Two more Italian priests sanctioned for claiming Francis is ‘anti-pope’

[Michie]

ROME – Two clerics in Italy, one formerly a diocesan priest and the other a member of a religious order, have been sanctioned recently for the crime of schism, as both have publicly argued that Pope Francis was never validly elected and thus constitutes an “anti-pope.”

The Archdiocese of Sassari on the Italian island of Sardinia announced on Nov. 13 that Fernando Maria Cornet, a native Argentinian who was ordained to the priesthood in 1992 and who served in Sassari since 2011, has been dismissed from the clerical state by order of Pope Francis.

Meanwhile, reports also suggest that Father Giorgio Maria Faré has been dismissed from the Discalced Carmelites after a deadline imposed by the order’s leadership for renouncing his positions passed, and he too may soon be facing a laicization procedure.

Continued below.

Two more Italian priests sanctioned for claiming Francis is ‘anti-pope’

In essence, both suggested that due to irregularities in the 2013 resignation announcement of Pope Benedict XVI, Francis was never validly elected pope, and that various doctrinal errors and deviations during his papacy have confirmed the point.

cruxnow.com

 

[Chrystal-J]

I would say he's an 'anti-pope' for different reasons. There's no free speech at the Vatican. Guess I'll get excommunicated.

 

[fide]

ROME – Two clerics in Italy, one formerly a diocesan priest and the other a member of a religious order, have been sanctioned recently for the crime of schism, as both have publicly argued that Pope Francis was never validly elected and thus constitutes an “anti-pope.”

The Archdiocese of Sassari on the Italian island of Sardinia announced on Nov. 13 that Fernando Maria Cornet, a native Argentinian who was ordained to the priesthood in 1992 and who served in Sassari since 2011, has been dismissed from the clerical state by order of Pope Francis.

Meanwhile, reports also suggest that Father Giorgio Maria Faré has been dismissed from the Discalced Carmelites after a deadline imposed by the order’s leadership for renouncing his positions passed, and he too may soon be facing a laicization procedure.

Continued below.

Two more Italian priests sanctioned for claiming Francis is ‘anti-pope’

In essence, both suggested that due to irregularities in the 2013 resignation announcement of Pope Benedict XVI, Francis was never validly elected pope, and that various doctrinal errors and deviations during his papacy have confirmed the point.

cruxnow.com

I never thought I'd live to see a "pope" like this. All the many former Catholics I have known can (unrightly, and tragically) feel justified in their rejection of our Church because of the trail of nonChristian examples this "pope" has left in his wake. Yes, true to his own call to Catholics to "make a mess," when he was somehow placed on the Chair of Peter, he has made and continues to make a mess in the name of Christ Jesus! And that is the horror of it all.

 

[RileyG]

Lord have mercy!

 

[mourningdove~]

The actions of the current pope make it difficult for more traditional-minded lapsed Catholics to return to the Church. I suppose lapsed modernist Catholics may like his style. I wonder if there are any statistics available, showing how many lapsed Catholics have 'returned home' during his pontiff? (Has the Church grown or shrunk ... or stayed the same ... since 2013?)

 

[RileyG]

I would say he's an 'anti-pope' for different reasons. There's no free speech at the Vatican. Guess I'll get excommunicated.

Officially, he cannot be called an "anti-pope" regardless if his views were/are liberal or unorthodox. He was duly elected by the college of cardinals.

There were many, many bad Popes who were valid Popes.

 

[JSRG]

If one is [as I do] to assume that the Pontificates of Paul VI to present are ipso facto declared and already juridically deposed, but this real fact has not yet been juridically established and recognized in the universal Church, one may understand that the loss of Pontifical office is based primarily on the act, not the declaration. According to Pope Paul IV' Cum Ex Apostolatus Officio: "...or even a Roman Pontiff prior to his promotion or elevation as Cardinal or Roman Pontiff, has deviated from the Catholic Faith or fallen into some heresy, then his promotion or elevation, even if it be uncontested and carried out by the unanimous assent of all the Cardinals, shall be null, invalid, and void; [...]."

Cum Ex Apostolatus Officio was derogated in the 1917 Code of Canon Law. Even prior to that, it was considered only to apply to those who had actually been formally judged to be heretics and was rarely if ever enforced. One can see easy evidence of this in the case of John Henry Newman and Henry Manning, famous 19th century Anglican converts to Catholicism who despite undeniably having deviated from the Catholic faith (being Anglicans and all that), were raised to the rank of bishop and cardinal; one cannot argue that they are off the hook due to rejecting their former errors, because Cum Ex Apostolatus Officio does not offer it as an exception. This goes into more detail on it:

Cum ex Apostolatus Officio History and Status

A site about a new book responding to the arguments of sedevacantists as well as a course on ecclesiology.

www.trueorfalsepope.com

Or to offer the summary from it (slightly edited by me):

1. The bull does not concern the loss of office due to post election heresy, but rather to the invalidity of an election due to pre-election heresy.

2. For the bull to have any legal or practical effect, the office holder would have to admit to pre-election heresy, or the pre-election heresy would have to be legally established by the Church.

3. The bull itself was disciplinary; its teachings were never enforced; and it was derogated (rendered obsolete) by the 1917 Code.

4. The penal sanctions contained in the bull were considered so unjust and problematic that those who rejected papal infallibility at the time of the First Vatican Council, brought the bull out from obscurity and used to “prove” that the pope is not infallible and hence that the Church erred in defining it as a dogma.

5. In response to the above objection, the proponents of Papal Infallibility did not attempt to defend the bull itself, but instead proved that it did not meet the conditions for Papal Infallibility set forth by Vatican I. Consequently, the problematic aspects do not touch on the question of papal infallibility.

So Cum Ex Apostolatus Officio appears to have no authority today.

 

[JSRG]

On: "considered only to apply to those who had actually been formally judged to be heretics," please notice that Paul IV not only teaches that the heretical cleric loses his office without declaration; but he also teaches that Catholics “shall be permitted at any time to withdraw with impunity from obedience and devotion to those thus promoted or elevated and to avoid them as warlocks, heathens, publicans, and heresiarchs.”

Addressed at the link I offered.

Second, the judgment and determination that the one elected to the papacy fell into heresy prior to his election, is not based upon the private judgment of individual Catholics, who personally believe a sin of heresy was committed before the election. The judgment would have to be rendered by the proper authorities before the election would be rendered null. As St. Thomas teaches, a public judgment must come from the public authority. Cum Ex Apostolatus was a disciplinary decree that attached a retroactive penalty to one who was authoritatively judged by the Church (not by private individuals) to have deviated from the faith prior to their promotion or election.

This was confirmed by two canonists who lived at the time the Bull was issued. The canonist, Maurcus Antobius Borghesius, said “the Bull [Cum Ex Apostolatus] includes only those who were caught, convicted or confessed to have fallen into heresy.” The canonist, Antonio Massa, teaches the same: “The Bull of Pope Paul does not prescribe it in the manner of one having been discharged, unless he being taken up in a crime either confessed of his own will or was convicted by others” (nec bulla Pauli pontificis modo defuncti id disponit, nisi ille in crimine deprehensus vel sponte confessus vel ab aliis convictus.) For the bull to have any legal or practical effect, the pope would have to admit to being guilty of pre-election heresy, or he would have to be found guilty by the Church.

You also mentioned the 1917 Code of Canon Law, which for canon 188.4 of the 1917 Code of Canon Law on loss of office without declaration, it gives a footnote (in the original Latin version) to Pope Paul IV’s bull, it was thus not derogated at all:

The important matter here is "without any declaration." All of this applies to the time period before any declaration. Moreover, St. Robert Bellarmine, De Romano Pontifice, II, 30, speaking of a claimant to the Papal Office: "For, in the first place, it is proven with arguments from authority and from reason that the manifest heretic is 'ipso facto' deposed. The argument from authority is based on St. Paul (Titus 3:10), who orders that the heretic be avoided after two warnings, that is, after showing himself to be manifestly obstinate - which means before any excommunication or judicial sentence. And this is what St. Jerome writes, adding that the other sinners are excluded from the Church by sentence of excommunication, but the heretics exile themselves and separate themselves by their own act from the body of Christ."

I again note BEFORE ANY DECLARATORY SENTENCE, which seems to be contra "had actually been formally judged to be heretics." Morevoer while yes it "was rarely if ever enforced," its use was not given for a long while, because most Papal controversies prior to this period in time, as most issues came down to cases of simony or cases lifted by ecclesia supplet, which supplies the necessary grace and authority to recognize the papacy as valid once someone has been elected and accepted as pope, ensuring continuity in the office despite the irregularities surrounding their election or personal actions that have no basis on the matter of the Pontifical Office.

This was also addressed in the link:

Faced with the proof that Cum Ex Apostolatus was abrogated when the 1917 Code came into force, some Sedevacantists will argue that its penal legislation was not mere based on ecclesiastical law, but on Divine law, and therefore remains in force. They will then point to the fact that Cum Ex Apostolatus is referenced as a footnote to canon 188, §4 (1917 Code), and claim that this proves its automatic penalties are still in effect. This argument is erroneous for the following reasons.

First, there is no Divine Law (nor has there even been an ecclesiastical law) teaching that a prelate who falls into the sin of heresy, and is judged by private judgment to be a heretic, automatically loses his office. As we saw above, the impediment would have to be legally proven before it would have any juridical effect. Without being legally established, the titulus coloratus would suffice for the acts of the office holder to remain valid.

Second, as we saw in Chapter Eight, canon 188, §4 applies to clerics validly elected to office, who publicly defect from the Faith by joining a non-Catholic sect (or publicly apostatizing) after being elected, whereas the penalties contained in Cum Ex Apostolatus pertain to pre-election heresy. Cum Ex did not teach that a validly elected cleric who later “deviates from the faith” automatically loses office. So the penalties contained in Cum Ex Apostolatus and canon 188, §4 are clearly not the same.

Third, footnotes are not part of the Church’s law (they have no authority in themselves), and are often cited (by editors) to show legislative history related to certain canons. As applied here, the footnote to Cum Ex Apostolatus is nothing more than a reference to prior legislation which prevented certain clerics from holding office in the Church. The purpose is to simply provide some legislative precedent for the current legislation, not to affirm a mythical “Divine law” that prevents heretics from holding office based upon individual private judgment.
Fourth, it is certainly not a matter of Divine law that the election of a person who had previously deviated from the faith is null and void. The great Cardinal Manning, for example, not only deviated from the faith he received at baptism, but he went so far as to become a pseudo-bishop of the Anglican sect. Yet, in spite of this, he was later received into the Catholic Church and raised to the office of bishop and then Cardinal. The same is true with Cardinal Newman. This elevation to one of the highest offices in the Church occurred in spite of irrefutable proof that they had both deviated from the faith prior to their elevation. Now, if someone claims that Cum ex Apostolatus' teaching concerning pre-election heresy does not apply in the case of one who later renounces his errors, he will have to point to the section of the bull that refers to this exception. Yet this section will not be found, because it does not exist.

On "John Henry Newman and Henry Manning," renunciation of previous extra-magisterial beliefs is a valid penance, outlined in Canon 2248:

Newman renounced his Anglican faith multiple times, and spoke on It directly in Apologia Pro Vita Sua (1864) and Edmund Purcell's Life of Cardinal Manning, Archbishop of Westminster (1896). In saying "one cannot argue that they are off the hook due to rejecting their former errors," you are equating the College of Cardinals to the Pontifical Office, which is not the case. For example, Liber Gomorrhianus states that Pope Benedict IX, repented later in life, seeking forgiveness and re-entry into communion with the Church, but was not returned to his office. St. Bartholomew of Grottaferrata seconded this, saying he was penitent and turned away from the sins he committed as Pontiff. Thus, though a Pontiff may lose his office due to a dilect of heresy, a Cardinal is not given the same treatment. In fact, the Latin for cum ex apostolatus officio is 'by virtue of the Apostolic Office,' and thus was speaking on the Papal Office specifically.

But Cum Ex Apostolatus Officio is not speaking on the Papal Office specifically. You previously quoted "...or even a Roman Pontiff prior to his promotion or elevation as Cardinal or Roman Pontiff, has deviated from the Catholic Faith or fallen into some heresy, then his promotion or elevation, even if it be uncontested and carried out by the unanimous assent of all the Cardinals, shall be null, invalid, and void; [...]." But the quote you offered leaves out some important material immediately prior. Here it is in a little more context:

"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 a Roman Pontiff prior to his promotion or elevation as Cardinal or Roman Pontiff, has deviated from the Catholic Faith or fallen into some heresy, then his promotion or elevation, even if it be uncontested and carried out by the unanimous assent of all the Cardinals, shall be null, invalid, and void."

This isn't talking specifically about the pope. It only mentions the Roman Pontiff to emphasize that it applies to any bishop and any cardinal and any legate (heck, even the quote you offered included the mention of cardinals). So yes, this applies to Newman and Manning. It is not "the Papal Office specifically."

 

[Markie Boy]

The actions of the current pope make it difficult for more traditional-minded lapsed Catholics to return to the Church. I suppose lapsed modernist Catholics may like his style. I wonder if there are any statistics available, showing how many lapsed Catholics have 'returned home' during his pontiff? (Has the Church grown or shrunk ... or stayed the same ... since 2013?)

This and another post above about non-Catholics that left the Church have something in common.

Conservative protestants look at Francis and want nothing to do with his stuff.

Conservative Catholics want nothing to do with his stuff.

Maybe God will use him somehow to bring us back together?

 

[mourningdove~]

This and another post above about non-Catholics that left the Church have something in common.

Conservative protestants look at Francis and want nothing to do with his stuff.

Conservative Catholics want nothing to do with his stuff.

Maybe God will use him somehow to bring us back together?

I don't see that happening, but the thought of true unity in Christ is always an appealing one to me.
I expect we will see it in heaven ...

 

[Markie Boy]

I don't see it either honestly - but it's nice to see Christians unite - there is something special when it happens.

Last year our local library starting to bring in books that had bad sexual content and gender confusion for kids! The library board meeting was packed. And we saw Catholics, Lutherans, Baptists, and Charismatics all united to fight against what they all agreed was evil. It was good to see!

Honestly though - unity is probably wishful thinking this side of Heaven.