Historicism Debunked, Pt. 5 - Origins of Futurism

It is fictitiously claimed by historicist conspiracy theorists that the origins of the doctrine of futurism were concocted by the Jesuit ministers of the Roman Catholic Church as a clever way to distract people from knowing "who the real Antichrist is". One such character who does this is a character we've seen in this series before. His site can be found here. It is quite clear from reading his sources on both preterism and futurism, the former we will tackle in the next article of this series, that he straw-mans both positions! Futurism does not insist on the "resurrection" of a Roman Empire. Futurism rather holds the postulation, historically Rome has not been divided up into ten kings and the Roman Empire may not have actually fallen to begin with as even Spain can claim legitimacy to the Roman Imperial Throne due to its connections with the Habsburgs. We established this position in the previous entry.

He contends that the Futurist school was created out of "panic" as the Pope was being exposed as the Antichrist as Martin Luther and the Reformers began "exposing" the Pope as the true Antichrist that Scriptures identified. Let alone, they can't even tell you which Pope was the Antichrist! But that's beside the point, the historicist school says the Papacy as an office is the Antichrist conflating its ecclesiastical role with the role of the Church played by those operating mostly independent of the Papacy and confusing its role as a secular role as opposed to a religious role. Thus, the historicist argument continues to be void of actual historical substance to back it up. I always found it rather odd that the Papacy even lacks a military. One could say the Swiss Guard is their military but that's more of a body-guard unit of Swiss soldiers. In fact, among the requirements to being in the Swiss guard is that you have to be Swiss. That's not a Papal militia but a secular militia supplied by an independent sovereign. Historicism can never make up its mind as to whether the Papacy is the Beast or the Whore of Babylon. Some say the entire Catholic Church led by the Papacy is the Whore of Babylon. Maybe the reason why historicism is such a bungled mess of interpretation has less to do with the book of Revelation being difficult but rather because the historicist school belongs in the trash-bin of history.

So the Pope, now freaking out (allegedly) because he was identified as the Biblical Antichrist got this guy named Francisco Ribera. The rest of the article's polemics is actually a bit humorous so let me quote it:

"Like Martin Luther, Francisco Ribera also read by candlelight the prophecies about the Antichrist, the Beast, the little horn and that man of sin. But because the Pope was his boss, he came to conclusions vastly different from that of the Protestants. “Why, these prophecies don’t apply to the Catholic Church at all!” Ribera said. Then to whom do they apply? Ribera proclaimed, “To only one sinister man who will rise up at the end of time!” “Fantastic!” was the reply from Rome, and this viewpoint was quickly adopted as the official Roman Catholic position on the Antichrist."

Thus, Ribera is now the "father of Futurism". Only this is wrong. Very wrong. Futurism actually had a very strong history in the Roman Catholic Church prior to the Protestant Reformation. It goes back to St. Irenaeus of Lyons. St. Irenaeus was the disciple of St. Ignatius who was a disciple of St. John, the one who wrote the Apocalypse. This is why the futurist school has maintained weight even with a position that the Olivet Discourse was entirely fulfilled (though most Furturists contend the Olivet Discourse was not entirely fulfilled). We'll go back to different preterist schools in another post though. For now, we will look at the classical futurist position developed by St. Irenaeus.

In Against Heresies, St. Irenaeus interprets the four beasts in Daniel 7 as Babylon, Medo-Persia, Macedonia, and Rome (Bk. V, ch. 26). St. Irenaeus describes the fall of the Roman Empire particularly as "The ten toes, therefore, are these ten kings, among whom the kingdom shall be partitioned, of whom some indeed shall be strong and active, or energetic; others, again, shall be sluggish and useless, and shall not agree" (ibid). On the number 666, St. Irenaeus has this to say:

"the name Evanthas (ΕΥΑΝΘΑΣ) contains the required number, but I make no allegation regarding it. Then also Lateinos (ΛΑΤΕΙΝΟΣ) has the number six hundred and sixty-six; and it is a very probable [solution], this being the name of the last kingdom [of the four seen by Daniel]. For the Latins are they who at present bear rule: I will not, however, make any boast over this [coincidence]. Teitan too, (ΤΕΙΤΑΝ, the first syllable being written with the two Greek vowels ε and ι, among all the names which are found among us, is rather worthy of credit. For it has in itself the predicted number, and is composed of six letters, each syllable containing three letters; and [the word itself] is ancient, and removed from ordinary use; for among our kings we find none bearing this name Titan, nor have any of the idols which are worshipped in public among the Greeks and barbarians this appellation. Among many persons, too, this name is accounted divine, so that even the sun is termed Titan by those who do now possess [the rule]."

Clearly, St. Irenaeus holds the interpretation of Daniel 7 as being a literal division of ten kings and one man coming to uproot three of the kingdoms possessed by those ten kings. But he holds Antichrist as a literal man, not an "office" of the Papacy. The Papacy was of course alive and active in the days of St. Irenaeus and St. Irenaeus even has a list of the prominent Popes in order to prove Apostolic Succession! (Bk. 3, ch. III) So the Papacy did not arise from obscurity as this little horn did.

St. Hippolytus follows St. Irenaeus and writes this of the ten horns:

"As these things, then, are in the future, and as the ten toes of the image are equivalent to (so many) democracies, and the ten horns of the fourth beast are distributed over ten kingdoms, let us look at the subject a little more closely, and consider these matters as in the clear light of a personal survey." (On Christ and Antichrist)

And of course, this is futurist thinking. The Barbarian kingdoms, though uncivilized, were monarchies, not democracies. Thus, the division into ten horns could not be the division of the Western Half in 476! Further, Sts. Hippolytus and Irenaeus are indeed thinking holistically of the Roman Empire. It is difficult to tell whether they would have thought the Holy Roman Empire the legitimate succession but they would have definitely acknowledged the legitimacy of Constantine's successors! Of course, if historicism is merely the position that Biblical prophecy unfolds throughout history, then technically all of the early church's positions on the subject are historicist. Because they felt the collapse of Rome was to come and that it would be divided into ten kingdoms. This was a prophecy in the making.

The Ven. Bede also maintains a futurist approach in his Explanation of the Apocalypse and we can see a clear depiction of the reign of Antichrist as futuristic in St. Hildegard of Bingen's Scivias (Bk. 3, Vision 11). All of these came long before St. Robert Cardinal Bellarmine and Francisco Ribera so to say that the origins of futurism lie with the Jesuits is an intellectually dishonest and deceitful abuse and misunderstanding of historical theology on this subject.

Blessed Margaret of Lorraine, Duchess of Alençon

Blessed Margaret of Lorraine married René, Duke of Alençon at the age of 25 in the year 1488. She would bear the Duke three children in their four years of marriage as he reposed in the year 1492. Left a widow, she would take charge of much of the duchy of Alençon as well as the charge she already held of her children. She also arranged the marriage of her younger daughter Anne to William IX Paleologos, the Marquis of Montferrat. While her son was still a minor, "she ruled the duchy so capably that when her children came of age, their inheritance had increased over and above what had been left at the time of their father's death." (Joan Carroll Cruz, The Incorruptibles, 135)

It was during the early part of her widowhood that she had come under the instruction of St. Francis of Paola and developed an interest in living an ascetical life. When she was relieved of the duties to her children, she did end up pursuing the monastic life. She first joined the Franciscan Third Order and established a convent in Argentan for Poor Clare nuns. She would eventually take on the habit in 1519 and, though she would be offered it, refused the honor of being the abbess. In this, she humiliated herself greatly as she held the state honor of a Duchess but then would become a Sister. For the first shall be last and the last shall be first. This became her life.

When her body was exhumed in 1792, a "skeletal body was wrapped in thin cloth and transferred to the Church of St. Germain in Argentan" and the  casket held "a small reliquary that contained the heart of the saint" (ibid). But among the crimes of the traitors in 1793 included the desecration of the body of the saint as it was thrown into a common graveyard. Currently, only a few bones and the heart survive of the relics of this saint. As the Church has never been without its unsavory politicians, it wasn't until 1921 that this pious woman was finally beatified by Pope Benedict XV. Her daughter Anne would follow up her own political career by entering into a convent of Dominican Sisters of Catherine of Siena.

The Pious Queen Etheldreda

St. Etheldreda is a model for royalty. It is typical among the holy monarchs, not to seek the earthly glory and power they are given but to conscientiously ascend forward as they become ever mindful of their trust and dependence on God. In a democracy, the political elite are duped into believing their power comes from the people and they seek nothing or little to do with God. Whereas the holy monarchs set us an example for how rulers are to govern according to humility. For this pious queen, lording over people was never something she sought. Rather, she desired to give up her possessions and pursue a much a higher status than the queenly status she held in the secular world. She was born to King Anna and Queen Hereswide of England.

She desired to remain a virgin but her parents married her for political reasons to the Prince Tonchbert, "the ruler of a territory bordering her father's" (Joan Carroll Cruz, The Incorruptibles, 8). But he respected her vow to remain a virgin. After three years, she was widowed. She was then married yet again at age 30 to King Egfrid, who was estimated to be around 16 (9). Despite the advice of her confessor and the desires of her husband, she persisted in remaining a virgin.

"She had long requested the king, that he would permit her to lay aside worldly cares, and to serve only the true King, Christ, in a monastery; and having at length with difficulty prevailed, she went as a nun into the monastery of the Abbess Ebba, who was aunt to King Egfrid, at the place called the city Coludi, having taken the veil from the hands of the aforesaid Bishop Wilfrid; but a year after she was herself made abbess in the country called Ely, where, having built a monastery, she began, by works and examples of a heavenly life, to be the virgin mother of very many virgins dedicated to God." (Ven. Bede, History of the English People, ch. XIX)

It is to be further mentioned that upon prophesying her repose from the plague and having been buried for 16 years, her sister, Sexburga, according to the chronicle of the Ven. Bede, states that her body was found "free from corruption as if she had died and been buried on that very day". This virgin who remarkably was married twice, retained her virginity in accordance to her wishes, and was found remaining incorrupt even after death!

It is in this act that we finally see the Holy Virgin reach the heights of her earthly glory which would eventually lead to her Heavenly glory. The power of the secular state today says that the only thing that matters is the material world. The sacral monarchy shows the monarch as never fully complete in the lofty life of the secular governance until they excel to the pious and religious life. How many other monarchs have we seen do this? Certainly St. Elizabeth of Hungary and the Empress Eudocia of Russia, wife of Prince Dmitry Donskoy, who wrapped her body in chains after his death. Certainly, one could make the statement that these were just queens who saw their kings repose, but they did not cling to their king's stately honor, for they knew the monarchy was to be respected by its obedience to the Church. It is in their actions of humility, pursuing not earthly power but heavenly glory, that the argument for divine right monarchy is sustained. A divine right monarchy upholds humility while a democratic mob breeds arrogance and buffonery.

Letter to a spiritually struggling friend

Dear Friend of Mine,

Do not fret the spiritual struggles you face. You will face plenty. It is important to understand the causes of these. Part of the reasons why we struggle is because we are facing demonic temptation that we fall into. For according to the Blessed Synkletike, "just as those who want to kindle a fire choke from the smoke and the tears at the start, but later on accomplish what they are seeking, so it happens with us in precisely the same way, if we really want to ignite the Divine fire in our hearts" (Evergetinos, Hypothesis XXVIII). There was an Elder who was by someone "why am I continually negligent?" and the Elder answered, "Because you have not yet seen the sun." If we force ourselves to get closer to God, we are "like a Confessor (of the Faith") (ibid). I encourage you, friend, to keep forcing yourself to keep in this spiritual struggle. The flesh will fade away someday.

A monk once found himself in a state of negligence. He quickly reproved himself and ceased not to be negligent recalling every day could ultimately be his judgment day. He was then greatly attacked by demons one time while doing his service and when he challenged the demons as to why they attack him, they responded, "When you were in a state of negligence...we had no interest in you; but as soon as you rose up against us, we rose up against you" (XXIX). We see how frightened the demons are of us when we remain steadfast. Perhaps your minor slip is troubling you, confess this sin and conceal nothing from your confessor! No blasphemous thought, no temptation, and no sin should ever cause you shame when face to face with Our Lord in the great sacrament of reconciliation! He instituted this blessed sacrament as a weapon for our spiritual combat. Turn to Him for He already knows your fallings and your shortcomings and yet He refuses to condemn you.

Finally, remember, in the spiritual life, there are moments of calm and there are moments of storm. Do not fear the storm. Strive to remain in the stormy moments the most for it is these moments in which we are brought closer to God. Is not iron strengthened through the fire which burns it? During moments of calm is when we are most easily deceived. We step out for a moment thinking that all is safe only to realize it was but the eye of a passing hurricane. Rather than being at the end, we are in the very center and now we have found ourselves defenseless against the passions. The demons will fear your soul the most if they see it constantly forcing itself to get closer to God. Do not fear when this happens but continue to wrestle toward this goal remembering the great joys of Heaven you will be rewarded for your perseverance. Get back up again for every single time you fall that you may be found getting back up or upright when He comes for you. And remember that God loves you!

Christians in Hell

There is a story related in the Gerontikon and also in the Evergetinos of Abba Makarios the Egyptian traveling through the desert and coming across a skull. The skull speaks out to him and identifies itself as having once belonged to one of the high priests of the Pagan religion. It describes its torments in Hell but when the Christians pray, there is a temporary moment in which the tormented in Hell are allowed for a moment to look at each other. Abba Makarios, curious for more about the fate of the damned, inquires the skull as to whether there are even greater sufferings than what the skull speaks of. The skull announces that there are indeed, below the Pagans, the souls of Christians who disobeyed the commandments of God and their sufferings are even worse for they knew what they ought to have done.

Yes, there will be Christians in Hell. I remember seeing this obvious truth in high school and going up to my non-denominational pastor who would quiz me on whether or not I believed that Jesus was the Son of God, risen from the dead, and that I was a sinner who he died for. I'd answer in the affirmative. He would tell me then that I was not going to Hell. But there was always those texts in the Scriptures that continued to disturb me. The thought of entering before Heaven, being one who would be denied for not all who say "Lord, Lord" will enter into the Kingdom of Heaven. Then there was the thought of the judgment in the Book of Revelation, every man being judged according to his works. Those who's names are not written in the Book of Life will be sent to the Lake of Fire for eternity. That faith without works is dead. But these were such Catholic doctrines, they couldn't have been real!

The problem with this strict definition of sola fide is that it ends up ultimately doing nothing more than turning faith into a work. For one must constantly, intellectually profess the same thing over and over again and the moment that one stops, faith departs. But faith is more than just intellectual profession. Faith comes in all shapes and sizes. It can be as tiny as a mustard seed but still move the largest of mountains. It can even be tinier than a mustard seed as emphasized by all who cannot move mountains. Faith is an action. Faith is not an intellectual profession. Faith is making it to church every Sunday morning. Faith is attending the Divine Liturgy attentively and with attunement of the soul to the Will of God. Faith is being entirely consumed by the Divine Will that there is nothing of your own human will left. The Catholic doctrine is not against sola fide but against the doctrine that faith is an intellectual profession. The Catholic doctrine is sola fide formata. Formed faith alone is the doctrine. This faith is formed through the acts of charity and repentance required of a Christian. Those Christians who practice wickedness will not make it to Heaven just because they intellectually professed to faith. Rather, they will be sentenced to Hell for a grueling eternity. And many Christians nowadays who proceed to persecute their fellow brethren for following the ancient tradition of the Church over the modernist infiltrations will be sentenced to far greater tortures than the Pagans who did the same.

I had a dream the other day. My confessor was in it. My godmother was in it. No one else was. We were talking together when my godmother told me to follow my confessor into the nave. I did. Only there was no narthex. Leading into the nave was a hall suspended in the air. The hall was sloped downward but it was so high above the ground, you could see the clouds below. I saw my confessor walk through this hall and leap into the nave. I walked through this hall and began slipping. Not certain as to whether to jump, I hesitated. I saw my confessor reaching toward me but I was too far. I began falling.

This is what the betrayal of the faith looks like. It is this eternal slipping and falling down through the clouds all the way to the ground. It is important that we always pay heed to the fact that we will all die some day. Man doesn't want to deal with this any more. He wants to create medical experiments that prolong his own life and make him immortal. You cannot do this though. You can never become immortal. You may try all you want but God will have the last say in things and His rules are final. It is important that we make the jump and reach for the hands of wise men. It is important we obey the advice of those who have been entrusted with spiritual care over us. They may not always be right, but unless they are telling you something that you know to be a violation of divine law, you ought to follow them. I am well aware that Crazy Church Lady would never tell me to do anything that would be a violation of divine law. And my priest will always be there to help me move up the ladder of divine ascent.

But there is always the possibility of Hell. The moment you turn away from God is the moment that you could then speedily repose and find yourself there for the rest of your eternity. A Christian who does this, paying no heed to the commandments, will suffer even worse pain than the skull which was encountered by St. Makarios as he walked through the desert of Egypt. The experience of Hell will be unbearable. They will be shocked to find themselves in Hell and they will be horrified by the fact that they were serving the legions of the Devil while dressed up as a Christian the entire time. The road to Heaven is narrow and few will make it, but the path to destruction is broad and many will be lost.

Historicism Debunked, Pt. 4 - The Fall of Rome

One of the many claims made by historicists, and their entire theology rests on this, is that Rome fell in 476 A.D. This is the foundation claim of historicists because they insist that the ten horns on the beast are the barbarian tribes that sacked the Western half of the Roman Empire. David Nikao Wilcoxson maintains this view. But if the view is historically untenable, then of course, it collapses in toto. Indeed, the view is actually highly historically untenable. There is a German thesis that has also been developed on the subject of the history of imperial claims to the title of Roman Emperor called the zweikaiserproblem or "problem of two emperors". It reflects on the fact there often was not a single Roman Emperor in charge of the entire territories of the Roman Empire at a given time.

It was during the reign of the Emperor Diocletian that the Roman Empire was first divided into a tetrarchy of two Augusti or ruling Emperors and two Ceasares or designated successors. "The system, often called the Dominate, soon fell apart and Constantine restored the monarchy by defeating all his rivals (313 AD). Later, however, the Empire was permanently split between the two sons of Theodosius, in 395 AD. The Eastern half, with its capital in Constantinople, is also known as the Byzantine Empire." (Francois Velde, "The Title of Emperor") Those Eastern Emperors reigned in an unbroken line of succession through until the sack of Constantinople in 1453 A.D.! The problem is that a modernist historians typically try to negate the impact of Christianity on the Empire and proclaim that Rome was inherently Pagan. Thus, when the Western half was sacked in 476 A.D., the entire Empire fell. But how could that be if the Empire's capital wasn't even in Rome at the time?

Another further point to make is the succession through the West of the Emperor Charlemagne. Some may not recognize his legitimacy to the claim of Roman Empire, but the West did. And they may have had a solid basis for it too. The West eventually claimed a thesis of translatio imperii on the grounds that it too was permitted to have a Western Emperor and that the Empress Theodora arose through questionable means.

"While in practice there had been no emperor in the West since 480, this does not mean the position was vacant. In Roman political thought the empire was universal and indivisible. When in the fourth and fifth centuries there had been separate emperors in East and West, they were seen as colleagues ruling a single empire. This view of the indivisible nature of the empire survived in eight-century Constantinople, whose citizens still saw themselves as Romans. It was also shared by the Western kings who continued to recognize the superior status of the emperors in Constantinople. So, Charles could not be proclaimed Emperor without Eastern agreement, which was unlikely to be forthcoming.

Pope Leo, however, had a solution to this constitutional issue. The young emperor Constantine VI had been blinded and killed by his mother in 797 when he tried to revive the iconoclast policies of his predecessors. She had then taken the throne for herself, the first woman to rule in her own right in the history of the Roman empire, but the uneasy nature of her position was indicated by her using the male form of the imperial title. Her regime remained weak until her overthrow in 802. However, in the West in 800 the fact that she was a woman allowed it to be claimed that the imperial office was vacant, and thus no Eastern consent was needed." (Roger Collins, Keeper of the Keys of Heaven, 147)

Philotheus of Pskov, in the 16th century, developed an idea of understanding Russia as the Third Rome. To him, there couldn't be a "Fourth Rome". Russia was the final Rome. Rome had to be led by a Christian in accordance with his interpretation of prophecy. (Marshall T. Poe, "Moscow, the Third Rome", in The National Council for Soviet and East European Research, 4) This, of course, led to a development of another translatio imperii thesis among the Russians. Also justified by the fact that Ivan III was wed to the niece of the last Paleologue emperor in 1472. Peter the Great showed the Holy Roman Emperor in Vienna a letter signed by Maximilian I recognizing the title of Emperor and Autocrat of All Russians as applied to the Czar Ivan III. (Velde) This indicates that the Russians even acknowledged the legitimacy of the Holy Roman Empire.

There was even reference to the Ottoman Emperor, after the sack of Constantinople in 1453 A.D., as the "Prince of Turkish Romans" (Katharina Süß, "Der 'Fall' Konstantinople(s)"). Considering that often in the Roman Imperial of ancient, and even through the Byzantine medieval period, Emperors often arose through treacheries, civil wars (as did the Paleologues), and other means, the Ottoman Emperor would have just as much claim to legitimacy as soon as he inherited the throne as any one else. Certainly, partisans will view the date of the Fall of Rome differently but the established evidence shows that only a hack could trace the Fall of Rome back to 476 A.D.! Considering this is the basis of the historicist school of the interpretation of the Book of Revelation, the actual facts of history show the entire interpretation sorely wanting. Of course, the Fourth Beast subdues the entire world under its dominion. Perhaps we can see this with the claims of legitimacy made to being the genuine successor of the Roman Empire? Maybe there is something to say on this as to how everyone wants to rule the Roman Empire. From France and Germany to Constantinople to Moscow. All roads lead to Rome, don't they? This raging beast ultimately sees kings divide it into ten parts. Was that really fulfilled with the barbarian invasions? But Rome hadn't conquered the world just yet!

To Sedevacate? - Pt. 1

I decided to pick up St. Robert Cardinal Bellarmine as I wrestle with the question of what to do regarding Pope Francis. It is possible he is an Antipope and I have indeed referred to him as such before and while the sedevacantist position has its grounding in historical theology, I don't think one should ever jump to it rashly on the basis of a few texts. In the next part, I'll show that St. Robert Cardinal Bellarmine can definitely be read to support the sedevacantist position but for now, I want to go over some of the things he states about whether or not the Pope could be a heretic. There is a distinction he makes between occultic (hidden) heretics and manifest heretics. Only the latter is ipso facto excommunicated but the former, while holding error, can still in fact be full members of the Church. I'll discuss this distinction more in my next post too. Bellarmine has this to say about four opinions on whether the Pope can err:

"1) Should the Pope define something, even as Pope, and even with a general Council, it can be heretical in itself, and he can teach others heresy and that this has in fact happened thus. This is the opinion of all the heretics of this time, and especially of Luther, who in his book on councils recorded the errors of even general councils that the Pope approved. It is also the opinion of Calvin, who asserted that at some time the Pope with the whole college of Cardinals manifestly taught heresy on that question of whether the soul of man is extinguished with the body, which is a manifest lie, as well show a little later. Next, he teaches in the same book that the Pope can err with a general council.

2) The second opinion is that the Pope even as Pope can be a heretic and teach heresy, if he defines something without a general Council, something that this opinion holds did in fact happen. Nilos Cabásilas has followed this opinion in his book against the primacy of the Pope; a few others follow the same opinion, especially amongst the Parisian theologians such as John Gerson, Almain and still, Alonso de Castro as well as Pope Adrian VI in his question on Confirmation; all of these constitute infallibility of judgment on matters of faith not with the Pope but with the Church or with a General Council.

3) The Third opinion is another extreme, that the Pope cannot in any way be a heretic nor publicly teach heresy, even if he alone should define some matter, as Albert Pighius says.

4) The fourth opinion is that in a certain measure, whether the Pope can be a heretic or not, he cannot define a heretical proposition that must be believed by the whole Church in any way. This is a very common opinion of nearly all Catholics. ...

From these four opinions, the first is heretical; the second is not properly heretical, for we see that some who follow this opinion are tolerated by the Church, even though it seems altogether erroneous and proximate to heresy. The third is probable, though it is still not certain. The fourth is very certain and must be asserted." (On the Roman Pontiff, Bk. IV, ch. II)

We see that the opinion that the Pope can only be deemed infallible when speaking in agreement with the Church and with the Councils on his own is not necessarily heretical as determined by Bellarmine. Of course, Vatican I seems to suggest that this opinion is now a heresy but, it limits the Papal authority to a matter of ex cathedra statements. If the Chair of St. Peter is derived from the Church, then only speaking in accordance with the Councils and the Church, and not of himself, can the Pope be said to be speaking infallibly. So there is a legitimate case to be made still for the second opinion. That said, regardless of how the ex cathedra statement is interpreted as, it is only when he is defining a matter of faith. We have had multiple encyclicals and councils containing errors as of recently that have never been submitted as de fide statements. To say the Church is bound to error when it is only made pastoral and not as a matter of dogma is erroneous. For the Church is only bound to that which is a de fide matter. Neo-Catholics aren't particularly conservative as they pretend to be. They've only been concerned with conserving the mistakes made by liberals. Some of them have even insisted the Church is bound by everything a Pope says or does, which is highly inaccurate. This is why Bellarmine also states that, "just as it would be lawful to resist a Pontiff invading a body, so it is lawful to resist him invading souls or disturbing a state, and much more should he endeavor to destroy the Church" (On the Roman Pontiff, Bk. II, Ch. XXIX)

Now, Pope Celestine I shows in his epistle that Nestorius lost authority the moment he began to preach his heresies. But we note in the case of St. Cyprian that he viciously disagreed with the Pope's question on whether or not heretics should be rebaptized. Dom John Chapman notes this instance, commenting that "St. Jerome...tells us: 'Bl. Cyprian attempted to avoid heresy, and therefore rejecting the baptism conferred by heretics, sent [the acts of] an African Council on this matter to Stephen, who was then bishop of the city of Rome, and twenty-second from St. Peter; but his attempt was in vain." (Studies on the Early Papacy, 48) The Pope had Tradition on his side in this matter. Though he never defined the position as a de fide statement, the Pope had the Tradition on his side, St. Cyprian did not. St. Cyprian could have definitely been considered a Donatist heretic but he was not. He was not because he was moved for what he felt was orthodoxy and his push toward his position was for what he resisted as a heresy. Citing St. Vincent of Lerins Chapman writes, "For who is so mad as to doubt that blessed Cyprian, that light of all saints and martyrs, with his colleagues shall reign for eternity with Christ? Or who, on the contrary, so sacrilegious as to deny that the Donatists and the other plagues, who boast that it is by the authority of that Council that they rebaptize, shall burn with the Devil for ever?" (50)

We might finish this section with words of the Great Enunciator, Marcel Lefebvre,

"To be a heretic, it is necessary to be pertinacious in adhering to the error; it is not enough to have uttered an heretical phrase. For example, on the subject of the Blessed Trinity―a very difficult subject subject―we might make a mistake or blunder in speech and say something that is not very orthodox. If someone points it out to us we retract; but if they accuse us of heresy, or excommunicate us...how frightful." (Lefebvre, Against the Heresies, 16)

I want to also add that sedevacantists should not be treated as heretics or Protestants. That is grotesque slander from the Neo-Catholics who have shown that they only intend to conserve every single mistake the liberals in the Church have made via "pastoral" decisions any way. Sedevacantists may adhere to the position that the See of Peter remains vacant as a heretic holds that position but they are still in a valid Apostolic Succession. The current situation the Church is in right now is comparable to the Great Schism of the 14th century. That year in which we had a multitude of claimants to the Papal Throne and holy people on both sides adhering to the other as legitimate. We are in that situation currently. Sedevacantists must be treated as our fellow brethren. They are often better Catholics than some of those who uphold the current Pope as legitimate too.