A Brief Response
to Thomas S.’s
Attack on
Sedevacantism
By Bro. Peter Dimond, O.S.B.
Updated: Feb. 12, 2007
Thomas S. now sends out e-mails under the name “John Browne.” This is the person who had promoted homosexuality,
universal salvation and Protestant sects.
John Browne/Thomas S. has now seemingly adopted the sedevacantist
position, which is a positive development and a step in the right direction. However, he is still heretical and a danger
to the Faith because he rejects the canonizations of the Catholic Church, holds
that many pre-Vatican II popes were heretics, links to and promotes the
writings of schismatics, favors Jansenism, promotes the false idea of baptism
of desire, among other things. In
charity we tried to warn him not to promote the writings of heretics, but it
was to no avail. It’s obvious that this
is a very spiritually disturbed individual who, having embraced a promotion of
homosexuality and universal salvation not very long ago, is not a good guide to
what constitutes Catholic teaching (to put it mildly), but is someone whose
e-mail list should be totally avoided.
Updated: Feb. 11, 2005
Those who are familiar with Thomas S.’s website can
see that he has now abandoned his opposition to John Paul II’s heresies and
totally repudiated the dogma Outside the Church There is No Salvation. He now literally promotes universal salvation
and universal brotherhood without the true religion. He had defended at much length that only
those who die as Catholics can be saved, but now he promotes that all men are
saved. The point is that Thomas S. has
fallen under the Romans 1 Curse. He has
been handed over to Satan because he obstinately defended that the heretic John
Paul II is the Pope after he knew that it is indefensible. He also promotes homosexuality on his website
by promoting “Dignity,” and he had promoted homosexuality in e-mails he sent
out to his list. He has a link to the
sect of the “Quakers.” He also promotes
the legalization of Marijuana. But, most
of all, he promotes the Antichrist John Paul II and his repeated teaching of
universal salvation.
In this Article:
-
A refutation of Thomas S.’s thesis that the heretic John Paul II is Pope
-
A discussion of Thomas S.’s claims regarding the requirements for public
heresy
-
A discussion of Thomas S.’s principal heresy (also held by many others)
that a non-Catholic heretic such as John Paul II can retain the jurisdiction of
the Papacy
Introduction
Recently, Thomas S. posted an
article on his website attempting to refute the fact that Antipope John Paul II
is not the true Pope of the Catholic Church.
Thomas S.: “In this article we shall
refute the sedevacantist claim that Pope John Paul II is not pope because of
publicly committed heresy. We shall do
so with reference to the canon law of the Church on this matter, particularly
as interpreted by the approved canonists of the last century.”
While the arguments that he brings forward in
defense of Antipope John Paul II are refuted by the facts contained in our
videos, magazines and newsletters, we felt that a brief refutation of his
article was in order since a few people had asked us for our thoughts on it.
In this refutation we will not
spend pages refuting the illogical and inaccurate diatribe that Thomas S. makes
about canon law (which we could); but rather we will cut right to the heart of
the matter by very briefly summing up where Thomas S.’s article contradicts
defined Catholic dogma. Thomas S.’s
arguments can be dealt with quite briefly.
Thomas S.’s entire article is a tendentious attempt to make the issue of
whether John Paul II is the Pope seem like a complicated debate about canon
law, when it is really a very simple issue concerning defined Catholic dogma.
Thomas S.’s Thesis
Thomas S.: “So we see that according
to canon law and its authorised commentators, a pope would lose his office
through heresy only if his heresy were "public", and that for it to
be public, it would have to be notorious in fact…However, it is quite clear
that none of this has occurred today.
The heresy of Pope John Paul II is both materially and formally secret
as neither the fact of his heresy nor any pertinacity has become known to the
Church. Only a tiny, tiny minority of
people even claim that he has heretically diverged from the Faith and most of
those do not conclude that he is certainly pertinacious. Therefore he has not lost the papacy through
heresy.”
The thesis of Thomas S’s
article can be summarized as follows: Sedevacantists (i.e., those who hold that
John Paul II is not Pope) base their entire argument on a misapplication of
canon 188.4, which states that a cleric who publicly rejects the faith loses
his office. John Paul II’s heresy is not
“public,” according to Thomas S., and therefore it is laughable and ridiculous
to apply canon 188.4 to him.
Refuting Thomas S.’s Thesis
In response to this we will point out,
first of all, that one does not need to quote a line of canon law to prove that
Antipope John Paul II is not the Pope. This
simple fact refutes the entire thesis of Thomas S’s article. The issue of whether or not John Paul II is
the Pope is not an issue rooted in canon law, but in defined Church dogma.
(This is a point that Thomas S. wants to avoid at all costs, for reasons that
will be clear below). This issue has to
do with the very nature of the Catholic Church, the Mystical Body of
Christ. It has to do with who are the
members of the true Church and who are not.
It has to do with the unity of the Church, that there is only one
faith in the Church of Christ (Eph. 4:5), and that heretics don’t reside in
the Body. Thus, for Thomas S. to write a
detailed article supposedly “refuting” sedevacantism, and to not even address
the arguments from Church dogma that sedevacantists like ourselves make,
is very dishonest, especially because I have personally pointed out to him via
e-mail (well before he posted this article) that this issue surrounds the
defined Catholic dogma that heretics are
not members of the Body of Christ (and therefore the heretic John Paul II
cannot be the head of the Body of Christ).
The bottom-line is that Antipope John Paul II is a heretic and Thomas S.
admits this!
Thomas S.: “Now, all of this applies
to John Paul II. He is an open
heretic against the Catholic Faith and we are not to follow him.”
With this admission, Thomas S.’s entire article is
refuted, because it is a solemnly defined dogma that heretics are not inside
the Body of Christ. One who obstinately
denies this dogma commits a mortal sin and ceases to be Catholic.
Pope Eugene IV, Council of
Florence, “Cantate Domino,” 1441, ex cathedra: “The Holy Roman Church
firmly believes, professes and preaches that all those who are outside the Catholic Church, not only
pagans but also Jews or heretics and schismatics, cannot
share in eternal life and will go into the everlasting fire which was prepared
for the devil and his angels, unless they are joined to the Church before the
end of their lives…”(1)
Pope Pius XII, Mystici Corporis
Christi (# 23), June 29, 1943:
“For not every sin, however grave it may be, is such as of its own nature to sever a man from the Body of the
Church, as does schism or heresy or apostasy.”(2)
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.”(3)
Pope Leo XIII, Satis Cognitum
(# 9):
“No one who merely disbelieves in all (these
heresies) can for that reason regard himself as a Catholic or call himself
one. For there may be or arise some
other heresies, which are not set out in this work of ours, and, if any one holds to a single one of
these he is not a Catholic.”(4)
Therefore, by Thomas S.’s own
admission that John Paul II is a heretic, the debate is over; for he must
confess that John Paul II is outside the Body of Christ. And once one admits that Antipope John Paul
II is outside the Catholic Church, it is absurd and heretical to say that he
can be the head of the Catholic Church.
Pope Leo XIII, Satis Cognitum
(#15), June 29, 1896:
“No one, therefore,
unless in communion with Peter can share in his authority, since IT IS ABSURD
TO IMAGINE THAT HE WHO IS OUTSIDE CAN COMMAND IN THE CHURCH.”(5)
Pope Innocent III, Eius exemplo, profession of faith, Dec.
18, 1208:
“By the heart we
believe and by the mouth we confess THE
ONE CHURCH, NOT OF HERETICS,
but the Holy Roman, Catholic, and Apostolic Church outside of which we believe
that no one is saved.”(6)
By
obstinately asserting that Antipope John Paul II is the Pope (i.e., the head of
the Church of Christ), Thomas S. denies the dogma that heretics are outside the
Body of Christ and further he professes union with a Church of heretics. And ironically, at the end of his article,
Thomas S. even criticizes others for teaching the heresy that heretics and
schismatics are inside the Church!
Thomas S.: “All of the approved
theologians of the Church today hold to untold errors such as: religious
liberty; false ecumenism; a false ecclesiology which would include heretics
and schismatics in the Church; the heresy of salvation for those who die as
non-Catholics, and so on.”
Here, Thomas S. very
hypocritically condemns the heresy of “a
false ecclesiology which would include heretics and schismatics in the Church”
when his entire article is about how the heretic Antipope John Paul II is
in the Church! Thus, he is condemned out
of his own mouth.
Thomas S. on the Requirements for Public Heresy
Before
we address Thomas S.’s statements on the requirements for public heresy, we
must point out that none of this discussion is necessary to refute Thomas S.’s
argument that Antipope John Paul II is the Pope. We have already refuted this above from
Church dogma and Thomas S.’s own admission that John Paul II is a heretic. With that being reiterated, we will refute
Thomas S.’s false claims regarding public heresy and canon law. Much of Thomas S.’s article is a perversion
of the teaching of canon law on the requirements for public heresy.
Canon 2197.1, 1917 Code of Canon Law:
“A Crime is public: (1) if it is already commonly
known or the circumstances are such as to lead to the conclusion that it can
and will easily become so…”
This definition
of “public” is very clear. For heresy to
be “public” it must be commonly known or committed in circumstances that can
and will easily become so. Would any
honest person – who is aware of the relevant facts, as is Thomas S. – actually argue that Antipope John Paul II’s
multitudinous crimes of heresy don’t fit this definition for “public”? Antipope John Paul II has committed crimes of
heresy and apostasy on television in front of millions of people; in speeches
to thousands of people (for the last 25 years and running); in his encyclicals
addressed to all the members of his Church (i.e., about 1 billion); in his
official Vatican newspaper (which is printed weekly and is available in the
vernacular for much of the world’s population); in his internationally
best-selling Catechism available to hundreds of millions; in his books and
interviews; in his internationally covered trips to meet and pray with
non-Catholic religious leaders; in his
Church’s official and public agreements with non-Catholic churches (such as the
Vatican/Lutheran Agreement on Justification and his many common professions of
faith with the Eastern Schismatic bishops of all kinds) etc., etc., etc. Anyone who would comprehend these facts and
obstinately argue that Antipope John Paul II crimes do not fit the above
definition for public is simply not being honest.
So how
does Thomas S. attempt to justify his ridiculous assertion that Antipope John
Paul II’s crimes of heresy don’t fit the above definition for public? He does so by perverting the fallible
commentaries written by priests and canonists.
In other words, in trying to prove his point that Antipope John Paul
II’s heresy is not “public,” Thomas S. employs as his main argument the
fallible commentaries on the Code, not even anything written in the Code
itself. So even if Thomas S. were
applying the canonists’ commentary on the Code 100% correctly – which he isn’t
– it still wouldn’t prove his point, because canonists’ commentaries on the
Code of Canon Law bear no infallibility.
Thomas S.: "Classification as to
Publicity. A crime is: 1. Public, if it is already commonly known or the
circumstances are such as to lead to the conclusion that it can and will easily
become so; [...] "Commonly known" (divulgatum) means
known to the greater part of the inhabitants of a place or the members of a
community; but this is not to be taken mathematically, but in prudent moral
estimation. A crime may remain occult though known to a number of persons who
are likely to keep it quiet, whereas it may be public though known to only a
few who are sure to divulge it. (Bouscaren and Ellis, Canon Law: A Text and
Commentary (1951))
“So, a crime is “public” in canonical
terms if it is “commonly known”, that is, “known to the greater part
of the inhabitants of the place”, or is committed in circumstances in which
“it will easily become so”, such as if a few witnesses would easily
“divulge it” which we are told means that they would easily make it "commonly
known (divulgatum)”.
First of
all, notice how Thomas S. presents the fallible commentary of Bouscaren and
Ellis on this canon as if it ended all debate on the matter – as if it carried
the weight of an infallible pronouncement.
This is not honest. Secondly,
notice how his conclusion even misrepresents the actual teaching of the
quotation that he uses. In his comment
on this quotation, Thomas S. focused only on the underlined portion of the
quotation from Bouscaren and Ellis, that
commonly known crimes are known to the greater part of the inhabitants of a
community. He takes this phrase and
runs with it, emphasizing it again and again throughout his article, as if to
“prove” his point that Antipope John Paul II’s crimes are not public. But this phrase that Thomas S. uses again and
again was taken out of its context, for Bouscaren and Ellis go on to clearly
say that “this is not to be taken
mathematically, but in prudent moral estimation,” thus immediately
qualifying their statement that public crimes are “known to the greater part of
the inhabitants of a place.” And then,
near the end of the quotation, Bouscaren and Ellis refute Thomas S.’s entire
conclusion by admitting that “[a crime]
may be public though known to only a few who are sure to divulge it.”
Thomas
S. completely ignores these statements, and most importantly the final phrase –
that “[a crime] may be public though
known to only a few who are sure to divulge it” – which serves to refute
his own words. Antipope John Paul II’s
crimes are certainly known by more than “a few” who have divulged it! Therefore, even the fallible commentaries on
the Code of Canon Law – which are the only arrows in Thomas S.’s quiver – are
used against him.
The rest
of Thomas S.’s article is filled with similar misrepresentations of the fallible
Canon Law commentaries by priests and canonists. It is sufficient to note in conclusion that
Antipope John Paul II is a notorious and public heretic; and that this is an
undeniable fact. If Thomas S. wants to
assert that Antipope John Paul II is not a public heretic then he must admit
that Billy Graham is not a public heretic, nor Jack Van Impe, nor Pat
Robertson, nor any schismatic Bishop of the “Orthodox” Church, nor anyone in
the world.
Thomas S.’s Principal Heresy
Thomas S.’s principal heresy
is expressed in the following paragraph of his article:
Thomas. S: “Faith is not absolutely
necessary for the exercise of jurisdiction.
Just as an (sic) heretical minister can be used as a minister of absolution
by the Church, which requires jurisdiction on the part of the minister, such as
at the point of death, even so an (sic) heretical pope can be used as a
minister of papal jurisdiction. A
pope is the head of the Church only vicariously and exercises his office as an
instrument of Christ: Our Lord can continue to use him even if he should
excommunicate himself through heresy.” (My emphasis)
Thomas S. here expresses the
principal heresy of many non-sedevacantists: that a Pope can be a heretic (and
thus a non-Catholic who is outside the Church) but can still possess the jurisdiction of the Papacy. He argues that just like a non-Catholic
schismatic priest who is outside the Church has jurisdiction in danger of death
to hear confessions, so too can a heretic have the jurisdiction of the
Papacy. Fr. Gavin Bitzer expressed the
same heresy to me over the telephone, and many others hold it as well. The problem with this heresy is that a Pope
is not merely someone who possesses jurisdiction in the Catholic Church, but
the Pope is by divine law also the head of the Catholic Church. I repeat: the Pope is not merely someone who
possesses jurisdiction within the Church, but is by divine law the
head of the Body. This fact refutes
the above argument.
Pope Pius IX, Vatican Council I, On the Church of
Christ, Chap. 3, ex cathedra: “… the Apostolic See and the Roman Pontiff hold
the primacy over the whole world, and that the
Pontiff of Rome himself is the successor of the blessed Peter, the
chief of the apostles, and is the true vicar of Christ and HEAD OF THE WHOLE CHURCH and faith, and teacher of all Christians…”(7)
Thus, Thomas S.’s (and many
others) attempted analogy between a heretical priest having jurisdiction and a
heretical Pope having jurisdiction fails miserably, because the Pope not only
holds the primacy of jurisdiction, but is head
of the Church by divine law. And in
order to be the head he must be a member.
Thus, by asserting that Antipope John Paul II is the Pope, Thomas S. is forced
to admit that either 1) the heretic Antipope John Paul II is a member of the
Church because he is the head (thereby denying dogma that heretics aren’t
members); or 2) John Paul II is a Pope but is not the head of the Church,
thereby denying the above dogma that a Pope is the head.
Another perhaps less
significant but interesting point is that we can also see in Vatican I (above)
that the Pope is also the head of the
“faith,” in addition to being “the teacher of all Christians.” How can a non-Christian such as Antipope John
Paul II be the head of the “faith”? How can he – a non-Christian – be “the
teacher of all Christians”? The answer
is self-evident: it is impossible. It
denies the dogma that the Church is one in faith.
St. Francis De
Sales, Doctor of the Church: “The Church
is a holy university or general company of men united and collected together in
the profession of one same Christian faith…”(8)
To say
that one who does not have the faith (such as Antipope John Paul II) can be in
the Church, as does Thomas S., is simply to deny the very definition of what
the Church is: one, holy,
Catholic and Apostolic. And what is
ironic is that Thomas S.’s website contains many quotations from Saints and
Doctors proving that the all those in the Catholic Church must have the same
faith, a position which his article is written to deny.
Pope Pius XII, Mystici Corporis
Christi (# 22):
“As therefore in the true
Christian community there is only one Body, one Spirit, one Lord, and one
Baptism, so there can be only one faith. And therefore if a man refuse to hear the
Church let him be considered – so the Lord commands – as a heathen and a
publican. It follows that those who are divided in faith or
government cannot be living in the unity of such a Body, nor can they
be living the life of its one Divine Spirit.”(9)
Pope Gregory XVI,
on the Church and Papacy, May 17, 1835:
“… Christ
established this ecclesiastical power for the benefit of unity. And what
is this unity unless one person is placed in charge of the whole Church who
protects it and joins all its members in the one profession of faith…”(10)
Some other Errors and Omissions
·
Curiously, while Thomas S. does cite a number of
the quotations from canonists on the loss of Papal Office through heresy, he
doesn’t quote St. Robert Bellarmine, St. Antoninus or St. Francis De Sales on
this point.
St. Antoninus: “In the case in which the pope
would become a heretic, he would find himself, by that fact alone and without
any other sentence, separated from the Church. A head separated from a body cannot, as long
as it remains separated, be head of the same body from which it was cut
off. A pope who would be separated
from the Church by heresy, therefore, would by that very fact itself cease to
be head of the Church. He could not
be a heretic and remain pope, because, since he is outside of the Church, he
cannot possess the keys of the Church.”(11)
St. Francis De Sales, Bishop and Doctor of the
Church: “Now when he (the Pope) is explicitly a heretic, he falls ipso facto from his dignity and out of
the Church…”(12)
Why didn’t Thomas S. address
any of these quotations in his article?
I believe that the answer is clear: he didn’t address them because none
of the above quotations say that a Pope must be a “public” heretic to lose his
office. Thus, Thomas S. couldn’t use his
diversionary tactic of a long (and quite inaccurate) discussion on public
heresy to confuse his readers, because the above quotes do not use the term
“public.” So he conveniently decided to
ignore these quotes.
·
Thomas S. spreads the error that Antipope Paul VI
never bound anyone to Vatican II, a falsehood that is promoted again and again
by various writers in an effort to “save” the Vatican II Antipopes.
Thomas S.: “Moreover it should be
noted that “Vatican II” (1964) was not an infallible dogmatic council. Both Pope John XXIII at its beginning, and
Pope Paul VI at its end, stated that the council was not dogmatic but pastoral and
that it defined nothing infallibly.
The council was given only the authority of the non-infallible authentic
magisterium. Hence that the council
contained heresy is no argument against that there were popes during the period
who promulgated it as a pastoral council.”
The above statement is
completely false. Our newsletter “Was
Vatican II Infallible” soundly refutes this myth and shows that if Antipope
Paul VI was a true Pope then Vatican II was infallible. But since it is impossible that Vatican II
was infallible (since it is filled with heresy), Antipope Paul VI could not
have been a true Pope. For the reader’s
sake, we will quote again the 