“The Second Vatican Council was a completely legitimate exercise of the Church's Magisterium“

You lack even the courage to put your name.

-Bro. Peter Dimond

JIM: Please--surely we can do better than that. I didn't know who to address my post to, so I settled for initials. My name is Jim Russell. Pleased to meet you, Brother Dimond. Now that we've established that I have courage, and cordiality, could you please address the question I asked in my initial post? If you prefer to avoid the question, then just tell me where you would like to begin.

Sincerely, Jim Russell

MHFM: Before I answer the question, please tell me if you regard John Kerry (the former presidential candidate who supports abortion) as a Catholic or a heretic?  He has not been excommunicated by your Bishops.

-Bro. Peter Dimond

JIM: Brother Dimond: I am assuming that your request means that, by answering your question, you will agree to answer mine. I accept.

Heresy is defined by the Catechism of the Catholic Church as "the obstinate post-baptismal denial of some truth which must be believed with divine and Catholic faith." Are we on the same page with its definition? Assuming so, we must still ask the question, "who gets to decide--officially--what is heresy and what is not"?

But I will say that in my personal judgment, *which I submit to the authority of the Church's Magisterium*, Kerry's baptismal identity makes him Catholic in name, although his personally held beliefs are far from the authentic Catholic faith. Kerry's pro-abortion views, for example, are clearly anti-Catholic. The Magisterium has said so. Heresy, however, is an official term used in magisterial, authoritative declarations regarding the formal status of someone's relationship with the Church. *I* can't declare someone to be a "heretic" in any official sense at all. I don't think it makes sense for private individuals to label *other* private individuals as heretics when that is the prerogative of the Magisterium alone.

Kerry can and will be denied Communion in at least some dioceses of the Roman Catholic Church. The jurdicial penalty of excommunication would clarify his official status, but wouldn't necessarily make him a heretic, if, for example, he is officially declared instead to be an apostate or schismatic, etc. Heresy is a precise juridical term used officially in specific situations by those competent to officially declare what is heresy and what is not.

So, back to you and my question.

Jim Russell

JIM: Brother Dimond:

I'm beginning to think I've scared you off!  I'm assuming you're willing to continue discussion, correct?

Jim Russell

MHFM: No, that is quite far from the truth.   I'm involved with many things, many of which are of a more pressing priority than refuting a heretic who thinks that the apostate John Kerry is a Catholic.  After all, you did send your e-mail yesterday.  I was planning on responding to you when I had time, such as now.

First, I must say that you are quite deceived.  You really believe that you are a Catholic, and you are trying to tell me what is Catholic teaching, while at the same you hold that the apostate John Kerry is a Catholic and you don't believe the Vatican II Antipopes endorse false religions. This means that you believe that one can obstinately support abortion and hold the Catholic Faith.  Sorry to say, but this is heresy.  I must say that you understand nothing at all about the unity of Faith in the Church, heresy, Magisterial teaching or how the Church views heretics.  Have you even read Pope Pius XI's 1928 Encyclical Mortalium Animos?  If not, you better since this encyclical condemns as apostasy the very ecumenism that is exemplified by the Vatican II Antipopes.

How about Pope Leo XIII's Satis Cognitum of 1896?  Have you read the Syllabus of Errors promulgated by Pope Pius IX?  I think you  better educate yourself on what the Catholic Church traditionally teaches because you think that you are a defender of the Catholic Faith when you are actually acting as its enemy - by defending the Vatican II apostasy.   You asked three different questions: 1) produce a quotation from the Vatican II Antipopes which endorses false religions; 2) produce a heresy in Vatican II; and 3) produce Catholic teaching which says that an individual can determine that another individual is a heretic.  I will answer one question at a time, so that these e-mails don't get too long.  After I answer them I will ask you a few questions.

You write:

“For starters, can you show me *anywhere,* in the teachings of Scripture, Tradition, and the Magisterium, it is declared that an individual Catholic has the authority to declare another person to be a heretic? I look forward to your reply.”

Pope Leo XIII, Satis Cognitum (# 9), June 29, 1896: “The practice of the Church has always been the same, as is shown by the unanimous teaching of the Fathers, WHO WERE WONT TO HOLD AS OUTSIDE CATHOLIC COMMUNION, AND ALIEN TO THE CHURCH, WHOEVER WOULD RECEDE IN THE LEAST DEGREE FROM ANY POINT OF DOCTRINE PROPOSED BY HER AUTHORITATIVE MAGISTERIUM.”

Here we see the teaching of the Catholic Church that individuals who recede from the teaching of the Magisterium must be considered outside the Church (e.g. heretics).  This is the teaching of all the ancient fathers, as Pope Leo XIII declares.  Below we also see St. Robert Bellarmine, Doctor of the Church, illustrating the same teaching that individuals can and must consider as heretics those who demonstrate a rejection of Catholic teaching.  He states that a Catholic condemns as heretics those who show themselves to be by their external works.

St. Robert Bellarmine, De Romano Pontifice, II, 30: “… 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, AND CONDEMN HIM AS A HERETIC.”

And this is traditional teaching of course, since only a tiny fraction of all the heretics who exist have traditionally been declared to be heretics by name.  For instance, Hans Kung and Billy Graham have never been declared to be heretics, but Catholics are obligated to consider them as such, since they obstinately reject Catholic teaching.  But you don’t understand this, since you don’t, as of yet, have the Catholic Faith.  So, I have answered your question.

You also asked for me to produce a quotation from the Vatican II Antipopes which endorses false religions.  Well, here you go:

John Paul II, March 21, 2000: “May Saint John the Baptist protect Islam and all the people of Jordan...” (L’ Osservatore Romano, March 29, 2000, p. 2.)

This is total apostasy.  This is an endorsement of a false religion and a rejection of Jesus Christ and the Catholic Faith.  I could quote many more, but this should suffice for this e-mail.  The Catholic Faith holds that Islam is an abomination which leads to damnation, as it rejects the True God and the Catholic Faith.  Antipope John Paul II asked for its protection.  He was an apostate who completely rejected the Catholic Faith.  That is why he also kissed the blasphemous Koran, etc., etc., etc., etc.

You write:

“There is no such thing as the "Vatican II religion." The teachings of the Second Vatican Council are the teachings of the One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church, the Church founded by Jesus Christ. One who "protests" againsts these teachings would rightly be called "protestant," which is probably the best description of the views espoused by your web site.”

Sir, again you are completely deceived.  You call what is Catholic “Protestant,” while you are in communion with men who agree that Justification takes place by “faith alone” and that the Council of Trent no longer applies (Joint Declaration with the Lutherans on Justification, approved by John Paul II).  But since you say this, would you agree that Benedict XVI promotes Protestantism by encouraging the formation of Protestant and non-Catholic Monasteries such as the Monastery of Taize?

The famous ecumenical Monastery of Taize is located in the south of Burgundy, France.  The Taize community “is made up of over a hundred brothers, Catholics and from various Protestant backgrounds, from more than twenty-five nations.” [Taize]

“Cardinal” Ratzinger, Principles of Catholic Theology (1982), p. 304: “For more than a decade, Taize has been, without a doubt, the leading example of an ecumenical inspiration, emanating from a local center inspired by a particular ‘charism’.  Similar communities of faith and of shared living should be formed elsewherein which the foregoing of a communal reception of the Eucharist would, without ceasing to be a hardship, become comprehensible and in which its necessity would be understood by a prayer community that cannot answer its own prayer but is, nevertheless, calmly certain it will be answered.”

He praises the non-Catholic Monastery of Taize; and he encourages similar communities to be formed, thus encouraging people to become non-Catholics.  Do you agree that this shows that Benedict XVI is a promoter of Protestantism?  If not, you show yourself to be an abominable hypocrite.

Last point: there are many heresies in Vatican II.  I will just cite one: its teaching that non-Catholics may lawfully receive the Holy Eucharist.  This is a rejection of Catholic teaching, which has always forbidden non-Catholics from receiving Communion.  This prohibition of the Church is rooted in the dogma that there is no salvation outside the Church and that non-Catholics sin when receiving Holy Communion since they are outside the Church.  It cannot be changed.  Vatican II contradicted it and taught heresy.

Vatican II, Orientalium Ecclesiarum # 27: “Given the above-mentioned principles, the sacraments of Penance, Holy Eucharist, and the anointing of sick may be conferred on eastern Christians who in good faith are separated from the Catholic Church, if they make the request of their own accord and are properly disposed.”

So, since you asked me three questions, I will ask you three: 1) have you read Pope Pius XI’s Encyclical Mortalium Animos?  2) Do you admit that Benedict XVI promotes Protestantism by encouraging the formation of non-Catholic Monasteries?  3) Do you admit that Benedict XVI’s teaching that Catholics shouldn’t convert Protestants and schismatics is heresy (see below)?

“Cardinal” Ratzinger, Principles of Catholic Theology(Ignatius Press, San Francisco, 1982), pp. 197-198: “Against this background we can now weigh the possibilities that are open to Christian ecumenism.  The maximum demands on which the search for unity must certainly founder are immediately clear.  On the part of the West, the maximum demand would be that the East recognize the primacy of the bishop of Rome in the full scope of the definition of 1870 and in so doing submit in practice, to a primacy such as has been accepted by the Uniate churches.  On the part of the East, the maximum demand would be that the West declare the 1870 doctrine of primacy erroneous and in so doing submit, in practice, to a primacy such as has been accepted with the removal of the Filioque from the Creed and including the Marian dogmas of the nineteenth and twentieth centuries.  As regards Protestantism, the maximum demand of the Catholic Church would be that the Protestant ecclesiological ministers be regarded as totally invalid and that Protestants be converted to Catholicism; the maximum demand of Protestants, on the other hand, would be that the Catholic Church accept, along with the unconditional acknowledgement of all Protestant ministries, the Protestant concept of ministry and their understanding of the Church and thus, in practice, renounce the apostolic and sacramental structure of the Church, which would mean, in practice, the conversion of Catholics to Protestantism and their acceptance of a multiplicity of distinct community structures as the historical form of the Church. While the first three maximum demands are today rather unanimously rejected by Christian consciousness, the fourth exercises a kind of fascination for it – as it were, a certain conclusiveness that makes it appear to be the real solution to the problem.  This is all the more true since there is joined to it the expectation that a Parliament of Churches, a ‘truly ecumenical council’, could then harmonize this pluralism and promote a Christian unity of action.  That no real union would result from this, but that its very impossibility would become a single common dogma, should convince anyone who examines the suggestion closely that such a way would not bring Church unity but only a final renunciation of it.  As a result, none of the maximum solutions offers any real hope of unity.”

I quoted the entire passage without a break so that people can see that this is not being taken out of context in any way.  Ratzinger specifically mentions, and then bluntly rejects, the traditional teaching of the Catholic Church that the Protestants and Eastern Schismatics must be converted to the Catholic Faith (and accept Vatican I: “the full scope of the definition of 1870”).  He specifically rejects it as the way to unity.  This is totally heretical and it proves that he is a complete non-Catholic heretic.

Pope Pius XI, Mortalium Animos (#10), Jan. 6, 1928: “… the union of Christians can only be promoted by promoting the return to the one true Church of Christ of those who are separated from it…”

-Bro. Peter Dimond

JIM: … Pope John Paul the Great was holier than you or I will ever likely be.....The kissing of a book does not make or UN-make Popes. Surely you understand that; surely your faith in the promises of Christ and the Magisterium’s protection by the Holy Spirit runs deeper than that?

***** Sir, again you are completely deceived.   You call what is Catholic “Protestant” while you are in communion with men who agree that Justification takes place by “faith alone” and that the Council of Trent no longer applies (Joint Declaration with the Lutherans on Justification, approved by John Paul II).*******

Maybe you are completely deceived. Who gets to decide? But, just for fun, why not produce for me a *direct* quote from a universal teaching of the Church that claims the Catholic Church teaches “sola fide”—I want to see the exact words that back up your claim above. I *know* the Joint Declaration to which you refer does not state that....

Can you show me *anywhere* in Church teaching where it specifically says that an individual can or should dissent from the *Magisterium’s* authority and that an individual is free to apply doctrines regarding offenses against the faith to the Magisterium itself?...

Jim Russell

MHFM:  Oh really?  So you “know” that the Joint Declaration doesn’t teach Justification by faith alone.  Read it and weep.  (You also blaspheme Jesus Christ by asserting that Antipope John Paul II was “John Paul the Great” after you’ve seen his apostasy.)

Annex to the Official Common Statement of the Joint Declaration with the Lutherans on Justification, #2, C [“Catholic” side and Lutheran side together]: "Justification takes place by grace alone, by faith alone, the person is justified apart from works."

This is the annex to the official statement made by your Vatican II sect under John Paul II with the Lutheran sect.  Your sect is Protestant.

Antipope John Paul II, Jan. 19, 2004, At a Meeting with Lutherans From Finland: “… I wish to express my gratitude for the ecumenical progress made between Catholics and Lutherans in the five years since the signing of the Joint Declaration on the Doctrine of Justification… It is my hope that Lutherans and Catholics will increasingly practice a spirituality of communion, which draws on those elements of ecclesial life which they already share and which will strengthen their fellowship in prayer and in witness to the Gospel of Jesus Christ.” (L’Osservatore Romano, Jan. 28, 2004, p. 4.)

So, what you claimed to “know” was completely wrong.  Perhaps you should realize that you are also wrong in other areas relating to this matter.  Regarding your second question, it doesn’t make any sense.  You are asking me to produce a Magisterial teaching that allows Catholics to reject the Magisterium.  A Catholic can never reject the Magisterium.  The Magisterium is the infallible, unerring teaching authority of the Catholic Church.  All teachings of the Magisterium must be accepted, since they are infallible.

Pope Pius XI, “Divini Illius Magistri,” December 31, 1929:  “Upon this magisterium Christ the Lord conferred immunity from error, together with the command to teach His doctrine to all.” (Denz. 2204)

Your contradictory question reveals your lack of understanding of what the Magisterium is: it is the infallible teaching authority of Christ’s Church exercised by a true Pope when speaking from the Chair of Peter solemnly or reiterating in his ordinary and universal teaching that which has always been held from Scripture or Tradition.  The defined teachings of the Magisterium are an unchangeable body, the deposit of Faith, such as those promulgated at the Council of Nicaea, Florence, Trent, etc.  Neither the persons of Bishops nor the teaching of Bishops constitute the teaching of the Magisterium, unless they are reiterating what has already been taught by the Magisterium.

Pope Clement V, Council of Vienne, Decree # 1, 1311-1312: “We, therefore, directing our apostolic attention, to which alone it belongs to define these things, to such splendid testimony and to the common opinion of the holy fathers and doctors, declare with the approval of the sacred council that the said apostle and evangelist, John, observed the right order of events in saying that when Christ was already dead one of the soldiers opened his side with a spear.”

Pope Gregory XVI, Mirari Vos (# 10), Aug. 15, 1832: “Let those who devise such plans be aware that, according to the testimony of St. Leo, ‘the right to grant dispensation from the canons is given’ only to the Roman Pontiff.  He alone, and no private person, can decide anything ‘about the rules of the Church Fathers.’”

Pope Leo XIII, Officio sanctissimo #7, Dec. 22, 1887: “…the Roman Pontiff, whose sole right it is, by divine command and appointment to be the guardian of that doctrine, to hand it on and to judge truly concerning it.”

The fact that Bishops don’t represent or possess the infallible teaching of the Magisterium is proven by the fact that a General Council is worthless if not approved by the Pope.

Pope Leo XIII, Satis Cognitum (#15), June 29, 1896: “The 28th Canon of the Council of Chalcedon, by the very fact that it lacks the assent and approval of the Apostolic See, is admitted by all to be worthless.”

So, your question, if it were posed in a way consistent with Catholic teaching, would be: Can you show me *anywhere* in Church teaching where it specifically says that an individual can reject as invalid, due to his manifest heresy, a man who is allegedly elected Pope by the College of Cardinals?  The answer is a resounding Yes.  There is an entire Papal Bull about it, called cum ex apostolatus officio of Pope Paul IV. Pope Paul IV's Apostolic Constitution Cum ex Apostolatus Officio.  This Bull teaches that a heretic cannot be accepted as a valid Pope, even with the unanimous consent of the Cardinals.  This proves two points which directly refute you: 1) it proves that it is a real possibility for a heretic to be elected, otherwise Paul IV wouldn’t have issued the Bull.  2) It proves that individuals have the authority to recognize when such a claimant to the Papacy has defected into heresy, and therefore to reject him on that basis as invalid; otherwise the Bull, telling Catholics they can reject as invalid one who defects from the Faith, would be contrary to the Faith.

Pope Paul IV, Bull Cum ex Apostolatus Officio, Feb. 15, 1559: “6. In addition, [by this Our Constitution, which is to remain valid in perpetuity We enact, determine, decree and define:-] that if ever at any time it shall appear that any Bishop, even if he be acting as an Archbishop, Patriarch or Primate; or any Cardinal of the aforesaid Roman Church, or, as has already been mentioned, any legate, or even the Roman Pontiff, prior to his promotion or his elevation as Cardinal or Roman Pontiff, has deviated from the Catholic Faith or fallen into some heresy:

(i) the promotion or elevation, even if it shall have been uncontested and by the unanimous assent of all the Cardinals, shall be null, void and worthless; (ii) it shall not be possible for it to acquire validity (nor for it to be said that it has thus acquired validity) through the acceptance of the office, of consecration, of subsequent authority, nor through possession of administration, nor through the putative enthronement of a Roman Pontiff, or Veneration, or obedience accorded to such by all, nor through the lapse of any period of time in the foregoing situation; (iii) it shall not be held as partially legitimate in any way…

 (vi) those thus promoted or elevated shall be deprived automatically, and without need for any further declaration, of all dignity, position, honour, title, authority, office and power….

10. No one at all, therefore, may infringe this document of our approbation, re-introduction, sanction, statute and derogation of wills and decrees, or by rash presumption contradict it. If anyone, however, should presume to attempt this, let him know that he is destined to incur the wrath of Almighty God and of the blessed Apostles, Peter and Paul.

Given in Rome at Saint Peter's in the year of the Incarnation of the Lord 1559, 15th February, in the fourth year of our Pontificate.

+ I, Paul, Bishop of the Catholic Church…”

This is also why St. Robert Bellarmine teaches Catholics that a validly elected Pope who is a manifest heretic must be rejected as not the Pope.

-Bro. Peter Dimond

JIM: *******Annex to the Official Common Statement of the Joint Declaration with the Lutherans on Justification, #2, C [“Catholic” side and Lutheran side together]: "Justification takes place by grace alone, by faith alone, the person is justified apart from works." This is the annex to the official statement made by your Vatican II sect under John Paul II with the Lutheran sect.  Your sect is Protestant.*****

Wrong. You quote the “annex” document without ever considering the declaration text itself, which says: “The present Joint Declaration has this intention: namely, to show that on the basis of their dialogue the subscribing Lutheran churches and the Roman Catholic Church are now able to articulate a common understanding of our justification by God's grace through faith (my emphasis) in Christ.” And: “Justification thus means that Christ himself is our righteousness, in which we share through the Holy Spirit in accord with the will of the Father. Together we confess: By grace alone, in faith in Christ's saving work and not because of any merit on our part, (my emphasis) we are accepted by God and receive the Holy Spirit, who renews our hearts while equipping and calling us to good works.”

And:  “Through Christ alone are we justified, when we receive this salvation in faith.” And: “According to Lutheran understanding, God justifies sinners in faith alone (sola fide).” It is clear from the Declaration itself that the teaching know as “sola fide” is a *Lutheran*--not Catholic teaching. What both sides *agree* upon is that justification occurs by GRACE ALONE, not faith alone.  So, by robbing the Annex statement of all context, you feel you can make the wild claim that Pope John Paul II’s “sect” somehow altered centuries of Catholic teaching and now teaches the Lutheran doctrine of “sola fide” to 1 billion Catholics who never quite seemed to learn the new teaching? Nor did the world media ever comment on this incredible story. Nope. Don’t think so…

Jim Russell

MHFM: First, I must say that you are just a liar.   I quoted the very declaration from the Annex to the Joint Declaration which teaches Justification by “faith alone” on the Lutheran and the “Catholic” side.  What part of this don’t you understand?

Annex to the Official Common Statement of the Joint Declaration with the Lutherans on Justification, #2, C [“Catholic” side and Lutheran side together]: "Justification takes place by grace alone, by faith alone, the person is justified apart from works."

If anyone wants to see how much of a lie your claim that the “Catholic” side didn’t agree to Justification by “faith alone” is, he or she can simply click here Official Common Statement and Annex and then scroll down about ½ page to the Annex, 2, C to see for himself or herself that your sect (which claims to be “Catholic”) officially declared Justification by “faith alone.”

WE CAN ALL READ.  IT BLATANTLY TAUGHT JUSTIFICATION BY FAITH ALONE.  You are just a complete liar, as we can all see.  But, as we will see shortly, we don’t even need this quote to prove the point.

Second, to say that I don’t consider the whole text of the Joint Declaration is funny.  I’ve pointed out in I don’t know how many articles and columns that, in addition to the fact that the Annex teaches Justification by faith alone, the Joint Declaration itself declares that none of the LUTHERAN TEACHING in the JD is condemned by the Council of Trent.  (for a short article on this issue, go here: Antipope John Paul II denies the Council of Trent again by commemorating the heretical JD with the Lutherans on Justification.)

Joint Declaration With the Lutherans on Justification: "41. Thus the doctrinal condemnations of the 16th century [i.e., the Council of Trent], in so far as they are related to the doctrine of justification, appear in a new light: The teaching of the Lutheran churches presented in this Declaration does not fall under the condemnations from the Council of Trent."

This means that none of the teaching of the Lutherans in the JD is condemned by the Council of Trent, including Justification by “faith alone.”

Joint Declaration With the Lutherans on Justification: "26. According to Lutheran understanding, God justifies sinners in faith alone (sola fide)."

DOES EVERYONE FOLLOW?  I WILL SPELL IT OUT FOR YOU, MR. RUSSELL: THE…TEACHING…OF…THE…LUTHERAN…CHURCHES….PRESENTED…IN…THIS…DECLARATION…DOES…NOT…FALL…UNDER…THE…CONDEMNATIONS…FROM…THE…COUNCIL…OF…TRENT.  But the heresy of Justification by “faith alone” was condemned by the Council of Trent approximately 13 times.

Pope Paul III, Council of Trent, Session 6, Chap. 10, ex cathedra : "'You see, that by works a man is justified and not by faith alone' (Jas. 2:24)."

Thus, the statement in #41 of the JD means that the “Catholic” side agrees that all the dogmatic canons and decrees in Trent condemning faith alone are overturned, and that faith alone is no longer contrary to or condemned by Trent.  It is not possible for heresy to be any more formal than this.  So your sect holds that “faith alone,” the Lutheran heresy, is not condemned by Trent. THAT IS A FACT.  IF YOU DENY IT – AS YOU MOST PROBABLY WILL – YOU JUST MOCK GOD AND SHOW YOURSELF TO BE A COMPLETE LIAR AGAIN.

Third, you say that if this were true the media surely would have picked up on it.  The media did, of course.  When the Joint Declaration was published in 1999 there were hordes of articles and news reports declaring that “the Catholic Church” overturned its view on Justification.

It’s also interesting to note that when I quoted the clear heresy of “faith alone” in the Annex to the Joint Declaration, you then directed me to the Joint Declaration itself, as if it “saved” everything.  This is clearly false, as we can see.  But what’s interesting is that in e-mails to the heretics Leon Suprenant and James Likoudis – both complete heretics and obstinate defenders of the Vatican II apostasy like yourself – they did just the opposite (see Suprenant’s Response in E-Mail Discussions)!  When I quoted the heresies for them in the Joint Declaration itself, they both directed me to the Annex to clarify everything!  This just shows that their – and your – whole defense of the Vatican II apostasy is based on false and easily refuted lies.  It shows the bad will and dishonest tactics of heretics such as yourself.  This kind of false and dishonest tactic – which attempts to prey upon people’s ignorance with statements that are completely untrue, such as that the “Annex” clarifies everything – will work with someone who is not familiar with the documents concerned.  But it won’t work with someone who is very familiar with the documents and knows that all three involved in the Joint Declaration teach blatant heresy.

So, in conclusion, even if we prescind completely from the teaching of Justification by faith alone that your sect officially made in the “Annex,” the Joint Declaration itself clearly identifies the Lutheran heresy and specifically says that it is not condemned by Trent.  Nothing could be more heretical.  But you will probably deny this, even though it is undeniable, because you are a liar and of bad will.  Sadly, one must say that you are a prime example of a person of bad will and why God sends people to hell for all eternity.

JIM: …I believe your claim is that anyone guilty of heresy automatically loses ecclesial office, including and especially the Pope. A necessary consequence of this view, seems to me, is that this point of view therefore unravels the office of the Papacy from the very *beginning* with, you guessed it, Pope St. Peter himself.  Poor Pope Peter, the prince of the Twelve, he to whom Jesus gave the power of the Keys and called the Rock, was most definitely a heretic, according to the evidence we have. His astounding heresies number at least two, possibly three.

The two *obvious* examples of Pope Peter’s heresies are, first, his absolute and unequivocal denial of Jesus during Jesus’ arrest and trial. Second, Peter’s falling in with the “Judaizers” as described in Galatians. A possible third heresy, one which happens just after his being appointed the “Rock” by Jesus, is his denial of the fatal mission of Christ, a denial met with Jesus calling Peter “Satan.”  Now according to your view, such heresies would leave Peter devoid of his papacy. Therefore you must have an explanation as to why you *don’t* think Peter an antipope or a heretic. I’d like to hear it.

God bless, Jim Russell

MHFM:  So, the position that a heretic loses the Papacy automatically “unravels the office of the Papacy from the very beginning.”  You seem quite sure of yourself, just as you were quite sure about the Joint Declaration on Justification.  You were so sure of yourself that you wrote the following because we hadn’t yet responded to your objections concerning St. Peter:

Dear Brother Dimond:

…I didn't really think you could handle the question I posed about the "astounding heresies" of St. Peter himself; apparently you fear the truth, or at least the consequences of what you call the "truth." I will be searching for a reuptable Catholic publication that will be willing to publish an account of my experience of "dialoguing" with you, expecially the nature of the easy victory you've given me by ignoring my question about St. Peter, ironically your namesake, I presume.

I'm sorry if I've disturbed your peace by demonstrating how ludicrous your views really are by applying them to the first Pope, but consider it an opportunity for growth and conversion of heart. Right now your heart must be too hardened to reply to my questions about Peter, so I will have to be satisfied with the victory of the truth despite your silence. If you ever do decide to confront my question about Peter, please do let me know.

Until then, know that you will be in my prayers.

Jim Russell

You really walked into this one.  But that’s exactly what blinded heretics do.  If you knew the teaching of Vatican I thoroughly, you would know that Vatican I defined that ST. PETER DID NOT BECOME POPE UNTIL AFTER THE RESURRECTION:

Pope Pius IX, Vatican Council I, Sess. 4, Chap. 1, 1870: “And upon Simon Peter alone Jesus after His resurrection conferred the jurisdiction of the highest pastor and rector over his entire fold, saying: ‘Feed my lambs,’ ‘Feed my sheep’ [John 21:15].”

In Matthew 16:18-20, Our Lord told St. Peter that He will build His Church upon him; but Our Lord did not confer the supreme jurisdiction upon St. Peter until after the Resurrection with the words of John 21:15: ‘Feed my lambs…”  With one quotation from Catholic dogma your heretical mouth is stopped.

Your only other objection in this regard would then be St. Paul’s rebuke of St. Peter in Galatians 2:11 for refusing to sit with the gentile converts who had not been circumcised.  This was an imprudent action, no doubt, which St. Peter corrected.  It was not heresy, but could have led to heresy if St. Peter had continued with it and expanded upon it.  The Haydock Commentary on this passage notes: “…the opinion of S. Augustine [on this passage] is commonly followed, that S. Peter was guilty of a venial fault of imprudence.”  All the Doctors of the Church are familiar with and/or have commented on this passage, including St. Robert Bellarmine, etc.  Yet, all of them who addressed the issue of a heretical “Pope” still agreed that a heretical “Pope” would cease to be Pope.  They saw nothing in Galatians 2:11 which contradicted that because there is nothing.  There are actions which clearly constitute heresy and apostasy, such as kissing the Koran (and thereby directly endorsing a false religion) or bowing one’s head with the Jews as they pray for the Coming of the Messiah (and thereby denying Christ) or conducting interfaith worship with pagans and idolaters – all committed by Antipope John Paul II.  But the action of St. Peter, while being imprudent and something that could lead to heresy if not changed, was not a clear-cut heretical or apostate action.

It’s sad to say, but it doesn’t matter what facts one brings forward, or what heresies one can quote from the Vatican II Antipopes to prove the point to you, you would reject it all because you are, at this time, dishonest to the core.  Your “Pope” rejects Jesus Christ:

“Cardinal” Joseph Ratzinger, God and the World, 2000, p. 209: “It is of course possible to read the Old Testament so that it is not directed toward Christ; it does not point quite unequivocally to Christ.  And if Jews cannot see the promises as being fulfilled in him, this is not just ill will on their part, but genuinely because of the obscurity of the texts and the tension in the relationship between these texts and the figure of Jesus.  Jesus brings a new meaning to these texts – yet it is he who first gives them their proper coherence and relevance and significance.  There are perfectly good reasons, then, for denying that the Old Testament refers to Christ and for saying, No, that is not what he said.  And there are also good reasons for referring it to him – that is what the dispute between Jews and Christians is about.”

“Cardinal” Joseph Ratzinger, Milestones, 1998, pp. 53-54: “I have ever more come to the realization that Judaism (which, strictly speaking, begins the end of the formation of the canon, that is, in the first century after Christ) and the Christian faith described in the New Testament are two ways of appropriating Israel’s Scriptures, two ways that, in the end, are both determined by the position one assumes with regard to the figure of Jesus of Nazereth.  The Scripture we today call Old Testament is in itself open to both ways.  For the most part, only after the Second World War did we begin to understand that the Jewish interpretation, too, in the time ‘after Christ’, of course possesses a theological mission of its own.”