(2) Were the John XXIII and Paul VI popes? They were “free masons”.

To question a dogmatical fact is not allowed.
Not to accept a pope is a schismatical act.
So the question is serious.

Cardinal Roncalli was certainly pope from 1958 till 1963 because of the Church’s infallibility in dogmatic facts.

Les 50 ans de la nouvelle messe : la constitution apostolique "Veterum  Sapientia" - District du Canada

Whether or not someone is pope is a dogmatic fact. The Church is infallible in dogmatic facts. It is infallible in its acceptance of someone as Pope.

The entire Church, without exception, accepted John XXIII as Pope in 1958 until his death in 1963. So it is certain that he was Pope, otherwise the Church was mistaken.

And that is against the promise of Our Lord Jesus Christ “the gates of hell shall not prevail against it”. So the church is infallible.

It is infallible in dogmatic facts: John XXIII was Pope.

If you question this, you doubt the certainty of the premises of this conclusion. It is to question the promise of Our Lord, and that the Church is infallible in dogmatic facts.

No one could prove any of the causes of the loss of the papacy: death (yes in 1963), abdication, insanity, public heresy or schism.

Objection about f.m-ry :

John XXIII and Paul VI were fre* mas*ns and fre* mas*ns are automatically excommunicated by popes in the 19th century on, and excommunicated are outside the church, so they cannot be pope.


That they were fre* mas*ns was not known until after their death. An excommunication has his full power to ex-clude a person from all “communication” (= ex-communication) for a living person. To excommunicate a death person is very limited.

Further and more striking :

Popes Pius X and XII changed the rules of conclaves (the pope has the power to “bind and unbind”) and stated that everybody who enters a conclave is absolved automatically from all excommunication!

Pius X: “None of the Cardinals may be in any way excluded from the active or passive election of the Sovereign Pontiff under pretext or by reason of any excommunication, suspension, interdict or other ecclesiastical impediment.” (Vacante Sede Apostolica, 1904)

Pope Pius XII‘s Vacantis Apostolicae Sedis of 1945 :

“34. Nullus Cardinalium, cuiuslibet excommunicationis, suspensionis, interdicti aut alius ecclesiastici impedimenti praetextu vel causa a Summi Pontificis electione activa et passiva excludi ullo modo potest; quas quidem censuras ad effectum huiusmodi electionis tantum, illis alias in suo robore permansuris, suspendimus [27].”

“None of the Cardinals, on the pretext or cause of any excommunication, suspension, interdict, or other ecclesiastical impediment, can be excluded from the active and passive election of the Supreme Pontiff in any way; We suspend these objections to the effect of this kind of election only, to those which otherwise remain in force “

So they were popes… but bad popes.

It is replied that this legislation concerns only such impediments as are ecclesiastical and thus the texts say, “or other ecclesiastical impediment”. That is, it does not concern :

Impediments that are of Divine law.

This is borne out by the canonists who stated that a public heretic is excluded by Divine law from election to the papacy.

Austin Dowling: “Though since Urban VI none but a cardinal has been elected pope, no law reserves to the cardinals alone this right. Strictly speaking, any male Christian who has reached the use of reason can be chosen, not, however, a heretic, a schismatic, or a notorious simonist.” (Conclave, 1914 Catholic Encyclopedia)

William H. Fanning: “A layman may also be elected as pope, as was Celestine V. Even the election of a married man would not be invalid. Of course the election of a heretic, schismatic, or female would be null and void.” (Papal Elections, 1914 Catholic Encyclopedia)

Caesar Badii: “The law now in force for the election of the Roman Pontiff is reduced to these points: […] Barred as incapable of being validly elected are the following: women, children who have not reached the age of reason, those suffering from habitual insanity, the unbaptised, heretics and schismatics.” (Institutiones Iuris Canonici,1921)

Maroto: “Heretics and schismatics are barred from the Supreme Pontificate by the divine law itself, because, although by divine law they are not considered incapable of participating in certain type of ecclesiastical jurisdiction, nevertheless, they must certainly be regarded as excluded from occupying the throne of the Apostolic See, which is the infallible teacher of the truth of the faith and the center of ecclesiastical unity.” (Institutiones Iuris Canonici, 1921)

Matthaeus Conte a Coronata: “Appointment to the office of the Primacy. What is required by divine law for this appointment: The person appointed must be a man who possesses the use of reason, due to the ordination the Primate must receive to possess the power of Holy Orders. This is required for the validity of the appointment. Also required for validity is that the man appointed be a member of the Church. Heretics and apostates (at least public ones) are therefore excluded.” (Institutiones Iuris Canonici, 1950)

It seems that the law of the Church has not changed on this count since the bull of Paul IV which excluded heretics from election to the papacy. (Nor could it change where it represents Divine law.) Indeed, the bull was cited as a reference in the 1917 Code of Canon Law. Paul IV decreed as follows.

“In addition, 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;

“(iv) to any so promoted to be Bishops, or Archbishops, or Patriarchs, or Primates or elevated as Cardinals, or as Roman Pontiff, no authority shall have been granted, nor shall it be considered to have been so granted either in the spiritual or the temporal domain;

“(v) each and all of their words, deeds, actions and enactments, howsoever made, and anything whatsoever to which these may give rise, shall be without force and shall grant no stability whatsoever nor any right to anyone;

“(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.” (Cum Ex Apostolatus, 1559)

It was recognized in this decree that a heretic could be invalidly elected to the papacy by the unanimous consent of all the cardinals and that he would not be pope even if he were enthroned, acted as pope and was recognized as pope by all of the Church and for any length of time. His appointments and his acts would all be entirely void.

The canonists state that heresy must be public to invalidate a papal election. A full and detailed discussion is needed from the canonists to establish what the conditions are for the heresy to be considered to be public.

Conclusion : It is certain that John XXIII was pope, although he was a dangerous pope.

The same can be said about Paul VI. He was pope because he was accepted by the entire Church. He lost his papacy because of public heresy. Indeed a pope loses his office by this causes : death, abdication, insanity, public heresy of schism. Paul VI published the first heresy in 1964 by Lumen Gentium. So from then on he lost his papacy.

Comments are closed.