforce the 1983 canon because he is not the pope).

Second, even if canon 188.4 were in force, the clause "publicly defects from the Catholic faith" is not defined, so your attempt to confine it to when YOU think the pope has defected is simply begging the question. Unfortunately, you seem to think that if the pope says something wrong doctrinally in public, then he loses his office, but you simply have no proof for that assertion. If that were the case, then Honorius, John XXII, and many other popes would have lost their office, but the Church gives not the slightest hint that such was the case. Again, since the Church knew that a pope could speak a doctrinal error in public, this was precisely the reason Vatican I limited the times a pope would speak without error, and that is only in an ex cathedra statement. This was done precisely to stop vigilantes like you from declaring the pope a non-pope based on your personal judgment of whether or not he made an error.

So, not only do you operate with an outdated canon, the very canon to which you appeal doesn't prove your argument.

RS: First of all, Canon 188.4 of the 1917 Code is no longer in force, since that code has been superceded by the 1983 code.

Mario: Bob, we're speaking about 1978 when Wojtyla was supposedly elected to the Papacy. The 1917 Code was very much in force then. Besides, I would think that as Cum Ex Apostolatus indicates, the loss of office of a Catholic cleric who is publicly and notoriously guilty of defection from the Faith is a matter of divine law. But no need to argue this point. We're talking about 1978, not 2005.

R. Sungenis2: Yes, but we are talking about your attempt to depose a pope based on what you think is heresy in 2005. If we were only talking about John Paul's election, then, of course, we would also have to consider Paul VI's "The Election of the Roman Pontiff" in 1975 which modified some of the strictures of both the 1917 code and Cum Ex Apostolatos Officio.

RS: Second, even if canon 188.4 were in force, the clause "publicly defects from the Catholic faith" is not defined

Mario: You're being silly! The word "Catholic" isn't defined either, not throughout the whole Code probably! The words "the" and "tacit" and "resignation" and "is" etc. all aren't defined! Bob, you are really grasping for straws now. Canon 188.4 flatly and completely refutes your position, and you're not willing to concede it.

R. Sungenis2: Mario, in a court of law, only technical and operative words that have more than one meaning and application need to be defined. You are the one grasping for straws.

Mario: Obviously, heresy and apostasy qualify for "defection from the Faith," wouldn't you think? We don't have to be any stricter than that, but obviously heresy and apostasy qualify.

R. Sungenis2: You're begging the question. If heresy, without qualification, is a "defection from the Faith," then I would say YOU have defected from the faith, because you hold a heretical view of the papacy. Two can play that game, Mario. In fact, there are several times I could have accused you of "defecting from the faith" by your saying erroneous things about the faith. But I don't do that. Why? Because the so-called defection would have to be persistent and unrepentant with full cognizance of what you are saying, and all those qualifications would have to be judged by a competent authority for me to even consider that they had any validity for judgment against you. This protocol protects us from all the kooks and vigilantees.

1 2