Contemporary Canonist Shows that a Publicly Heretical Pope is No Pope at All. Let us Watch Therefore Who we Call a Heretic!


  • Dr. Chojnowski: Here is a Contemporary Canonist who says that same thing with regard to the consequences of papal heresy as Fr. Kramer has been saying and we have emphasized on this blog. Citing St. Robert Bellermine, and Wernz and post-1940s canonists and theologians, Dr. Peters directly contradicts the conclusions of Fr. Chazal and Salza/Siscoe. Here he indicates the gravity of pointing to a man claiming the papacy and shouting "heresy!" If anyone does it, they need to know the implications. Here is sections of Dr. Peter's article below and his credentials. There is no easy Gallican Exit for the true orthodox Catholic.

    Edward Peters, JD, JCD, Ref. Sig. Ap.

    Dr. Peters has held the Edmund Cdl. Szoka Chair at Sacred Heart Major Seminary in Detroit since 2005. He earned a J. D. from the Univ. of Missouri at Columbia (1982) and a J. C. D. from the Catholic Univ. of America (1991). In 2010, he was appointed a Referendary of the Apostolic Signatura by Pope Benedict XVI. For more infomation on Dr. Peters, see CanonLaw.Info.
https://canonlawblog.wordpress.com/2016/12/16/a-canonical-primer-on-popes-and-heresy/
Setting aside a few who, relying on half-baked notions like “popes are not bound by canon law”, throw up their hands in despair at the prospect of a heretical pope and predict the End-of-the-World-as-We-Know-It, others, more reasonably, point to Canon 1404, which states “The First See is judged by no one”, and conclude that the only remedies in the face of a genuinely heretical pope are prayers and fasting. May I suggest, though, that canon law has somewhat more to offer than that. 
Wrenn, writing in the CLSA NEW COMM (2001) at 1618 states: “Canon 1404 is not a statement of personal impeccability or inerrancy of the Holy Father. Should, indeed, the pope fall into heresy, it is understood that he would lose his office. To fall from Peter’s faith is to fall from his chair.” While I suggest that Wrenn’s warning be read again, lest its startling impact be overlooked by the calm manner in which he expressed it, turning to the crucial question as to who would determine whether a given pope has fallen into heresy, Wrenn notes that it is not settled by Canon 1404 nor, I would add, is it settled by any other canon in the Code. But again, one may turn to canonical tradition for insight.
To be sure, all admit that in talking about popes falling into heresy we are talking a very remote scenario. Vermeersch-Creusen, Epitome I (1949) n. 340, “This sort of case, given the divine protection of the Church, is considered quite improbable.” Beste, Introductio (1961) 242, “In history no example of this can be found.” And the great Felix Cappello, Summa Iuris I (1949) n. 309, thought that the possibility of a pope falling into public heresy should be “entirely dismissed given the special love of God for the Church of Christ [lest] the Church fall into the greatest danger.”
But Cappello’s confidence (at least in the scope of divine protection against heretical popes) was not shared by his co-religionist, the incomparable Franz Wernz, whose summary of the various canonical schools of thought about the possibility of a papal fall from office due to heresy is instructive. After reviewing canonical norms on loss of papal office due to resignation or insanity, Wernz-Vidal, IUS CANONICUM II (1928), n. 453, considers the impact of personal heresy on the part of a pope (emphasis and citations omitted):
Through heresy notoriously and openly expressed, the Roman Pontiff, should he fall into such, is, by that very fact, and before any declaratory sentence of the Church, deprived of his power of jurisdiction.
I know of no author coming after Wernz who disputes this analysis. See, e.g., Ayrinhac, CONSTITUTION (1930) 33; Sipos, ENCHIRIDION (1954) 156; Regatillo, INSTITUTIONES I (1961) 299; Palazzini, DMC III (1966) 573; and Wrenn (2001) above. As for the lack of detailed canonical examination of the mechanics for assessing possible papal heresy, Cocchi, COMMENTARIUM II/2 (1931) n. 155, ascribes it to the fact that law provides for common cases and adapts for rarer; may I say again, heretical popes are about as rare as rare can be and yet still be.

Comments

Popular Posts

Original Photo of "the Meeting" between Paul VI and "Sister Lucy" found! TV Camera Stands Next to Paul VI. "Sister Lucy" Cut and Pasted In.

Again Sister Lucy II has to Bi-Locate to Get Near Paul VI during his 1967 Visit to Fatima. As Top Physicians, Plastic Surgeons, Dental Specialists, Private Investigators Analyze and Report about the Photos of "Sister Lucy," More Faked Photos Emerge . As Falling Flowers Used as Confetti Are in Identical Places, "Sister Lucy" Appears and Disappears from 1967 Photos.

Exclusive: RadTrad Thomist has Gotten Access to the Foreward to Fr. Paul Kramer's Soon to be Released "Heretic Pope?" Salza and Siscoe, Fr. Chazal and, yes, even Bishop Williamson Thou Art Refuted! Public Heresy and the Papacy and Even Membership in the Church Cannot Go Together.

Best Video footage of the first time the Imposter Sister Lucy was put before the Public on May 13, 1967 and, also, Close-Up Footage of the Imposter Aged 70 or 80.

Kevin Symonds Admits that Previously Posted Photo of Paul VI and "Sister Lucy" was Doctored. BUT......He also "knows" that there was not any "conspiracy" involved and it is no big deal. MOVE ON.....NOTHING TO SEE HERE.

Breaking News: Sister Lucy II Did NOT Have Dentures. BUT She DID Seem to Bi-ilocate. See Identical Sister Lucy Picture with DIFFERENT backgrounds! Handwriting Analysis and Height Analysis To be Included in Report.

Fraud: Facial Recognition Technology With 2,400 Picture Comparisons Shows Sister Lucy I (Pre-1958) and Sister Lucy II (Post-1958) are Definitely NOT the Same Person.

As World Experts Discuss the Sister Lucy Truth Case, Here is More Proof that the Fatima Establishment Has Used Doctored Photos to Put Forward A Fraud.