Francis held a May 11 prayer with the Coptic Pope Tawadros in the Vatican. He announced that 21 Copts beheaded in 2015 in Libya would henceforth be included in the Roman (!) Martyrology as "Catholic" saints.
[The Sacrosanct Roman Church] firmly believes, professes, and proclaims that those not living within the Catholic Church, not only pagans, but also Jєωs and heretics and schismatics cannot become participants in eternal life, but will depart “into everlasting fire which was prepared for the devil and his angels” [Matt. 25:41], unless before the end of life the same have been added to the flock; and that the unity of the ecclesiastical body is so strong that only to those remaining in it are the sacraments of the Church of benefit for salvation, and do fastings, almsgiving, and other functions of piety and exercises of Christian service produce eternal reward, and that no one, whatever almsgiving he has practiced, even if he has shed blood for the name of Christ, can be saved, unless he has remained in the bosom and unity of the Catholic Church.
He's said this before. It's one of his most blatant heresies, and he's clearly pertinacious. Council of Florence dogmatically defined that schismatics cannot be saved even if they shed their blood in the name of Christ.
Council of Florence
This is blatant manifest heresy, and there's no gymnastics R&R can do to excuse him of it.
Whether you want to say he's impounded (as Father Chazal does) or a non-pope simpliciter or in material possession of the Holy See, Jorge Bergoglio is not a Catholic. He's always denied EENS dogma, but this is a smoking gun verbatim denial of a clearly defined dogma.
It's officially over for the Jorge apologists.
He's said this before. It's one of his most blatant heresies, and he's clearly pertinacious. Council of Florence dogmatically defined that schismatics cannot be saved even if they shed their blood in the name of Christ.
Council of Florence
This is blatant manifest heresy, and there's no gymnastics R&R can do to excuse him of it.
Whether you want to say he's impounded (as Father Chazal does) or a non-pope simpliciter or in material possession of the Holy See, Jorge Bergoglio is not a Catholic. He's always denied EENS dogma, but this is a smoking gun verbatim denial of a clearly defined dogma.
It's officially over for the Jorge apologists.
A post like this shows you have no comprehension of the terms you nevertheless routinely use, like pertinacious, manifest, etc.
Its the obsessive SVDS coming through.
rr, R&R, spit-snarl gnash, wail, R&R, blah, blah, blah…
Someone could start a thread about paint thinner, street signs, or bubble gum, and Lad’s response would be, “You see, this is proof of R&R’s manifest pertinacity, spit-snarl, blah, blah…
Ridiculous. Pertinacious refers to the fact that he's repeatedly made these statements, and even at one point chuckled about it being "maybe heretical". This isn't a fleeting thought but something that he's consistently promoted. Manifest just means that it's obvious and public. This is clearly manifest.
You're getting pathetic here where this guy repeatedly, consistently, and publicly denies VERBATIM a defined dogma of the Church by claiming there can be schismatic martyrs and still claim he's not a heretic. There's no such thing as a heretic for you clowns. Basically, you have this idiotic idea that no one can be known to be a heretic because we can't see into the internal forum to determine whether he's a heretic in the internal forum. Absurd. In that case you can never know if anyone is a true "heretic". This garbage is in fact at the very root of Vatican II ecclesiology, by the way.
His heresy is manifest and it's pertinacious. That makes him a non-Catholic as far as anyone is capable of knowing. His statements here about non-Catholic martyrs is no different than if Bergoglio were to claim that there are Four Divine Persons in the Holy Quadrinity.
Unfortunately, most of the so-called Resistance hold Opinion No. 4 of the 5 opinions expressed by St. Robert Bellarmine, that is, that a pope is a public manifest formal heretic only when the Church officially judges him so. Opinion No. 4 is heretical on two fronts: 1) that the cardinals and/or bishops can canonically judge a true pope; 2) that the public sin of manifest formal heresy does not per se separate the heretic from the Church.
Basically, you have this idiotic idea that no one can be known to be a heretic because we can't see into the internal forum to determine whether he's a heretic in the internal forum.And yet, isn't this the position of the Society in regards to the validity of the NO Holy Orders? In other words, they judge the internal forum themselves on a case by case basis, no?
He's said this before. It's one of his most blatant heresies, and he's clearly pertinacious. Council of Florence dogmatically defined that schismatics cannot be saved even if they shed their blood in the name of Christ.
Council of Florence
This is blatant manifest heresy, and there's no gymnastics R&R can do to excuse him of it.
Whether you want to say he's impounded (as Father Chazal does) or a non-pope simpliciter or in material possession of the Holy See, Jorge Bergoglio is not a Catholic. He's always denied EENS dogma, but this is a smoking gun verbatim denial of a clearly defined dogma.
It's officially over for the Jorge apologists.
Is Fr Chazal's theory the same thing as the Thesis of Bishop
Guérard des Lauriers?
https://mostholytrinityseminary.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/01/Explanation-of-the-Thesis.pdf
It’s unfortunate Lad and CK are both OCD time wasters.
Agreed. If he's still pope when the Church "judges" him, then that's a serious problem. It's effectively the Church's judgment that strips him of papal authority.
Really, the massive irony here is that Bergoglio's argument to include these schismatics in the martyrology as saints is to assert that even though they were schismatics in the external forum, they were Catholics in the internal forum. But the Church does not judge the internal forum. And that is PRECISELY the same "reasoning" that R&R use to salvage Jorge Bergoglio, that even though he's obviously a heretic in the external forum, we presume that he's a Catholic in the "internal". This is the root of the V2 ecclesiology, and it's the same reasoning employed by R&R, who pretend to reject V2 ecclesiology. It's the very same reasoning to assert that Jorge remains a Catholic despite outward heresy that V2 employs in order to assert that schismatics and Prots are also within the "Church of Christ" despite their external forum separation from it.
More SVDS slop:
I have yet to see you accurately assign any of the various grades of theological censure to the comments of Francis, et al.
Everything is just “heresy,” pure and simple. Not erroneous, proximate to heresy, etc.
One would think that an enterprise as serious and consequential as deposing 3 generations of popes (and counting), would at least do this much, but you never do.
The message, taken in conjunction with your various other delusional positions, is that you’re not really one to be taken seriously.
Nonsense:
You (deliberately) neglect to distinguish between declaratory and punitive judgments, in order to make this argument.
The Church merely declares the fact of the pope’s heresy (declaratory), but it is God Who strips him of his office (punitive).
More stupidity. If he's pope until he gets judged, then they're judging the pope. It's that simple. Logic 101, for which you must have been asleep in seminary.
Moron:
"It cannot be held that the pope, by the very fact of being a heretic, would cease to be pope antecedently [prior] to a declaration of the Church. It is true that some seem to hold this position; but we will discuss this in the next article. What is truly a matter of debate, is whether the pope, after he is declared by the Church to be a heretic, is deposed ipso facto by Christ the Lord, or if the Church ought to depose him. In any case, as long as the Church has not issued a juridical declaration, he must always be considered the pope, as we will make more clear in the next article."
[...]
I respond that such a Council can be convoked by the authority of the Church, which is in the bishops, or the greater part of them; for by Divine Law the Church has the right to segregate herself from a heretical Pope, and consequently she has the right to apply all the means that of their very nature are necessary for this segregation; but one such means, which is necessary of its very nature, is that she acquire juridical certainty about the crime; but the crime cannot be juridically certified unless she form a competent judgment; and in so grave a matter a competent judgment cannot be issued by any except a general Council, for we are dealing with the universal head of the Church, wherefore the matter belongs to the judgment of the universal Church, which is had in a general Council. And therefore I do not agree with Fr. Suarez, who thinks that this matter could be handled by provincial Councils; for a provincial Council does not represent the universal Church, and therefore it does not have the authority of the universal Church, in order to be able to decide the matter; and even if many provincial Councils were gathered they would neither represent the universal Church nor have her authority.But if we speak, not of the authority by which the judgment is rendered, but of that by which the Council is convoked, I do not think that its convocation has been entrusted to anyone in a determinate manner; but I think that it could be done either by the Cardinals, who would be able to give the bishops knowledge of what is going on; or else the bishops who are nearer [geographically to the Pope] could denounce the matter to the others, so that all would come; or again, it could even happen at the insistence of the [Catholic] princes—in which case the summons would not, indeed, have any coercive force, as it has when the Pope convokes a Council; rather, it would be denunciative in nature, notifying the bishops of the [alleged] crime and making it manifest that they should come to remedy the situation.The Pope, therefore, cannot annul such a Council, since he himself is a part [of the Church], and the Church by Divine Law has the power to gather a Council for this end, because she has the right to segregate herself from a heretic.However, concerning the second point—namely, by whose authority the declaration and deposition are to be accomplished—there is disagreement among theologians, for it is not apparent who should effect the deposition, since it is an act of judgment and jurisdiction, and no one can exercise these in relation to the Pope. Cajetan (in opusculo de potestate papae, capite 20) relates two explanations that are extreme opposites, and two others that are in the middle. One of the extremes is that the Pope, by the very fact [ipso facto] that he is a heretic, is deposed without any human judgment. The other extreme is that there is a power that is superior to the Pope without any qualification, and this power is able to judge him. Of the two intermediate opinions, the one holds that the pope does not recognize anyone as superior absolutely, but only in the case of heresy. The other holds that there is no power on earth that is superior to the Pope, whether absolutely or in the case of heresy; but there is a ministerial power.Even as the Church has a ministerial power in the election of a Pope—not as to the conferring of power, since this is done immediately by Christ, as we have said in the first article; but in the designation of the person—so, too, in the deposition (which is the destruction of the bond by which the papacy is joined to this particular person) the Church has a ministerial power and deposes the Pope ministerially, while it is Christ who deprives him of the papacy authoritatively.Of these two [intermediate] explanations, Azorius (2, tom. 2, cap. 7) adopts the first, which holds that the Church is superior to the Pope in the case of heresy; while Cajetan adopts the latter and treats of it at length. Bellarmine, however, reports his opinion and attacks it in his work de Romano pontifice, bk. 2, ch. 30, objecting especially to these two points: namely, that Cajetan says that the Pope who is a manifest heretic [according to the Church's human judgment] is not ipso facto deposed; and also that the Church deposes the Pope in a real and authoritative manner. Suarez also, in the disputation that we have frequently cited, sect. 6, num. 7, attacks Cajetan for saying that, in the case of heresy, the Church is superior to the Pope, not insofar as he is Pope, but insofar as he is a private individual. Cajetan, however, did not say this; he only said that, even in the case of heresy, the Church is not absolutely superior to the Pope, but instead is superior to the bond between the papacy and the person, dissolving it in the same way that she forged it at his election; and this power of the Church is ministerial, for only Christ our Lord is superior to the Pope without qualification. Hence, Bellarmine and Suarez are of the opinion that, by the very fact that the Pope is a manifest heretic and declared to be incorrigible, he is deposed [ipso facto] by Christ our Lord without any intermediary, and not by any authority of the Church.The opinion of Cajetan, then, is contained in these three propositions:
1) The first is that it is not precisely the fact of heresy, as such, that deprives a heretical Pope of the papacy and deposes him.
2) The second is that, even in the case of heresy, the Church has no power or superiority over the Pope in relation to his papal power (as if there were a power superior to that one, even in such a case), for the power of the Church is in no way superior to that of the Pope; and consequently her power is not superior to the Pope [himself] without qualification.
3) The third is that the power of the Church has as its object the application of the papal power to the person, both in designating that person [as Pope] by electing him, and also in separating this power from the same person by declaring that he is a heretic and must be avoided by the faithful [Vitandus]. For, although the declaration of the crime is like an antecedent disposition and is related in a ministerial way to the deposition itself; nevertheless, in a dispositive and ministerial way it [i.e., the declaration] attains even to the form, inasmuch as, by acting upon the disposition, it acts mediately upon the form; even as, in the generation or corruption of a man, the one who generates him does not produce or educe the form; nor does the one who corrupts a man destroy the form, but only the bond or separation of the form—and this is done by acting immediately upon the dispositions of the matter in relation to the form; and, with those dispositions as a medium, the agent’s activity reaches the form itself.That Cajetan’s first proposition is true is evident from what we have already said; nor does Bellarmine attack it legitimately. And the truth of it is certain, both because the Pope, no matter how truly and publicly he be a heretic, cannot be deposed if he is ready to be corrected, as we have said above; nor does Divine Law give the Church the power to depose him, for she neither can nor ought to avoid him [until he be proven incorrigible]; for the Apostle says, “Avoid a heretic after the first and second admonition”; consequently, before he has been admonished a first and second time, he is not to be avoided by the Church; neither, then, is he to be deposed. So it is false to say that the Pope is deposed by the very fact [ipso facto] that he is a public heretic; for it is possible for him to be a public heretic while he has not yet been admonished by the Church, nor declared to be incorrigible; and also because, as Azorius notes well in the place referenced above, no bishop loses his jurisdiction and episcopal power ipso facto, no matter how much of an external heretic he may be, until the Church declares him such and deposes him; and this is true despite the fact that he incurs excommunication ipso facto; for only those who are excommunicated as non tolerati [i.e., vitandi] lose their jurisdiction—which is to say, those who have been excommunicated by name, or who are manifest strikers of the clergy; so, if no bishop (or any other prelate) loses his power ipso facto solely from external heresy, why would the Pope lose it before a declaration is given by the Church—especially because the Pope cannot incur excommunication? For, as I presume, there is no excommunication that is immediately incurred because of Divine Law; but the Pope cannot be excommunicated by any human law, since he is above all human law.Cajetan’s second proposition is proved from the fact that the power of the Pope, without any qualification, is a power derived from Christ our Lord, and not from the Church; and to that power Christ subjected the whole Church, that is, all the faithful without any restriction—as is certain de fide, and has been proven at length already; therefore, in no case can the Church have a power superior to that of the pope—unless there is a case in which the Pope’s power becomes dependent upon the Church and inferior to her; but, by the very fact that it becomes inferior in such a case, it is already altered and is not the same power as before—since beforehand it was superior to the whole Church and independent of her, and yet in this [supposed] case becomes dependent and inferior. It is never verified, then, that the Church has a power that is formally superior to that of the Pope [this shows that neither John of St. Thomas nor Cajetan were Conciliarists]; for it is necessary, in order for the Church to have, in some case, a power superior to the Pope’s, that the Pope’s power be formally different from what it had been previously, for [in such a hypothetical case] it is not full and supreme in the way that it was before. Nor does any authority give us certainty that Christ our Lord gave a power to the Church in this way, so that her power would be superior to the Pope’s; for the things that are said about the case of heresy do not indicate any formal superiority over the power of the Pope, but only that the Church avoids him, separates herself from him, refuses to communicate with him, etc.Nor can any foundation be construed to the contrary by saying that Christ our Lord (who gave, without any restriction, supreme and independent power to Peter and to his See) determined that, in the case of heresy, the Pope’s power would be dependent upon, and inferior to, the power of the Church formally as such, so that his power would be subordinated to that of the Church, and not superior as before [this is the heresy of Conciliarism].As to Cajetan’s second proposition, namely, that the Church does not have any power superior to the Pope; if it be taken without qualification, it has already been proved at length; for the Church ought to be subject to the Pope; nor is the Pope’s power derived from the Church, as political power [is derived from the people]; but it comes immediately from Christ, whom the Pope represents. But it is also evident that, even in the case of heresy, the power of the Church is not superior to the Pope, inasmuch as we are concerned with the papal power; firstly, because the power of the Pope is in no case derived from and originating from the Church, but from Christ; therefore in no case is the power of the Church superior; also, because the power of the Pope, inasmuch as it is derived from Christ, was instituted as being supreme over all the power of the Church that is on earth (as was proven above from many authorities); but Christ our Lord did not make any exception, as if there were a case in which that power would be limited and subjected to another; but always and in respect to all He speaks of it as supreme and monarchical. But when He mentions the case of heresy He does not attribute to the Church any superiority over the Pope, but only commands her to avoid, separate herself from, and not communicate with one who is a heretic; but none of these indicate any superiority, and they can be observed without claiming anything of the sort. The power of the Church, therefore, is not superior to the power of the Pope, even in the case of heresy. Even the canons confirm this: for they say that the first See is judged by no one; and this holds true even in the case of infidelity, since the Fathers who were gathered in the case of Pope Marcellinus said to him: “You must judge yourself.”The third proposition follows from the two preceding. For the Church can declare the crime of the Pope and propose him to the faithful as one who is to be avoided, according to Divine Law, which commands that heretics be avoided. And the Pope who is to be avoided, as a consequence of this disposition, is necessarily rendered incapable of being the head of the Church, since he is a member to be avoided by her, and consequently unable to exercise an influx on her; therefore, by reason of this power [of declaring the Pope to be a heretic whom the Church must avoid], the Church dissolves, in a ministerial and dispositive way, the bond between the papacy and that person. The consequence is clear: for when an agent has the power to induce a disposition in a subject, and the disposition is such that the separation of the form necessarily follows from it (since the form cannot remain with this disposition in the subject), the agent has power over the dissolution of the form, and mediately touches the form itself as having to be separated from the subject—not as having to be destroyed in itself, as is evident in the agent that corrupts a man; for the agent does not destroy the form of the man, but induces the dissolution of the form by placing in the matter a disposition that is incompatible with the form. Therefore, because the Church has the power to declare that the Pope is to be avoided, she is able to introduce into his person a disposition that is incompatible with the papacy; and thus the papacy is dissolved ministerially and dispositively by the Church, but authoritatively by Christ; even as, in designating him through his election, she gives him the last disposition needed for him to receive the papacy that Christ our Lord bestows upon him, and thus she creates a Pope in a ministerial way.And if Cajetan sometimes says that the Church has power authoritatively over the conjunction of the papacy with the person, and its separation from him, but that she has power ministerially over the papacy itself, he is to be understood in this way: he means that the Church has the authority to declare the crime of the Pope, even as she has the authority to designate him as Pope [by papal election]; and what is authoritative in respect to the declaration is dispositive and ministerial in relation to the form as having to be joined to him or separated from him; for, absolutely and of herself, the Church has no power over the form itself [of the papacy], since the power [of the papacy] is not subordinated to her.By understanding things in this way, we can reconcile the different canons, which sometimes say that the deposition of the Pope pertains to God alone, and sometimes that he can be judged by his inferiors in the case of heresy; for it is true both that the ejection or deposition of the Pope is reserved to God alone, as the authoritative and principal agent, as is said expressly in the chapter Ejectionem, distinction 79, and in many other canons cited above, which say that God has reserved the judgment of the Apostolic See to himself alone; and also that the Church judges the Pope ministerially and dispositively by declaring the crime and proposing the Pope as someone who is to be avoided, as we read in the chapter Si papa, distinction 40, and the chapter Oves, 2 question 7.The arguments of Bellarmine and Suarez against the foregoing opinion [of Cajetan] are easily refuted. For Bellarmine objects that the Apostle says that a heretic is to be avoided after two corrections, that is, after he manifestly appears to be pertinacious; and that happens before any excommunication or judicial sentence, as Jerome comments, for heretics depart from the body of Christ of their own accord [per se]. And his reasoning is this: a non-Christian cannot be Pope (for he cannot be the head who is not a member); but the heretic is not a Christian, as the Fathers commonly teach; therefore, the manifest heretic cannot be Pope. Nor can one respond that he still has the [baptismal] character; for, if he remained Pope because of this character, it will never be possible to depose him, as this character is indelible. Wherefore, the Fathers—such as Cyprian, Jerome, and Ambrose—teach with one accord that heretics lack all jurisdiction and power by reason of their heresy, and that this is so independently of any excommunication.I respond that the heretic is to be avoided after two admonitions; that is, after two admonitions made juridically and by the authority of the Church, and not according to private judgment; for, if it sufficed for this admonition to be made by a private individual—and if, when the heresy had been made manifest [by such private admonitions], but had not [yet] been declared by the Church and proposed to all so that all might avoid the Pope, the faithful would nevertheless be obliged to avoid him, great confusion would follow in the Church; for the heresy of the Pope cannot be public in respect to all the faithful, unless others relate it to them; but such [private] reports, since they are not juridical, cannot claim everyone’s belief or oblige them to avoid the Pope: hence, just as the Church, by designating the man, proposed him juridically to all as the elected Pope, so too, it is necessary that she depose him by declaring him a heretic and proposing him as one to be avoided. Hence, we see from the practice of the Church that this is how it has been done; for, in the case of the deposition of a Pope, his cause was handled in a general Council before he was considered not to be Pope, as we have related above. It is not true, then, that the Pope ceases to be Pope by the very fact [ipso facto] that he is a heretic, even a public one, before any sentence of the Church and before she proposes him to the faithful as one who is to be avoided. Nor does Jerome exclude the judgment of the Church (especially in so grave a matter as the deposition of a Pope) when he says that a heretic departs from the body of Christ of his own accord [per se]; rather, he is judging the quality of the crime, which of its very nature [per se] excludes one from the Church—provided that the crime is declared by the Church—without the need for any superadded censure; for, although heresy separates one from the Church by its very nature [per se], nevertheless, this separation is not thought to have been made, as far as we are concerned [quoad nos], without that declaration. Likewise, we respond to his reasoning in this way: one who is not a Christian, both in himself and in relation to us [quoad se et quoad nos], cannot be Pope; however, if in himself he is not a Christian (because he has lost the faith) but in relation to us has not yet been juridically declared as an infidel or heretic (no matter how manifestly he be such according to private judgment), he is still a member of the Church as far as we are concerned; and consequently he is its head. It is necessary, therefore, to have the judgment of the Church, by which he is proposed to us as someone who is not a Christian, and who is to be avoided; and at that point he ceases to be Pope in relation to us [quoad nos]; and we further conclude that he had not ceased to be Pope before [the declaration], even in himself, since all of his acts were valid in themselves.
Cursus Theologicus of John of St. Thomas, Tome 6. Questions 1-7 on Faith. Disputation 8. Article 2
http://www.trueorfalsepope.com/p/john-ofst.html
More stupidity. If he's pope until he gets judged, then they're judging the pope. It's that simple. Logic 101, for which you must have been asleep in seminary.This is the great debate in the theology of this question, a question which is unsettled, but which the Sedevacantists pontificate on. That is the problem, setting oneself up as Pope to decide upon a matter which is not settled by the Church. That is not Catholic. Cardinal Journet, however, can help with the logic:
This is the great debate in the theology of this question, a question which is unsettled, but which the Sedevacantists pontificate on. That is the problem, setting oneself up as Pope to decide upon a matter which is not settled by the Church. That is not Catholic. Cardinal Journet, however, can help with the logic:Yup.^^^^
Many and good theologians of the XVIth and XVIIth Century have admitted that it was possible that a Pope could fall, as a private person, into the sin of heresy, not only occult, but also manifest. The ones like Bellarmine and Suarez, have then thought that the Pope, by cutting himself off from the Church, was ipso facto deposed; Papa haereticus est depositus. It appears that heresy is seen by these theologians as a sort of moral 'ѕυιcιdє' suppressing the subject of the papacy. We return thus easily to the first way we said the Pontificate is lost.
"The others, as Cajetan and John of St Thomas, whose analysis seems to me more penetrating, have considered that even after a manifest sin of heresy, the Pope is not yet deposed, but should be deposed by the Church; Papa haereticus non est depositus sed deponendus. Nevertheless they added the Church is not on that account above the Pope. They had recourse to the same explanation we used in the excursus IV1. They remarked that on the one hand, by divine right, the Church must be united to the Pope as a body to its head; and on the other hand, that, by divine right, he who is a manifest heretic must be avoided after one or two monitions (Tit III,10). There is thus an absolute antimony between the fact of being a Pope and persevering into heresy after one or two warnings. The action of the Church is simply declarative; it manifests that there is an incorrigible sin of heresy; then the Power of Authority of God exercises itself to disjoin the papacy from a subject who, persisting into heresy after admonition, becomes, by divine right, incapable to hold it any longer. In virtue of Scripture, the Church designates and God deposes. God works with the Church, says John of St Thomas, a little like a Pope would decide to attach indugences to certain pilgrimage places, but would leave to a minister the care to specify the places, II-II, Q1, disp2, a3, n29, tVII, p264. The explanation of Cajetan and John of St Thomas... leads us, in its turn, to the case of a subject who, from a certain moment, begins to become, by Divine Right, incapable to hold the privilege of the Papacy. It is reductible to the loss of pontificate by loss of subject. It is indeed the fundamental case, of which others will only be variants - L'Eglise du Verbe Incarne, vol I, p 625
More stupidity. If he's pope until he gets judged, then they're judging the pope. It's that simple. Logic 101, for which you must have been asleep in seminary.These quotes, which I recently posted on another thread, show that it is not only the Dominicans, but also the poorly understood Jesuits who oppose your dogmatic opinion on this question:
But let Johnson and Salza set St. Robert straight on the matter.Let St Robert, quoted above, set Ladislaus straight on the matter. Or is the question of hubris, that you mentioned, involved here?
And the distinction between the material office and the formal exercise of authority is the correct one that makes sense of it all. John of St. Thomas' quoad se vs. quoad nos is gravely mistaken, leading to a phenomenological relativism, where the perception and knowledge of reality is what determines reality. He was missing the correct distinction between material office and the formal exercise of office.Pope Ladislaus has spoken. Who needs the Magisterium when we can correct esteemed theologians and settle theological disputes for ourselves. The Church really is outdated, don't you think, I mean especially now that we have the internet?
With your utterly ridiculous opinion...
Again, it's basic logic, Johnson, that a child (of good will) can understand. If the Pope remains Pope until he's "judged" by the Church, then the Church is passing judgment on a Pope.
Unlike Archbishop Lefebvre, whom you slander by hiding behind, you do not believe that the Holy Spirit guides the papacy and you do not believe that the Conciliar Church lacks the marks of the Catholic Church...Arcchbishop Lefebvre's reasoning was clear. This is from a conference given at Econe in 1984:
Archbishop Lefebvre has also stated that some day in the future the Church could very well declare that these V2 papal claimants were not in fact popes. So would that mean they were popes or weren't popes that entire time? Clearly they would not have been even prior to the Church's formal declaration regarding the matter. Church's judgment merely confirms an a priori reality.
When the Church "judges" a heretical Pope, as a couple of Popes had taught, it's judging that the Pope had "already" been judged by God. it's merely confirming a prior judgment and deposition by God.I hope you can, in all humility, now appreciate from the theologians quoted above, and Archbishop Lefebvre speaking on Pope Honorius, that this is by no means the simple truth of the matter. We are not free to select the theological hypothesis that accords with our ideas and impose it upon the Church - unless of course we are the Pope adjudicating infallibly.
Unfortunately, most of the so-called Resistance hold Opinion No. 4 of the 5 opinions expressed by St. Robert Bellarmine, that is, that a pope is a public manifest formal heretic only when the Church officially judges him so. Opinion No. 4 is heretical on two fronts: 1) that the cardinals and/or bishops can canonically judge a true pope; 2) that the public sin of manifest formal heresy does not per se separate the heretic from the Church.Are you sure you understand St Robert Bellarmine correctly? How do you reconcile your understanding of his position with this very clear teaching in his study on Councils that has more recently come to light?:
as long as he is not declared or judged to have legitimately been deprived of his rule, is always the supreme judge...
Let St Robert, quoted above, set Ladislaus straight on the matter. Or is the question of hubris, that you mentioned, involved here?
I hope you can, in all humility, now appreciate from the theologians quoted above, and Archbishop Lefebvre speaking on Pope Honorius, that this is by no means the simple truth of the matter. We are not free to select the theological hypothesis that accords with our ideas and impose it upon the Church - unless of course we are the Pope adjudicating infallibly.
Quite a bit more than hubris, I’m afraid.
36k posts, and never an error, mistake, or retraction.
They got a name for that kind of self-love:
Narcissism.
Just little bit of reading comprehension goes a long way. He is judged to HAVE been deprived of his rule. They're judging something that had already taken place...Did you miss this?
Unfortunately, small minds that are incapable of grasping these distinctions somehow try to pretend, laughably, that Bellarmine held Cajetan's opinion.
No, St. Robert Bellarmine did not hold Cajetan's opinion :facepalm: ... unless he was a total idiot and somehow didn't realize that Cajetan held the same opinion he did.No, Ladislaus, St Robert did not hold Cajetan's position, you are absolutely right about that!
St. Robert cited the case of Pope Celestine's declaration regarding Nestorius, that Nestorius had lost his authority from the time he began preaching heresy, several years before he was officially / materially deposed.
No, St. Robert Bellarmine did not hold Cajetan's opinion :facepalm: ... unless he was a total idiot and somehow didn't realize that Cajetan held the same opinion he did...The whole crux of this debate between Bellarmine and Cajetan, who essentially agree that a heretic Pope ought to be deposed, is how it can be done without offending against the principle that "The First See Can Be Judged by No-one". It is not a debate about whether or not the Church needs to be involved in removing the Pope, which they agree on, but as to just how that can be done without breaking this fundamental rule. That is why Suarez, a contemporary of Bellarmine, and one of his Jesuit colleagues, could say:
Unfortunately, small minds that are incapable of grasping these distinctions somehow try to pretend, laughably, that Bellarmine held Cajetan's opinion.
Now the fifth opinion, the true one, is that a Pope who is a manifest heretic, ceases in himself to be Pope and head, just as he ceases in himself to be a Christian and member of the body of the Church: whereby, he can be judged and punished by the Church.
quia potest ab hominibus judicari, vel potius judicatus ostendi, si videlicet evanescit in haeresim."... because he can be judged by men, or rather SHOWN TO HAVE BEEN JUDGED, if that is he lapses into heresy."
St. Robert cited the case of Pope Celestine's declaration regarding Nestorius, that Nestorius had lost his authority from the time he began preaching heresy, several years before he was officially / materially deposed.Nestorius was a bishop. St Robert's doctrine on deposition of bishops is very clear:
Essentially, St. Robert was a sedeprivationist or sedeimpoundist before the terms existed...
What's lost in all this is that Bellarmine did not hold any of these opinions about the Pope. He personally held that a legitimate Pope would never be allowed by God to fall from office.Yes, he held this position of Pighius that the Pope could not fall into heresy because, as he said, it seemed to be in accordance with the sweet dispositions of Divine Providence (or very similar words that I can't put my hand on right now). But he acknowledged that this was not the common opinion, which is why he examined the subject further.
If the Pope remains Pope until he's "judged" by the Church, then the Church is passing judgment on a Pope.
Essentially, St. Robert was a sedeprivationist or sedeimpoundist before the terms existed, acknowledging two separate aspects of office, the formal which is stripped by God the moment one becomes a manfiest heretic, and the office itself which can be stripped later. In fact, discussion of the material aspects of the office and the formal originate in the thinking of St. Robert.
I agree with Bellarmine's ACTUAL opinion, however, that a true Pope can never fall from office.
I don't agree with you here. The office is lost at the moment the office holder becomes a manifest heretic. The Church only enforces the loss of office after the fact.
This is a good fundamental point. By the way, in his two volumes, Fr. Paul Kramer destroys the arguments of John of St. Thomas, which by the way is sadly the position held by the Dominicans of Avrille.
Perhaps the disagreement is semantic. Sedeprivationists use the term (also used by St. Robert) "designation to office", i.e. the material aspect of office. So I'm referring to the scenario where Nestorius has already lost authority but hasn't yet been officially removed.
I don't agree with you here. The office is lost at the moment the office holder becomes a manifest heretic. The Church only enforces the loss of office after the fact.
I agree. John of St. Thomas' quoad se vs. quoad nos distinction has a decidedly phenomenologically tone to it, where out knowledge of reality determines reality.
I liken it to the old question about whether if a tree falls in the woods and there's no one there to here it, does it make a sound?
There's sound quoad se, the waves that are created in the air, and sound quoad nos, our perception and interpretation of these waves when they hit our ear drum. Does the fact that we didn't hear it mean that the waves weren't created (and that the tree didn't fall)? Of course not.
I suspect you're referring to these two books ...
https://www.amazon.com/true-false-pope-against-Bergoglio/dp/1945658266
https://www.amazon.com/deceive-elect-catholic-doctrine-heretical-ebook/dp/B07XT7M793
Good analogy. Yes, those are the two volumes of Fr. Paul Kramer that I was referring to. It would be good for the so-called Resistance priests and faithful to buy both volumes and read them carefully. Salza and Siscoe, two laymen who have no formal theological learning, have done a job on the so-called Resistance.
You would have us believe that St Robert is a heretic then, and that he contradicts himself. Or perhaps you just do not understand him.How are you sure that you aren't the one who misunderstands him?
How are you sure that you aren't the one who misunderstands him?
Because his understanding of St. Bellarmine’s position is not his own, but that of his esteemed contemporary, Cajetan (as well as John of St. Thomas and Journet), and not that of some internet jockey who thinks he knows better than them what St. Bellarmine “REALLY” meant.I don't recall quotes from them explaining St Bellarmine's position. Where are they?
I don't recall quotes from them explaining St Bellarmine's position. Where are they?
John of St. Thomas: "Hence, Bellarmine and Suarez are of the opinion that, by the very fact that the Pope is a manifest heretic and declared to be incorrigible, he is deposed [ipso facto] by Christ our Lord without any intermediary, and not by any authority of the Church."Well then John of St Thomas must have been mistaken because St Bellarmine himself said this:
In other words, Lad does not truly hold St. Bellarmine's opinion, but a distorted bastardization of it, for even St. Bellarmine -according to John of St. Thomas- requires a declaration from the Church before he is deposed.
Effectively, Lad has called St. Bellarmine "stupid" for judging the pope.
The truth of the matter is that any sede appealing to St. Bellarmine does not understand St. Bellarmine. But we can be pretty sure John of St. Thomas does, and it is his description of St. Bellarmine's position that we have quoted here.
Or will you choose the twisted ramblings of the flat-earth Feeneyite pope deposer to impart to you "the true" position of St. Bellarmine?
Well then John of St Thomas must be mistaken…
When you and Lad, et al., start doing that, I tune out.I know. St Robert Bellarmine's own words are difficult to swallow.
I know. St Robert Bellarmine's own words are difficult to swallow.Only for sedes.
This is the great debate in the theology of this question, a question which is unsettled, but which the Sedevacantists pontificate on. That is the problem, setting oneself up as Pope to decide upon a matter which is not settled by the Church. That is not Catholic. Cardinal Journet, however, can help with the logic:
Many and good theologians of the XVIth and XVIIth Century have admitted that it was possible that a Pope could fall, as a private person, into the sin of heresy, not only occult, but also manifest. The ones like Bellarmine and Suarez, have then thought that the Pope, by cutting himself off from the Church, was ipso facto deposed; Papa haereticus est depositus. It appears that heresy is seen by these theologians as a sort of moral 'ѕυιcιdє' suppressing the subject of the papacy. We return thus easily to the first way we said the Pontificate is lost.
"The others, as Cajetan and John of St Thomas, whose analysis seems to me more penetrating, have considered that even after a manifest sin of heresy, the Pope is not yet deposed, but should be deposed by the Church; Papa haereticus non est depositus sed deponendus. Nevertheless they added the Church is not on that account above the Pope. They had recourse to the same explanation we used in the excursus IV1. They remarked that on the one hand, by divine right, the Church must be united to the Pope as a body to its head; and on the other hand, that, by divine right, he who is a manifest heretic must be avoided after one or two monitions (Tit III,10). There is thus an absolute antimony between the fact of being a Pope and persevering into heresy after one or two warnings. The action of the Church is simply declarative; it manifests that there is an incorrigible sin of heresy; then the Power of Authority of God exercises itself to disjoin the papacy from a subject who, persisting into heresy after admonition, becomes, by divine right, incapable to hold it any longer. In virtue of Scripture, the Church designates and God deposes. God works with the Church, says John of St Thomas, a little like a Pope would decide to attach indugences to certain pilgrimage places, but would leave to a minister the care to specify the places, II-II, Q1, disp2, a3, n29, tVII, p264. The explanation of Cajetan and John of St Thomas... leads us, in its turn, to the case of a subject who, from a certain moment, begins to become, by Divine Right, incapable to hold the privilege of the Papacy. It is reductible to the loss of pontificate by loss of subject. It is indeed the fundamental case, of which others will only be variants - L'Eglise du Verbe Incarne, vol I, p 625
When you and Lad, et al., start doing that, I tune out.:confused:
It’s one thing to weigh an esteemed theologian against another, but when you say an esteemed theologian doesn’t even know what another esteemed theologian is even talking about, I have grass to mow.
Quote from: DecemRationis (https://www.cathinfo.com/index.php?topic=70939.msg883495#msg883495)
It looks to me like Journet is confirming Lad's view of Bellarmine, which is distinguished from "the others," Cajetan and St. Thomas, who say the Church must depose.
Lad,
There is a lack of clarity here that just contributes to the confusion.
Father Chazal holds that Francis is the pope. You say he can't be the pope, that if he is the pope, or regarded as the pope, it makes a lie of the Church's indefectibility; it stands on end the traditional teaching regarding the pope's authority and submission to it, etc.
How does Fr. Chazal's "impounding" of the pope, while still recognizing him as pope, not create issues regarding the Church's indefectiblity, the pope's authority and submission to it, etc.
Please educate me.
Thank you,
DR
Whoops; concedo.
But the JST quote stands, with him asserting that Bellarmine’s position still requires a declaration from the Church that Christ has deposed the heretical pope:
Of these two [intermediate] explanations, Azorius (2, tom. 2, cap. 7) adopts the first, which holds that the Church is superior to the Pope in the case of heresy; while Cajetan adopts the latter and treats of it at length. Bellarmine, however, reports his opinion and attacks it in his work de Romano pontifice, bk. 2, ch. 30, objecting especially to these two points: namely, that Cajetan says that the Pope who is a manifest heretic [according to the Church's human judgment] is not ipso facto deposed; and also that the Church deposes the Pope in a real and authoritative manner. Suarez also, in the disputation that we have frequently cited, sect. 6, num. 7, attacks Cajetan for saying that, in the case of heresy, the Church is superior to the Pope, not insofar as he is Pope, but insofar as he is a private individual. Cajetan, however, did not say this; he only said that, even in the case of heresy, the Church is not absolutely superior to the Pope, but instead is superior to the bond between the papacy and the person, dissolving it in the same way that she forged it at his election; and this power of the Church is ministerial, for only Christ our Lord is superior to the Pope without qualification. Hence, Bellarmine and Suarez are of the opinion that, by the very fact that the Pope is a manifest heretic and declared to be incorrigible, he is deposed [ipso facto] by Christ our Lord without any intermediary, and not by any authority of the Church.
Whoops; concedo.
*****Bump*****
Hoping for some real civil and genuine discussion/analysis in pursuit of truth, and not some rehashing of 1) Sedes, heretics, or 2) R & R, heretics.
The traditional notions of indefectibility and the papacy are assaulted under both theories. And I don't see Father Chazal's "impoundism," or the Cassiascuм thesis, on a theoretical level, to present any solution to the theoretical quandary.
Fr. Chazal's notion practically speaking is where we are, and I agree with it. But again, on the level of the theoretical and intellectually consistent, it doesn't work with the traditional notions.
Which is why I have said that the traditional notions don't apply under these post-V2 circuмstances, which is basically the view expressed by Struthio here: https://www.cathinfo.com/the-sacred-catholic-liturgy-chant-prayers/vatican-council-says-there-will-be-shepherds-'usque-ad-consummationem-saeculi'/
There we see an attempt, looking at Scripture, the fathers, etc., to come to an understanding that accords with what has been revealed and isn't inconsistent with the reality we deal with.
This will likely go nowhere as the "debate" continues in the usual accusatory channels, but I've said my piece at least.
Refreshing, Sean.
Yes,JournetJohn of St. Thomas still agrees with you.
Why do you say indefectibility is under assault if almost all the theologians could not rule out the possibility of an heretical pope?
Doesn't that suggest such a case is not at war with indefectibility (otherwise how could they countenance the possibility)?
Just for the record, to avoid confusion ^^^
We were discussing Journet, and Journet agrees with you as to the St. John of Thomas opinion being correct . . . that's what I meant.
Yes, but what 2V was challenging was whether PV properly understood Bellarmine's position.
I asserted that both JST and Journet commented upon Bellarmine's position, understanding it the same way.
2V challenged that, and upon looking again, although Journet agrees with me generally, it was only JST that actually commented upon Bellarmine's position.
A heretical pope in union with the rest of the hierarchy teaching false doctrine to the world, corrupting the liturgy and sacraments, is a Magisterial problem, and shows a defected Church...
Ok.
I'm not stepping into the "what Bellarmine really meant" debate.
Nah, neither of you are "stepping in" because you've got nothing to back your ridiculous and absurd opinion, one out of context lifted from John of St. Thomas notwithstanding.
It's been adequately demonstrated from Bellarmine himself that when he does write about the Church judging a pope it's only under the supposition that he has already been judged by God and removed from office ipso facto on account of manifest heresy.
There's no doubt but that Jorge Bergoglio is a manifest heretic. Period. He's verbatim rejected defined Catholic dogmas, and has done so repeatedly, pertinaciously, has joked about his opinions being possibly heretical, and has been rebuked regarding several of them ... and yet he persists.
Nah, neither of you are "stepping in" because you've got nothing to back your ridiculous and absurd opinion, one out of context lifted from John of St. Thomas notwithstanding.Exactly. He speaks for himself. No one else needs to explain what he "really meant".
It's been adequately demonstrated from Bellarmine himself that when he does write about the Church judging a pope it's only under the supposition that he has already been judged by God and removed from office ipso facto on account of manifest heresy.
There's no doubt but that Jorge Bergoglio is a manifest heretic. Period. He's verbatim rejected defined Catholic dogmas, and has done so repeatedly, pertinaciously, has joked about his opinions being possibly heretical, and has been rebuked regarding several of them ... and yet he persists.
Nah, neither of you are "stepping in" because you've got nothing to back your ridiculous and absurd opinion, one out of context lifted from John of St. Thomas notwithstanding.
It's been adequately demonstrated from Bellarmine himself that when he does write about the Church judging a pope it's only under the supposition that he has already been judged by God and removed from office ipso facto on account of manifest heresy.
There's no doubt but that Jorge Bergoglio is a manifest heretic. Period. He's verbatim rejected defined Catholic dogmas, and has done so repeatedly, pertinaciously, has joked about his opinions being possibly heretical, and has been rebuked regarding several of them ... and yet he persists.
Exactly. He speaks for himself. No one else needs to explain what he "really meant".
You do realize how stupid this makes you look, right?
You're saying JST didn’t understand Bellarmine’s argument, but **YOU DO**
Reflect on that.
Sean,
Take JST out of the picture. Say you were to read Saint Robert’s writings on there own, would you concede that Lad and Vermont (and I) would then be interpreting SRB’s writings correctly?
Impossible: My Latin is not good enough to read Bellarmine, and consequently, I would always have to rely upon a translator (bringing to mind the old caveat "a tranlator is a traitor).
Impossible: My Latin is not good enough to read Bellarmine, and consequently, I would always have to rely upon a translator (bringing to mind the old caveat "a tranlator is a traitor).How do you know that Siscoe and Salza's translation of JST is accurate? You did quote it from "True or False Pope".
But that aside, I would not concede the point, since it would imply that your, Lad's, and 2V's understanding of Bellarmine's position was better than that of JST (which is ridiculous). The only thing which would make me reconsider that JST has not properly understood Bellarmine's position, would be an equally eminant theologian saying as much.
When you can quote Billuart, Billot, or someone of that stature who lived after JST, saying the latter did not actually understand what Bellarmine's position was, ten I will reconsider.
But not before.
Russian Patriarch Kirill will never associate himself with this ding dong Francis.
Patently false, or there’d be no disagreement on what Bellarmine means!I don't recall such a disagreement between sedes and non-sedes ...at least not here. Typically the argument would go along the lines of..."well, Bellarmine has one opinion and other theologians have another. Therefore, you can't dogmatize Bellarmine's as the only answer".
The hubris is manifested by preferring your own defective understanding of what Bellarmine’s position is, to that of one reknowned to be vastly more knowledgeable (JST).
I don't recall such a disagreement between sedes and non-sedes ...at least not here. Typically the argument would go along the lines of..."well, Bellarmine has one opinion and other theologians have another. Therefore, you can't dogmatize Bellarmine's as the only answer".
OK, so if we all agree with JST that Bellarmine’s position was that a declaration must precede a deposition, then I guess we have no argument.Did you really think I meant that in my post? I was referring to past disagreements on this board between sedes and non-sedes. That disagreement was that Bellarmine's opinion was different than the others (ie. that a declaration was NOT necessary; that a heretic pope lost his office ipso facto), but it was "just another opinion", that it holds no more water than the other different opinions. Now I'm seeing a new argument: that Bellarmine's opinion wasn't different after all (ie. that he agrees with the others).
Did you really think I meant that in my post? I was referring to past disagreements on this board between sedes and non-sedes. That disagreement was that Bellarmine's opinion was different than the others (ie. that a declaration was NOT necessary; that a heretic pope lost his office ipso facto), but it was "just another opinion", that it holds no more water than the other different opinions. Now I'm seeing a new argument: that Bellarmine's opinion wasn't different after all (ie. that he agrees with the others).
Who ever alleged JST, Cajetan, and Bellarmine all saw eye to eye on deposition in toto (as though there were not 1 opinion instead of 5)?OK. You're saying they agreed ON THAT POINT. That was NEVER the argument on this board when speaking of Bellarmine's position. It was always understood by sedes and non-sedes alike that he believed in an ipso facto deposition. Suddenly, what he wrote in the fifth opinion isn't what he "really meant".
What I’ve been saying is that they all agree ON THIS PARTICULAR POINT (ie., that a declaration is necessary for deposition).
JST says this is Bellarmine’s position.
OK. You're saying they agreed ON THAT POINT. That was NEVER the argument on this board when speaking of Bellarmine's position. It was always understood by sedes and non-sedes alike that he believed in an ipso facto deposition. Suddenly, what he wrote in the fifth opinion isn't what he "really meant".
OK. You're saying they agreed ON THAT POINT. That was NEVER the argument on this board when speaking of Bellarmine's position. It was always understood by sedes and non-sedes alike that he believed in an ipso facto deposition. Suddenly, what he wrote in the fifth opinion isn't what he "really meant".
Before commentnig, is it the extent of the hierarchy which has fallen into modernism which concerns you, such that you believe a threshhold has been crossed, after which point the church has defected?
But that the point has never been made by R&R is nonsense, as I myself have made that point countless times (as have others, like Roman Theo, Siscoe/Salza, et al).Perhaps "never" was an exaggeration. It makes sense that Siscoe and Salza/Roman Theo made that "point" since that is where you got the JST quote (translated by....?).
However, from those debates that I took part in over the last 10 years, the issue was how us sedes can't dogmatize Bellarmine's opinion/position of ipso facto deposition, NOT that he didn't believe in ipso facto deposition.
I'd like to read where he made the point that St Bellarmine really didn't mean ipso facto deposition.
Once again, you are misconstruing that which is really being argued:
Nobody is claiming that Bellarmine doesn't believe in ipso facto deposition, but per John of St. Thomas:
"Hence, Bellarmine and Suarez are of the opinion that, by the very fact that the Pope is a manifest heretic and declared to be incorrigible, he is deposed [ipso facto] by Christ our Lord without any intermediary, and not by any authority of the Church."
In other words, the moment the fact of the Pope's heresy is declared, Christ ipso facto deposes him.
Too bad Bellarmine never used the term "declared". That's a little tidbit injected by John of St. Thomas. He simply said that the Pope in question had to be incorrible, i.e. unwilling to be corrected, but nowhere in the statement of the 5th opinion did Bellarmine state that he had to be declared such.
Bellarmine stated that only after he had been ipso facto deposed could the Church judge him. It's right there in his statement of the 5th opinion. He also cited as proof text the declaration of Pope St. Celestine, who declared that Nestorius had lost authority from the moment he began preaching heresy (several years before he was officially removed from his material occupancy of the office).
Your desperation is pathetic.
The argument from authority is based on St. Paul (Titus, c. 3), 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.
As for your quip that John of St. Thomas has falsified St. Bellarmine's position, I'd say the onus is upon you to prove it.
Once again, you are misconstruing that which is really being argued:My bad. Ipso facto deposition without prior declaration is what I meant. I should have been clearer.
Nobody is claiming that Bellarmine doesn't believe in ipso facto deposition, but per John of St. Thomas:
"Hence, Bellarmine and Suarez are of the opinion that, by the very fact that the Pope is a manifest heretic and declared to be incorrigible, he is deposed [ipso facto] by Christ our Lord without any intermediary, and not by any authority of the Church."
In other words, the moment the fact of the Pope's heresy is declared, Christ ipso facto deposes him.
In Bellarmine's own words, while rejecting the opinion of Cajetan, whom Salza and Siscoe (and Sean Johnson) laughably attribute to him:
He defines manifestly obstinate as BEFORE ANY EXCOMMUNICATION OR JUDICIAL SENTENCE.
Case closed. John of St. Thomas was wrong when he claimed that that the Pope had to be DECLARED incorrigible. Alternatively, your translation of John of St. Thomas is completely bogus, the work of more Salza butchering.
Just did. Nowhere did Bellarmine state the he had to be delcared incorrigible / obstinate / pertinacious, but instead, as per above stated explicitly that he would SHOW HIMSELF to be manifestly obstinate BEFORE ANY JUDICIAL SENTENCE.
Produce the original Latin of that passage from John of St. Thomas, just to make sure you're not slandering him to further your own agenda.
My bad. Ipso facto deposition without prior declaration is what I meant. I should have been clearer....and John of St. Thomas.
That has been this board's understanding of Bellarmine's position/opinion (except perhaps Chips and Salsa/the banned? "RomanTheo")
For men are not bound, or able to read hearts; but when they see someone that is a heretic by his external works, they judge him to be a heretic pure and simple, and condemn him as a heretic.
http://www.trueorfalsepope.com/p/answering-fr-kramers-objection-to-true.html
http://www.trueorfalsepope.com/p/answering-fr-kramers-objection-to-true.html
Objection 10: “Ballerini, who famously followed Bellarmine’s “Fifth Opinion”…Answer: Since Fr. Kramer admits that Ballerini held the 5th opinion, let’s read Ballerini's teaching on the loss of office for a heretical Pope, in context, including the part that Fr. Kramer conveniently omitted, to see when he believed a heretical Pope would be deprived of his jurisdiction.In the follow quotation, Ballerini explaining how he believes the Church can remedy the case of a heretical Pope, without having to wait for a general council to be convened.“In the case of the Pope’s falling into heresy, the remedy is more promptly and easily supplied. Now, when we speak of heresy with reference to the Supreme Pontiffs, we do not mean the kind of heresy by which any of them, defining ex officio a dogma of faith, would define an error; for this cannot happen, as we have established in the book on their infallibility in defining controverted matters of faith. Nor do we speak of a case in which the popes err in a matter of faith by their opinion on a subject that has not yet been defined [i.e., a new heresy]; for opinions that, before the Church has defined anything, men are free to embrace, cannot be stigmatized as heresy. The present question, then, pertains only to the case in which the Pope, deceived in his private judgment, believes and pertinaciously asserts something contrary to an evident or defined article of faith, for this is what constitutes heresy. …"But why, we ask, in such a case, where the faith is imperiled by the most imminent and the gravest of all dangers … should we await a remedy from a general council, which is not at all easy to convene? When the faith is so endangered, cannot inferiors of whatever rank admonish their superior with a fraternal correction, resist him to the face, confront him, and, if it is necessary, rebuke him and impel him to come to his senses? The cardinals could do this, for they are the counselors of the Pope; so could the Roman clergy; or, if it is judged expedient, a Roman synod could be convened for that purpose. For the words of Paul to Titus: ‘Avoid a heretic after the first and second admonition, knowing that such a one is perverse and sins, being condemned by his own judgment” (Tit. 13:10), are addressed to any man whatsoever, even a private individual. For he who, after a first and second correction, does not return to his senses, but persists in an opinion contrary to a manifest or defined dogma, cannot, by the very fact of this public pertinacity, be excused by any pretext from heresy in the strict sense, which requires pertinacity, but rather declares himself plainly to be a heretic; in other words, he declares that he has departed from the Catholic faith and from the Church of his own accord, in such wise that no declaration or sentence of any man is necessary to cut him off from the body of the Church. St. Jerome’s perspicacious commentary on the above-quoted words of St. Paul affords us insight into the matter: “It is for this reason that [the heretic] is said to be self-condemned: whereas the fornicator, the adulterer, the murderer, and those guilty of other sins are cast out of the Church by her ministers [sacerdotes], heretics, for their part, pronounce sentence against themselves, leaving the Church of their own accord; and their departure is considered as a condemnation issued by their own conscience.” Therefore, the Pope who, after a solemn and public warning given by the cardinals, the Roman clergy, or even a synod, would harden himself in his heresy, and thus would have departed plainly from the Church, would, according to the precept of St. Paul, have to be avoided; and, lest he bring destruction upon others, his heresy and contumacy would have to be brought forth into the public, so that all might similarly beware of him; and in this way the sentence that he passed against himself, being proposed to the whole Church, would declare that he has departed of his own accord, and has been cut off from the Body of the Church, and has in certain manner abdicated the Papacy, which no one possesses, nor can possess, who is not in the Church.”Comment: The reason he said “no declaration or sentence of any man is necessary to cut him off from the body of the Church,” is because cutting someone off from the Church requires the use of coercive power, which the Church cannot exercise against a Pope. Therefore, he says the Pope cuts himself off from the Church, by remaining hardened in heresy in the face of public and solemn warnings. Pay close attention to what he says next:“You see, then, that in the case of a heresy to which the Pope adheres in his personal judgment, there is a prompt and efficacious remedy apart from the convocation of a general council; and in this hypothetical case whatever would be done against him to bring him to his senses before the declaration of his heresy and contumacy would be the exercise of charity, not of jurisdiction; but afterwards, when his departure from the Church has been made manifest, whatever sentence would be passed against him by a council would be passed against one who is no longer Pope, nor superior to a council.”
I just finished reading this. It has to be one of the most idiotic things I have ever read. Ballerini clearly holds the opposite of the Siscoe and Salza position. Father Kramer is correct. These buffoons see the word Council and think it support their position, but Ballerini clearly states that --
1) no Council is necessary to be rid of a heretical Pope, and the remedy is "easily suppled" (by warning him publicly and solemnly)
"But why, we ask, in such a case, where the faith is imperiled by the most imminent and the gravest of all dangers … should we await a remedy from a general council, which is not at all easy to convene? When the faith is so endangered, cannot inferiors of whatever rank admonish their superior with a fraternal correction, resist him to the face, confront him, and, if it is necessary, rebuke him and impel him to come to his senses?"
2) and that a Council that judges him would be passing sentence "against one who is lo longer pope, nor superior to a council."
3) and that it requires only the manifestation of pertinacity, which would consist only of a public and solemn admonition.
"For he who, after a first and second correction, does not return to his senses, but persists in an opinion contrary to a manifest or defined dogma, cannot, by the very fact of this public pertinacity, be excused by any pretext from heresy in the strict sense, which requires pertinacity, but rather declares himself plainly to be a heretic..."
Jorge just verbatim contradicted defined dogma by asserting that schismatic "martyrs" can be saints. He's repeated this numerous times and now formalized it by putting their names in the ROMAN MARTYROLOGY.
In point of fact, a group of Cardinals (though that's nowhere required) publicly admonished him regarding the heresy in Amoris Laetitia. Bergoglio not only ignored their admonition but doubled down and ordered his letter to the bishops in Argentina confirming the heresy to be published in the Acta Apostolicae Sedis.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S1JXo-rEQsk
Nobody could be this dumb:
Ballerini holds with Bellarmine that It’s Christ, not a council, that does the deposing. The council merely supplies the requisite declaration of fact.
Thus has been explained at least 5x in the last couple pages.
:facepalm: Unbelievable.
Of course it's Christ that does the deposing.
Ballerini explicitly states that no Council is even necessary, just a public admonition and the heretic's persistence in the heresy despite admonitions.
Ballerini explicitly states that if a Council were convened to judge him, as Bellarmine said, they would be judging someone who had ALREADY been removed from office (obviously by Christ).
It's mind-boggling that you can read this as saying the opposite of what it actually says.
Loquitur enim Apostolus de hæretico non pertinaci et formato , sed eo , qui ex ignorantia aut mala instructione errat , et sectam errantium sequitur ; vel de quo dubium est , sitne pertinax , necne . Hic enim corripi et instrui debet , primo lenius , secundo durius et fortius ; quod si sic monitus contemnit , ostenditque se pertinacem , vitandus est , et non corripiendus : correptionis enim nullus erit fructus.
"the apostle speaks of a heretic, not of a stubborn and formed one, but of one who goes astray from ignorance or bad instruction, and follows the sect of the erring; or about which there is a doubt, whether he is persistent or not. For here he must be rebuked and instructed, first gently, secondly harder and stronger; that if he thus despises admonition, and shows himself obstinate, he is to be avoided, and not to be reproved: for there will be no fruit of reproof."
Produce the original Latin of that passage from John of St. Thomas, just to make sure you're not slandering him to further your own agenda.
Et ideo Bellarminus, et Suarez censent Papam hoc ipso quod est haereicus manifestus,& pro incorrigibili declaratus, a Christo Domino immediate deponi, non ab aliqua authoritate Ecclesiae.
:facepalm: Unbelievable.Ballerini opines that it need not be a Council, true, but he still requires a little more than "just a public admonition". It is still a question of the Church, not the individual, in some official way holding the Pope to account and making a declaration of the Pope's heresy:
Of course it's Christ that does the deposing.
Ballerini explicitly states that no Council is even necessary, just a public admonition and the heretic's persistence in the heresy despite admonitions.
Ballerini explicitly states that if a Council were convened to judge him, as Bellarmine said, they would be judging someone who had ALREADY been removed from office (obviously by Christ).
It's mind-boggling that you can read this as saying the opposite of what it actually says.
Argumentum decimum. Pontifex in casu haeresis potest ab Ecclesia judicari et deponi, ut patet dist. 40, can. Si papa igitur subjectus est pontifex humano judicio, saltem in aliquo casu.
Respondeo:
sunt de hac re quinque opiniones. Prima est Alberti Pighii lib. 4 cap. 9 hierarch. Eccles. Ubi contendit, papam non posse esse haereticuм; proinde nec deponi in ullo casu, quae sententia probabilis est, et defendi potest facile, ut postea sue loco ostendemus. Quia tamen non est certa, et communis opinio est in contrarium, operae pretium erit videre, quid sit respondendum, si papa haereticus esse possit.
Est ergo secunda opinio, papam eo ipso quo in haeresim incidit, etiam interiorem tantum, esse extra Ecclesiam et depositum a Deo, quocirca ab Ecclesia posse judicari, id est, declarari depositum jure divino, et deponi de facto, si adhuc recuset cedere. Haec est Joan. De Turrecremata lib. 4. par. 2. cap. 20. sed mihi non probatur. Nam jurisdictio datur quidem pontifici a Deo, sed hominum opera concurrente, ut patet, qua ab hominibus habet iste homo qui antea non era papa, ut incipiat esse papa; igitur non aufertur a Deo nisi per hominem: at haereticus occultus non potest ab homine judicari; nec ipse sponte eam potestatem vult relinquere. Adde, quod fundamentum hujus opinionis est, quod haeretici occulti sint extra Ecclesiam, quod esse falsum nos prolixe ostendimus in lib. 1. de Eccl.
Terta opinio est in altero extremo, nimirum, papam neque per haeresim occultam, neque per manifestam, esse depositum aut deponi posse. Hanc refert et refellit Turrecremata loc. not. Et sane est opinio valde improbabilis. Primo, quoniam haereticuм papam posse judicari, expresse hebetur can. Si papa dist. 40. et apud Innocentium serm. 2. de consecr. Pontif. Et quod majus est in VIII. Synodo act. 8. recitantur acta concilii Romani sub Hadriano, et in iis continebatur. Honorium papam jure videri anathematizatum, quia de haeresi fuerat convictus, ob quam solam caussam licet minoribus judicare majores. Ubi notandum est, quod etsi probabile sit, Honorium non fuisse haereticuм, et Hadrianum II. Papam deceptum ex corruptis exemplaribus VI. Synodi, falso putasse Honorium fuisse haereticuм: tamen non possumus negare, quia Hadrianus cuм Romano concilio, immo et tota synodus VIII. Generalis senserit, in caussa haeresis posse Romanum pontificem judicari. Adde, quod esset miserrima conditio Ecclesiae, si lupum manifeste grassantem, pro pastore agnoscere cogeretur.
Quarta opinio est Cajetani in tract. De auctor papae et conc. cap. 20. et 21. ubi docet, papam haereticuм manifestum non esse ipso facto depositum sed posse, ac debere deponi ab Ecclesia: quae sententia meo judicio defendi non potest. Nam inprimis, quod haereticus manifestus ipso facto sit depositus, probatur auctoritate et ratione. Auctoritas est b. Pauli, qui in epist. ad Titum 3. jubet, postquam manifeste apparet pertinax, vitari, et intelligit ante omnem excommunicationem, et sententiam judicis: ut ibidem scribit Hieronymus, ubi dicit, alios peccatores per sententiam excommunicationis excludi ab Ecclesia; haereticos autem per se discedere et praecidi a corpore Christi: at non potest vitari papa manens papa; quomodo enim vitabimus capus nostrum? Quomodo recedemus a membro nobis conjuncto?
Ratio vero et quidem certissima haec est. Non Christianus non potest ullo modo esse papa, et Cajetanus fatetur in eod. lib. cap. 26. et ratio est, quia non potest esse caput id quod non est membrum; et non est membrum Ecclesiae is qui non est Christianus: at haereticus manifestus non est Christianus, ut aperte docet Cyprianus lib. 4. epist. 2 Athanasius ser. 2. cont. Arian. Augustinus lib. De grat. Christ. cap. 20. Hieronymus cont. Lucifer. et alii; haereticus igitur manifestus papa esse non potest.
Respondet Cajetanus in Apol. pro tract. Praedicto cap. 25. et in ipso tract. cap. 22. haereticuм non esse Christianum simpliciter, sed esse secundum quid: nam cuм duo faciant Christianum, fides et character, haereticus amissa fide, adhuc adhaeret aliquo modo Ecclesiae, et capax est jurisdictionis; proinde adhuc est papa, sed deponendus; quia per haeresim est dispositus, dispositione ultima, ad non esse papam: qualis est homo, non quidem mortuus, sed in extremis constitutus.
At contra. Nam inprimis si ratione characteris haereticus maneret actu conjunctus cuм Ecclesia, nunquam posset praecidi et separari actu ab ea, quia character est indelebilis: at omnes fatentur, quosdam posse praecidi de facto ab Ecclesia; igitur character non facit hominem haereticuм, esse actu in Ecclesia, sed solum esse signum quod fuerit in Ecclesia, et quod debeat esse in Ecclesia. Quomodo character ovi impressus, quando illa errat in montibus, non facit eam esse in ovili, sed indicat ex quo ovili fugerit, et quo iterum compelli possit. Et confirmatur ex b. Thoma, qui 3. par. q. 9. artic. 3. dicit, eos qui fide carent non esse unitos Christo actu, sed in potentia tantum: ubi loquitur de unione interna, non externa, quae sit per confessionem fidei, et visibilia sacramenta. cuм ergo character ad interna pertineat non ad externa secundum b. Thomam, solus character non unit actu hominem cuм Christo.
Deinde. Vel fides est dispositio necessaria simpliciter ad hoc ut aliquis sit papa, vel tantum ad bene esse. Si primum; ergo ista dispositione sublata per contrariam quae est haeresis, mox papa desinit esse: neque enim potest forma conservari sine necessariis dispositionibus. Si secuм; ergo non potest deponi papa propter haeresim: nam alioquin deberet deponi etiam propter ignorantiam et improbitatem et similia, quae tollunt scientiam et probitatem, et alias dispositiones necessarias ad bene esse papae. Et praeterea fatetur Cajet. In tract. Praed. cap. 26. ex defectu dispositionum non necessarium simpliciter, sed tantum ad bene esse papam non posse deponi.
Respondet Cajetanus, fidem esse dispositionem necessariam simpliciter, sed partialem, non totalem; et proinde fide remota, adhuc papam manere papam propter aliam partem dispositionis, quae dicitur character, et adhuc remanet.
At contra. Vel totalis dispositio, quae est character et fides, est necessaria simpliciter, vel non, sed sufficit partialis. Si primum: ergo remota fide, non amplius remanet dispositio necessaria simpliciter, quia totalis erat necessaria simpliciter, et jam non est amplius totalis. Si secundum; ergo fides no requiritur nisi ad bene esse, et proinde propter ejus defectum papa deponi non potest. Deinde quae habent ultimam dispositionem ad interitum, paulo post desinunt esse sine alia vi externa, ut patet; igitur et papa haereticus sine alia depositione per se desinit esse papa.
Denique sancti Patres concorditer docent, non solum haereticos esse extra Ecclesiam; se etiam ipso facto carere omni jurisdictione et dignitate ecclesiastica. Cyprianus lib. 2. epist. 6. Dicimus, inquit, omnes omnino haereticos atque schismaticos nihil habere potestatis ac juris: et lib. 2. epist. 1. docet, haereticos ad Ecclesiam redeuntes suscipiendos ut laicos, etsi antea in Ecclesia presbyteri, vel episcopi fuerint. Optatus lib. 1. cont. Parmen. docet, haereticos et schismaticos claves regni coelorum habere non posse, nec solvere aut ligare. Ambrosius lib. 1. de poenit. cap. 2. et Augustinus in Enchir. cap. 65. Idem docet Hieronymus lib. Cont. Lucifer. Non quod Episcopi, inquit, esse possunt qui haeretici fuerant, sed quid constaret, eos, qui reciperentur, haereticos non fuisse.
Coelestinus papa 1. in epist. Ad Jo. Antioch. Quae habetur in concil. Ephes. Tom. 1. cap. 19. Si quis, inquit, ab episcopo Nestorio aut ab aliis qui eum sequuntur, ex quo talia praedicare coeperunt, vel excommunicatus vel exutus est, seu antistitis seu cleri dignitate, hunce in nostra communione et durasse et durare manifestum est, nec judicamus eum remotum; quia non poterat quemquam ejus removere sententia, qui se jam praebuerat ipse removendum. Et in epistol. Ad cler. Constantinopol. Sedis, inquit, nostrae sanxit auctoritas, nullum sive episcopum, sive clericuм seu professione aliqua Christianum, qui a Nestorio vel ejus similibus, ex quo talia praedicare coeperunt, vel loco suo, vel communione detecti sunt, vel dejectum, vel excommunicatum videri: quia neminem deiicere vel removere poterat, qui praedicans talia titubavit. Idem repetit et confirmat Nicolaus 1. in epist. Ad Michäel. denique etiam d. Thomas 2. 2. q. 39. art. 3. docet, schismaticus mox perdere omnem jurisdictionem, et irrita esse, si quae ex jurisdictione agere conentur.
Neque valet quod quidam respondent: istos Patres loqui secundum antiqua jura; nunc autem ex decreto concilii constantiensis non amittere jurisdictionem, nisi nominatim excommunicatos, et percussores clericorum. Hoc, inquam, nihil valet: nam Patres illi cuм dicunt haereticos amittere jurisdictionem, non allegant ulla jura humana, quae etiam forte tunc nulla exstabant de hac re: sed argumentantur ex natura haeresis. Concilium autem constantiense non loquitur nisi de excommunicatis, id est, de his qui per sententiam Ecclesiae amiserunt jurisdictionem: haeretici autem etiam ante excommunicationem sunt extra Ecclesiam, et privati omni jurisdictione, sunt enim proprio judicio condemnati, ut docet apostolus ad Titum 3. hoc est, praecisi a corpore Ecclesiae sine excommunicatione, ut Hieronymus exponit.
Deinde quod secundo Cajetanus dicit, posse papam haereticuм ab Ecclesia deponi vere et ex auctoritate, non minus videtur falsum, quam primum. Nam si Ecclesia invitum papam deponit; certe est supra papam, cujus oppositum in illo tractatu idem Cajetanus defendit. Sed respondet ipse: Ecclesiam ex eo quod papam deponit, non habere auctoritatem in papam, sed solum in illam conjunctionem personae cuм pontificatu: ut enim Ecclesia potest coniungere pontificatum cuм tali persona, et tamen non dicitur propterea esse supra pontificem: ita potest separare pontificatum a tali persona in casu haeresis, et tamen non dicetur esse supra pontificem.
At contra. Nam primo, ex eo quod papa deponit episcopus, deducunt, papam esse supra episcopos omnes, et tamen papa deponens episcopum non destruit episcopatum, sed solum separat ab allia persona. Secundo deponi invitum a pontificatu sine dubio est poena; igitur Ecclesia invitum papam deponens, sine dubio ipsum punit; at punire est superioris et judicis. Tertio, quia secundum Cajetanum et caeteros Thomistas, re idem sunt totum et partes simul sumptae; igitur qui habet auctoritatem in partes simul sumptas, it ut eas separare possit, habet etiam in ipsum totum, quod ex partibus illis consurgit.
Neque valet Cajetani exemplum de electoribus, qui habent potestatem applicandi pontificatum certae personae, et tamen non habent potestatem in papam. Nam dum res fit, actio exercetur circa materiam rei futurae, non circa compositum quod nondum est: at dum res destruitur, exercetur circa compositum, ut patet in rebus naturalibus. Itaque cardinales dum pontificem creant, exercent suam auctoritatem, non supra pontificem quia nondum est, sed circa materiam, id est, circa personam quam per electionem quodammodo disponunt, ut a Deo pontificatus formam recipiat; at si pontificem deponerent, necessario exercerent auctoritatem supra compositum, id est, supra personam pontificia dignitate praeditam, id est, supra pontificem.
Est ergo quinta opinio vera, papam haereticuм manifestum per se desinere esse papam et caput, sicut per se desinit esse Christianus et membrum corporis Ecclesiae: quare ab Ecclesia posse eum judicare et puniri. Haec est sententia omnium veterum Patrum, qui docent, haereticos manifestos mox amittere omnem jurisdictionem, et nominatum Cypriani lib. 4. epist. 2. ubi sic loquitur de Novatiano. Qui fuit papa in schismate cuм Cornelio: Episcopatum, inquit, tenere non posset, et si episcopus primus factus, a coepiscoporum suorum corpore et ab Ecclesiae unitate discederet. Ubi dicit Novationum, etsi verus act legitimus papa fuisset, tamen eo ipso casurum fuisse a pontificatu si se ab Ecclesia separaret.
Eadem est sententia doctissimorum recentiorum ut Jo. Driedonis, qui lib. 4. de Script. et dogmat. Eccles. cap. 2. par. 2. sent. 2. docet, eos tantum ab Ecclesia separari, qui vel ejiciuntur, ut excommunicati, vel per se discedunt et oppugnant Ecclesiam, ut haeretici et schismatici. Et sententia septima dicit, in iis, qui ab Ecclesia discesserunt, nullam prorsus remanere spiritualem potestatem super eos, qui sunt de Ecclesia. Idem Melchior Canus, qui lib. 4. de loc. cap. 2. docet, haereticos non esse partes Ecclesiae, nec membra, et cap. ult. ad argument. 12. dicit, non posse vel cogitatione informari, ut aliquis sit caput et papa, qui non est membrum neque pars. Et ibidem disertis verbis docet, haereticos occultos adhuc esse de Ecclesia, et partes, ac membra, atque adeo papam haereticuм occultum adhuc esse papam. Eadem est aliorum etiam, quos citavimus in lib. 1. de Eccles.
Fundamentum hujus sententiae est, quoniam haereticus manifestus nullo modo est membrum Ecclesiae, id est, neque animo neque corpore, sive neque unione interna, neque externa. Nam catholici etiam mali sunt uniti et sunt membra, animo per fidem, corpore per confessionem fidei, et visibilium sacramentorum participationem: haeretici occulti, sunt uniti et sunt membra, solum externa unione, sicut e contrario, boni catechumeni sunt de Ecclesia, interna unione tantum, non autem externa: haeretici manifesti nullo modo, ut jam probatum est.
The fourth opinion is that of Cajetani, in his treatise On the Authority of the Pope and Council, chapters 20 and 21, where he teaches that a manifestly heretical pope is not automatically deposed but can and should be deposed by the Church. In my judgment, this opinion cannot be defended. Firstly, the fact that a manifestly heretical person is automatically deposed is proven by authority and reason. The authority is that of St. Paul, who in his letter to Titus 3 commands that an obstinate person should be avoided once he is manifestly revealed, and understands that this should happen before any excommunication or sentence of a judge. As Jerome writes in the same passage, other sinners are excluded from the Church by the sentence of excommunication, but heretics depart from and are cut off from the body of Christ by themselves. But a pope cannot be avoided or separated from while still remaining pope; for how can we avoid our head? How can we separate from a member that is joined to us?
The fourth opinion is Cajetani's tract. Of the author of the pope and the conc. chap. 20. and 21. where he teaches that a heretical pope is not automatically deposed, but can and must be deposed by the Church: which opinion cannot be defended in my judgment. For first of all, that the manifest heretic was automatically deposed, is proved by authority and reason. Authority is b. Paul, who in Epist. to Titus 3. He commands, after he is manifestly obstinate, to be avoided, and understands before all excommunication and the sentence of the judges: as Jerome writes there, where he says, other sinners are excluded from the Church by the sentence of excommunication; but the heretics are by themselves to depart and be cut off from the body of Christ: but the pope cannot be avoided if he remains pope; for how shall we avoid our head? How shall we withdraw from the member joined to us?
The fourth opinion is of Cajetan [322]. There, he teaches, that a manifestly heretical Pope is not ipso facto deposed; but can and ought to be deposed by the Church. Now in my judgment, such an opinion cannot be defended. For in the first place, that a manifest heretic would be ipso facto deposed, is proven from authority and reason. The Authority is of St. Paul, who commands Titus [323], that after two censures, that is, after he appears manifestly pertinacious, an heretic is to be shunned: and he understands this before excommunication and sentence of a judge. Jerome comments on the same place, saying that other sinners, through a judgment of excommunication are excluded from the Church; heretics, however, leave by themselves and are cut from the body of Christ, but a Pope who remains the Pope cannot be shunned. How will we shun our Head? How will we recede from a member to whom we are joined?
Loquitur enim Apostolus de hæretico non pertinaci et formato , sed eo , qui ex ignorantia aut mala instructione errat , et sectam errantium sequitur ; vel de quo dubium est , sitne pertinax , necne . Hic enim corripi et instrui debet , primo lenius , secundo durius et fortius ; quod si sic monitus contemnit , ostenditque se pertinacem , vitandus est , et non corripiendus : correptionis enim nullus erit fructus.
"the apostle speaks of a heretic, not of a stubborn and formed one, but of one who goes astray from ignorance or bad instruction, and follows the sect of the erring; or about which there is a doubt, whether he is persistent or not. For here he must be rebuked and instructed, first gently, secondly harder and stronger; that if he thus despises admonition, and shows himself obstinate, he is to be avoided, and not to be reproved: for there will be no fruit of reproof."
Ver. 10. A man that is, &c. Many ancient copies have this passage thus, Avoid a heretic after one reprehension. S. Irenæus, Tertullian, S. Cyprian, Ambrose, &c. and many ancient Greek copies, omit a second reprehension. They thought once warning a heretic sufficient; a second correction only served to render him more insolent, and more obstinate in his false opinions. Certainly the faith of Christ has been so firmly established, that a man instructed in Scripture and tradition cannot conscientiously remain a heretic; he must be well aware of the crime of disunion; his own judgment, as S. Paul says, must condemn him.
38.
[. . .]
So one who ofttimes had dealings with J e w s said: Avoid a heretic, after once reproving him Titus 3:10
Duobus itaque in tuto iam positis tanquam extra omnem dubitationem exsistentibus, tertia tandem restat celebris quae- stio de casu in quo Pontifex per apostasiam, schisma, vel haeresim deficeret ab Ecclesia. Per apostasiam quidem, ut si Papa fieret Turca. Per schisma, ut si cuм Ecclesia catholica communicare iam nollet. Per haeresim, ut si profiteretur se personaliter non credere aliquod dogma hactenus sufficienter propositum et ab omnibus fidelibus Christianis firma fide tenendum, puta divinitatem Christi, realem praesentiam eius in sacramento, immaculatam conceptionem Deiparae, aut si quid aliud huiusmodi. Verum ex tribus praedictis hypothesibus, duae priores adeo in vero simii es exsistunt, ut apud theologos vix ac ne vix quidem in considerationem veniant. Et ideo quaestio integra solet reduci ad casum papae qui fieret personali professione haereticus.
Hac igitur suppositione semel facta, concedunt omnes auferendum fore vinculum communionis et subiectionis, propter auctoritates divinas quae expresse iubent separationem ab haereticis, Tit. III-10, 2 loan. 10, etc. Sed aliqui cuм Caietano volunt ut papa factus haereticus subsit potestati ministeriali Ecclesiae in ordine ad depositionem, dicuntque hanc esse unicam exceptionem in generali doctrina paulo supra asserta et declarata. Alii vero statuunt quod talis ipso suo facto a pontificatu excideret, ita ut ex parte Ecclesiae non esset locus depositioni, sed solum sententiae declaratoriae de vacatione sedis.
[ . . . ]
Non enim occulte discredens, sed aperte profitens se discredere ea quae fidelibus christianis catholica fide tenenda proponuntur, vincu- lum abrumpit quo ad visibilem societatis ecclesiasticae com- paginem pertinebat, et ex consequenti amittit statim rationem membri cuм omnibus titulis qui hanc rationem essentialiter praesupponunt. Facta ergo hypothesi papae qui fieret notorie haereticus, incunctanter concedendum est quod ipso facto amitteret pontificalem potestatem, dum propria voluntate trans- ferretur extra corpus Ecclesiae, factus infidelis, sicut bene dicunt, auctores quos immerito, ut videtur, confutat Caietanus.
With the two now safely established as existing beyond all doubt, the third finally remains the famous question of the case in which the Pontiff should fail from the Church through apostasy, schism, or heresy. By apostasy indeed, as if the Pope had become a Turk. By schism, as if he no longer wanted to communicate with the Catholic Church. By heresy, as if he professed that he personally did not believe in any dogma sufficiently proposed up to now and to be held by firm faith by all faithful Christians, for example the divinity of Christ, his real presence in the sacrament, the immaculate conception of Deipara, or something else of the sort. It is true that of the three aforesaid hypotheses, the first two exist so much in reality that they hardly even come into consideration among theologians. And therefore the whole question is usually reduced to the case of a pope who would become a heretic by personal profession.
Therefore, once this supposition is made, all agree that the bond of communion and subjection must be taken away, because of the divine authorities which expressly command separation from heretics, Tit. III-10, 2 John. 10, etc. But some with Caietano want a pope who has become a heretic to be subject to the ministerial power of the Church in the order of deposition, and they say that this is the only exception in the general doctrine asserted and declared a little above. Others, on the other hand, decide that such a person would fall out of the pontificate by his own act, so that on the part of the Church there would be no room for deposition, but only for a declaratory decision about the vacancy of the seat.
[ . . . ]
For, not secretly disagreeing, but openly declaring that he disagrees with those things which are proposed to be held by the faithful Christians in the Catholic faith, he breaks the bond by which he belonged to the visible community of the ecclesiastical society, and as a consequence immediately loses the status of a member with all the titles which essentially presuppose this status. The hypothesis, then, of a pope who would become a notorious heretic, must be admitted without question, that he automatically lost the papal power, while he was transferred by his own will outside the body of the Church, becoming an infidel, as the authors rightly say, whom Caietanus contradicts.
There is no deposition until the declaration; once there is a declarationl the deposition is ipso facto by Christ.
Louis Card. Billot
How are you sure that you aren't the one who misunderstands him?BELLARMINE'S POSITION?
I think part of the problem is that the Bellarmine quotes are from two separate books, On Councils and On the Supreme Pontiff. I would argue that the former book generally speaks to Protestants regarding Popes who are still popes. The latter book is specifically about the Pope and goes into more detail on the topic. It provides us with the full scope of what happens when/if and how a pope loses office.
The 2 books shouldn't contradict each other, but the context is different, so they may seem to contradict.
Plenus Venter,I would say St Robert Bellarmine's advice regarding bishops preaching heresy is applicable:
If we were to follow Ballerini, unless a solemn and public warning were given by the Church to Francis, manifest heresy could not be established, and thus prior to that happening we could not ascertain that Francis is a heretic, and thus how could we avoid him?
Consequently, what reason do we have to say that others ought to beware his teaching, prior to the Church making such a declaration?
I would say St Robert Bellarmine's advice regarding bishops preaching heresy is applicable
The authority is that of St. Paul, who in his letter to Titus 3 commands that an obstinate person should be avoided once he is manifestly revealed, and understands that this should happen before any excommunication or sentence of a judge.
[ . . . ]
But a pope cannot be avoided or separated from while still remaining pope; for how can we avoid our head? How can we separate from a member that is joined to us?
So how should we reconcile all those quotes, Trad boy? St Robert's teachings on heretical bishops, his teaching on Councils. His teachings on the Pope not being removed unless by men. His requirement for warnings to demonstrate pertinacity. It's not so clear is it? Don't we need the Church to adjudicate on this disputed matter?
St. Paul commands that an obstinate person should be avoided once it is revealed that such a person is a manifest heretic.
Unless a pope is a manifest heretic he cannot be avoided, nor can we separate from him.
So how should we reconcile all those quotes, Trad boy? St Robert's teachings on heretical bishops, his teaching on Councils. His teachings on the Pope not being removed unless by men. His requirement for warnings to demonstrate pertinacity. It's not so clear is it? Don't we need the Church to adjudicate on this disputed matter?St Bellarmine clearly teaches against a declaration by men first (ie. the bishops/the Church) when he refutes the fourth opinion held by Cajetan and others:
St Bellarmine clearly teaches against a declaration by men first (ie. the bishops/the Church) when he refutes the fourth opinion held by Cajetan and others:
Of course he does. He clearly says right there in his statement of the 5th opinion, which he defends, that it is only because the Pope has already been deposed by God that the Church can judge him.
So if Jorge got up tomorrow morning and started spewing "I no longer believe that Jesus Christ is God. He was just a man who was very close to God" and it was clearly no slip of the tongue, etc. ... then according to the absurd position spun by these R&R, well, we wouldn't "KNOW" he was a heretic until the Church got together and declared him to be such.
That is the height of insantiy.
But here's the thing that these R&R don't realize and where they shoot themselves in the face with the same argument. If we can't know whether something is Catholic or heretical without the judgment of the Church, then how can they "know" that there are errors and heresies in Vatican II. In fact, the Church has "judged" Vatican II to be perfectly Catholic.
So they reject the judgment of the Church where it comes to determining whether V2 is Catholic but then require the judgment of the Church before we can know that Jorge is a heretic.
This hypocrisy would be laughable if their opinion weren't so pernicious.
Also, if membeship in the Church is determined by the judgment of the Church, this makes Joe Biden and Nancy Peℓσѕι Catholics, while Traditional Catholics are not Catholic ... as Salza had to concede. So Salza finally had to admit the logical conclusion of his bogus principles. Unfortunately, Johnson is not as honest as Salza was. Johnson wants to have his anti-sedevacantist cake and then eat his Resistance position as well. But these same principles cut both ways. Church has judged Johnson and company to be outside the Church, so that means they're outside the Church. When the reality of membership in the Church can only be known by the formal judgment of the Church, Johnson is outside the Church. But they hypocritically reject this consequence of the same principles.
We cannot know that a Jorge Bergoglio while repeatedly, consistently, and pretinaciously rejecting EENS dogma (including verbatim the Council of Florence by declaring these schismatic martyrs to be Catholic saints) is actually a heretic without the judgment of the Church, nor even if he came out tomorrow and explicitly denied the Divinity of Christ, but we CAN know that Vatican II is contrary to the faith DESPITE the fact that the Church has judged otherwise. We can appeal to Tradition to override and trump the Church's judgment, but we cannot appeal to Tradition (not even to clearly defined dogma) to determine that Jorge is a heretic who rejects Tradition.
It's the biggest pile of "theological" horse manure I have ever seen hin my life and the absurdity is caused by their SVDS, their Sedevacantist Derangement Syndrome.
So they reject the judgment of the Church regarding the orthodoxy of Vatican II but then require the judgment of the Church to determine the orthodoxy of Jorge. :laugh1:
http://www.trueorfalsepope.com/p/answering-fr-kramers-objection-to-true.html
Objection 10: “Ballerini, who famously followed Bellarmine’s “Fifth Opinion”…Answer: Since Fr. Kramer admits that Ballerini held the 5th opinion, let’s read Ballerini's teaching on the loss of office for a heretical Pope, in context, including the part that Fr. Kramer conveniently omitted, to see when he believed a heretical Pope would be deprived of his jurisdiction.In the follow quotation, Ballerini explaining how he believes the Church can remedy the case of a heretical Pope, without having to wait for a general council to be convened.“In the case of the Pope’s falling into heresy, the remedy is more promptly and easily supplied. Now, when we speak of heresy with reference to the Supreme Pontiffs, we do not mean the kind of heresy by which any of them, defining ex officio a dogma of faith, would define an error; for this cannot happen, as we have established in the book on their infallibility in defining controverted matters of faith. Nor do we speak of a case in which the popes err in a matter of faith by their opinion on a subject that has not yet been defined [i.e., a new heresy]; for opinions that, before the Church has defined anything, men are free to embrace, cannot be stigmatized as heresy. The present question, then, pertains only to the case in which the Pope, deceived in his private judgment, believes and pertinaciously asserts something contrary to an evident or defined article of faith, for this is what constitutes heresy. …"But why, we ask, in such a case, where the faith is imperiled by the most imminent and the gravest of all dangers … should we await a remedy from a general council, which is not at all easy to convene? When the faith is so endangered, cannot inferiors of whatever rank admonish their superior with a fraternal correction, resist him to the face, confront him, and, if it is necessary, rebuke him and impel him to come to his senses? The cardinals could do this, for they are the counselors of the Pope; so could the Roman clergy; or, if it is judged expedient, a Roman synod could be convened for that purpose. For the words of Paul to Titus: ‘Avoid a heretic after the first and second admonition, knowing that such a one is perverse and sins, being condemned by his own judgment” (Tit. 13:10), are addressed to any man whatsoever, even a private individual. For he who, after a first and second correction, does not return to his senses, but persists in an opinion contrary to a manifest or defined dogma, cannot, by the very fact of this public pertinacity, be excused by any pretext from heresy in the strict sense, which requires pertinacity, but rather declares himself plainly to be a heretic; in other words, he declares that he has departed from the Catholic faith and from the Church of his own accord, in such wise that no declaration or sentence of any man is necessary to cut him off from the body of the Church. St. Jerome’s perspicacious commentary on the above-quoted words of St. Paul affords us insight into the matter: “It is for this reason that [the heretic] is said to be self-condemned: whereas the fornicator, the adulterer, the murderer, and those guilty of other sins are cast out of the Church by her ministers [sacerdotes], heretics, for their part, pronounce sentence against themselves, leaving the Church of their own accord; and their departure is considered as a condemnation issued by their own conscience.” Therefore, the Pope who, after a solemn and public warning given by the cardinals, the Roman clergy, or even a synod, would harden himself in his heresy, and thus would have departed plainly from the Church, would, according to the precept of St. Paul, have to be avoided; and, lest he bring destruction upon others, his heresy and contumacy would have to be brought forth into the public, so that all might similarly beware of him; and in this way the sentence that he passed against himself, being proposed to the whole Church, would declare that he has departed of his own accord, and has been cut off from the Body of the Church, and has in certain manner abdicated the Papacy, which no one possesses, nor can possess, who is not in the Church.”Comment: The reason he said “no declaration or sentence of any man is necessary to cut him off from the body of the Church,” is because cutting someone off from the Church requires the use of coercive power, which the Church cannot exercise against a Pope. Therefore, he says the Pope cuts himself off from the Church, by remaining hardened in heresy in the face of public and solemn warnings. Pay close attention to what he says next:“You see, then, that in the case of a heresy to which the Pope adheres in his personal judgment, there is a prompt and efficacious remedy apart from the convocation of a general council; and in this hypothetical case whatever would be done against him to bring him to his senses before the declaration of his heresy and contumacy would be the exercise of charity, not of jurisdiction; but afterwards, when his departure from the Church has been made manifest, whatever sentence would be passed against him by a council would be passed against one who is no longer Pope, nor superior to a council.”
Still quoting this laymen who don't have a formal theological education. Fr. Kramer demonstrates how they have made errors in even basic moral theology. :facepalm:
Ballerini clearly says the opposite of what Salza and Siscoe claim. Father Kramer is right.
"It is unanimously explained by expert canonists and theologians that according to Opinion No. 4, a judgment must be made by the Church for the heretic pope to fall from office; and according to Opinion No 5, the heretic pope falls automatically by himself from the pontificate by the very act itself of manifest formal heresy, without any judgment being pronounced by the Church. Both of these opinions were already expressed by canonists in the early 1180s, as Moynihan docuмents in his earlier cited work. That essential difference which distinguishes between the fourth and fifth opinions was clearly understood by theologians and canonists in Bellarmine’s day. It simply beggars belief that anyone would seriously claim that the eminent scholars who have written unanimously on this question are wrong – that they have misinterpreted Bellarmine, and they have not understood Opinion No. 5 correctly. This is exactly what Salza & Siscoe do when they say that Suárez and Bellarmine are both of Opinion No. 5, which according to them, requires the judgment of the Church for the loss of office to take place. It is quite simplyinconceivable that Bellarmine would have been ignorant of the long established opinion which held that the pope who falls into heresy falls automatically by himself from the pontificate by the very act itself of manifest formal heresy, without any judgment being pronounced by the Church; and that he would have not included it as one of the five opinions. Either Salza & Siscoe do not understand Opinion No. 5, or Bellarmine did not understand it correctly; and that would mean that all of the expert commentators on the Five Opinions have not correctly understood it either!"
Kramer, Paul. To deceive the elect: The catholic doctrine on the question of a heretical Pope . Kindle Edition.
So to set things straight;
Sedevacante = 'Pope' stops being Pope and loses office (all jurisdiction) automatically
sedeprivationism = 'Popes' stops being Pope but only loses formal office automatically but needs to be judged to lose material office
Just trying to understand the nuances (I may be wrong above). Are there any other 'flavours' of sede? What is the most reasonable?
all of which are refuted by S/S
Looking at the JST quote in context:
Of the two intermediate opinions, the one holds that the pope does not recognize anyone as superior absolutely, but only in the case of heresy. The other holds that there is no power on earth that is superior to the Pope, whether absolutely or in the case of heresy; but there is a ministerial power.........Of these two [intermediate] explanations, Azorius (2, tom. 2, cap. 7) adopts the first, which holds that the Church is superior to the Pope in the case of heresy; while Cajetan adopts the latter and treats of it at length. Bellarmine, however, reports his opinion and attacks it in his work de Romano pontifice, bk. 2, ch. 30, objecting especially to these two points: namely, that Cajetan says that the Pope who is a manifest heretic [according to the Church's human judgment] is not ipso facto deposed; and also that the Church deposes the Pope in a real and authoritative manner. Suarez also, in the disputation that we have frequently cited, sect. 6, num. 7, attacks Cajetan for saying that, in the case of heresy, the Church is superior to the Pope, not insofar as he is Pope, but insofar as he is a private individual. Cajetan, however, did not say this; he only said that, even in the case of heresy, the Church is not absolutely superior to the Pope, but instead is superior to the bond between the papacy and the person, dissolving it in the same way that she forged it at his election; and this power of the Church is ministerial, for only Christ our Lord is superior to the Pope without qualification. Hence, Bellarmine and Suarez are of the opinion that, by the very fact that the Pope is a manifest heretic and declared to be incorrigible, he is deposed [ipso facto] by Christ our Lord without any intermediary, and not by any authority of the Church.
Why didn't Salza and Siscoe bold JST's black bolded comments regarding Bellarmine as I did here? And why did they add the bracketed comment "[according to the Church's human judgment]"? They do not appear to be in JST's original comments.
John Of St. Thomas On The Pope Heretic Question : John of St. Thomas : Free Download, Borrow, and Streaming : Internet Archive (https://archive.org/details/JohnOfSt.ThomasOnThePopeHereticQuestion/page/259/mode/2up)
You won’t be able to context your way out of it.
The JST quote I provided on p.2 shows quite a bit more context than the out of context context you provided here😉Why did Siscoe and Salza add "according to the Church's human judgment" to JST's quote?
You won’t be able to context your way out of it.
And you can't "context your way out" of the fact that your ecclesiology is heretical.
Why did Siscoe and Salza add "according to the Church's human judgment" to JST's quote?
First, you need to specify whether you are accusing them of falsely attributing words to JST, or are disagreeing with their own argument;I already provided the link with the Latin. The bracketed words are not there. There aren't even brackets.
If the former, you need to cite the original Latin, and attach a reliable translation to prove it. If the latter, you need to supply your rebuttal.
In either case, you need to demonstrate what this has to do with JST saying Bellarmine’s position is that ipso facto deposition first required a declaration.
Given they don't appear to be on the up and up regarding the above (and until someone can show me those words in JST's original quote..."according to the Church's human judgment" "iuxta humanum Ecclesiae iudicium"), there is no reason to believe that their interpretation of JST's actual words actually agree with their position.
Please provide a "reliable translation" for JST's quotes. Until you do, there is no reason for any of us to take S&S's translation as gospel.
Hence, Bellarmine and Suarez are of the opinion that, by the very fact that the Pope is a manifest heretic and declared to be incorrigible, he is deposed [ipso facto] by Christ our Lord without any intermediary, and not by any authority of the Church.
Supposing for the sake of argument that what you say were true, it would still suppose a logical fallacy (ie., that because they have done ‘A’ there, we presume they have done ‘A’ here). But in the former case, you at least think to have found evidence to support the fallacy, whereas you adduce none in the latter (and the burden is most certainly upon the one calling the quote into question).Siscoe and Salza's translation cannot be considered "reliable" since they took the liberty to add their own words to the quote to help push their agenda. And they made a point of not bolding that section. Pretty sneaky. At the very least it places doubt on what they assert JST meant in his quote.
SECOND POINT: THE POPE IS NOT REMOVED UNLESS THROUGH MEN
In refuting the 'second opinion' that even secret heretics are deposed by divine law, St Robert objects:
"Jurisdiction is certainly given to the Pontiff by God, but with the agreement of men, as is obvious; because this man who beforehand was not Pope, has from men that he would begin to be Pope, THEREFORE, he is not removed by God unless it is through men". But a secret heretic cannot be judged by men..."
St Robert evidently holds that there is a judgement (not of the Pope, but of the heresy, surely), a judgement of heresy by men. Does he mean any man? It is not any men, after all, through whose agreement he 'begins to be Pope'. 'Any man' just doesn't seem appropriate when it comes to deposing a Pope. It's not any man who judges and deposes a bishop, after all. Agree?
Thus, the second opinion is that the Pope, in the very instant in which he falls into heresy, even if it is only interior, is outside the Church and deposed by God, for which reason he can be judged by the Church. That is, he is declared deposed by divine law, and deposed de facto, if he still refused to yield. This is of John de Turrecremata [320], but it is not proven to me. For Jurisdiction is certainly given to the Pontiff by God, but with the agreement of men, as is obvious; because this man, who beforehand was not Pope, has from men that he would begin to be Pope, THEREFORE, he is not removed by God unless it is through men. But a secret heretic cannot be judged by men, nor would such wish to relinquish that power by his own will. Add, that the foundation of this opinion is that secret heretics are outside the Church, which is false, and we will amply demonstrate this in our tract de Ecclesia, bk 1.
CHAPTER X: On Secret Infidels
Lastly, it remains to speak of secret infidels, i.e. those who have neither internal faith nor any Christian virtue, but nevertheless profess the Catholic faith due to some temporal advantage and mix with the true faithful by the communion of the Sacraments. Both the Confessionists and Calvinists teach that such men in no way pertain to the true Church, and even some Catholics, one of whom is John de Turrecremata, 236 although this author perhaps meant nothing other than that they require faith for someone can be said to be united by an internal union to the body of Christ, which is the Church, which would be very true. Nevertheless, we follow the manner of speaking of a great many authors who teach that they who are joined with the remaining faithful only by an external profession are true parts and even members of the Church but withered and dead. 237
[ . . . ]
2) Next the same thing is proven from the testimonies of those Fathers who teach in a common consensus that those who are outside the Church have no authority or jurisdiction in the Church. 241 Moreover, right reason manifestly teaches the same thing: By what arrangement can it be devised or imagined that one might have jurisdiction and hence be the head of the Church, who is not a member of the Church? Whoever heard of a head which was not a member? Moreover it is certain, whatever one or another might think, a secret heretic, if he might be a Bishop, or even the Supreme Pontiff, does not lose jurisdiction, nor dignity, or the name of the head in the Church, until either he separates himself publicly from the Church, or being convicted of heresy is separated against his will; for this reason, Celestine and Nicholas say (loc. cit.) that a heretical Bishop, to the extent that he began to preach heresy, could bind and loose no one although without a doubt if he had already conceived the error, were it before he began to preach publicly, he could still bind and loose.
[ . . . ]
FIRST POINT: THE POPE DOES NOT HAVE FEWER RIGHTS THAN A BISHOP
[ . . . ]
Do you not agree, 2V, that this rationale applies equally to a bishop as to a pope? Does St Robert's reasoning for ipso facto deposition, from authority and reason, not apply just the same to a bishop? There is absolutely no difference in the rationale, yet this is what St Robert says on the deposition of bishops:
"...if the pastor is a bishop, they (the faithful) cannot depose him and put another in his place. For Our Lord and the Apostles only lay down that false prophets are not to be listened to by the people, and not that they depose them. And it is certain that the practice of the Church has always been that heretical bishops be deposed by bishop's councils, or by the Sovereign Pontiff" - De Membris Ecclesiae, Lib I De Clericis, Cap 7 (Opera Omnia, Paris: Vives, 1870, pp 428-429).
Doesn't that have some relevance? Wouldn't you say this demonstrates that St Robert's thinking is that some kind of Church process is required before the faithful can declare the heretic pastor no longer Pope and cease praying for him? A manifest heretic is not a Christian nor member of the Church no matter who he be, yet such a bishop is not deposed, but such a pope is deposed?
CHAPTER X: On Secret Infidels
[ . . . ]
Moreover it is certain, whatever one or another might think, a secret heretic, if he might be a Bishop, or even the Supreme Pontiff, does not lose jurisdiction, nor dignity, or the name of the head in the Church, until either he separates himself publicly from the Church, or being convicted of heresy is separated against his will; for this reason, Celestine and Nicholas say (loc. cit.) that a heretical Bishop, to the extent that he began to preach heresy, could bind and loose no one although without a doubt if he had already conceived the error, were it before he began to preach publicly, he could still bind and loose.
[ . . . ]
it is certain that the practice of the Church has always been that heretical bishops be deposed by bishop's councils, or by the Sovereign Pontiff
THIRD POINT: ESTABLISHING MANIFEST HERESY
"...that a manifest heretic would be ipso facto deposed, is proven from authority and reason.
The Authority is of St Paul, who commands Titus, that after two censures, that is, after he appears manifestly pertinacious..."
The question is, who would give the admonitions to the Pope to demonstrate his pertinacity in heresy (or to give him the chance to recant so that his material heresy never becomes manifest formal heresy)? What is St Robert Bellarmine's opinion on this? Would it be just any Catholic who could fulfill this role in St. Robert's scenario for deposition? Don't you agree that something a little more formal and official would be required for such a momentous task?
"(He) has from men that he would begin to be Pope, THEREFORE, he is not removed by God unless it is through men
Secundum argumentum tale est : Imperat Dominus, Joan. X ut non audiamus vocem alienorum. Et rursus Matth. VII ut fugiamus falsos Prophetas , et Apostolus ad Galat. I jubet anathematizari eos, qui docent aliquid praeter Evangelium : Igitur populus Christianus divinum habet mandatum , quo tenetur bonos Pastores quaerere et vocare, et perniciosos rejicere.
Respondeo, populum debere quidem discernere verum a falso Propheta , sed non alia regula, quam diligenter attendendo, an is, qui praedicat, dicat contraria iis, quae dicebantur a praedecessoribus, vel iis, quae dicuntur ab aliis ordinariis Pastoribus, et praesertim ab Apostolica sede , et Ecclesia prin- cipadi ; nam imperatum est populo, ut audiat Pastores suos. Luc. X : Qui vos audit, me audit. Et Matt. XXIII : Quae dicunt , facite (2). Non igitur debet populus judicare suum Pastorem nisi nova audiat, et a doctrina aliorum Pastorum aliena.
The second argument is as follows: The Lord commands, John. 10 that we should not listen to the voice of strangers. And again Matt. VII that we should flee false prophets, and the apostle to Galat. 1 He commands to anathematize those who teach anything other than the Gospel: Therefore, the Christian people have a divine mandate, by which they are bound to seek and call good Shepherds, and to reject pernicious ones.
I answer that the people ought indeed to distinguish a true from a false prophet, but there is no other rule than to pay careful attention to whether he who preaches says the opposite of what was said by his predecessors, or what is said by other ordinary pastors, and especially by the Apostolic See , and the principal Church; for the people were commanded to listen to their Shepherds. Luke X: He who hears you hears me. And Matt. 23: Do what they say (2). Therefore, the people should not judge their Shepherd unless they hear new things, and are alien to the teaching of other Shepherds.
"the apostle speaks of a heretic, not of a stubborn and formed one, but of one who goes astray from ignorance or bad instruction, and follows the sect of the erring; or about which there is a doubt, whether he is persistent or not. For here he must be rebuked and instructed, first gently, secondly harder and stronger; that if he thus despises admonition, and shows himself obstinate, he is to be avoided, and not to be reproved: for there will be no fruit of reproof."
Only gross ignorance can accuse from public formal manifest heresy in the case of a direct verbatim negation of a defined dogmatic proposition, and ... guess what ... ignorance cannot accuse a "Pope" from denying a defined dogma directly because he is culpable for the ignorance due to the requirements of his duty of state.
MAYBE a fresh convert might be excused for not knowing about the Immaculate Conception, but there can be no such excuse for a "Pope".
FOURTH POINT: THE ROLE OF THE CHURCH/COUNCIL
[ . . . ]
"...the Roman Pontiff cannot be deprived of his right to summon Councils and preside over them... unless he were first convicted by the legitimate judgement of a Council and is not the Supreme Pontiff... the supreme prince, as long as he is not declared or judged to have legitimately been deprived of his rule, is always the supreme judge...""
"It happens also that the Pope in a Council is not only the judge, but has many colleagues, that is, all the Bishops who, if they could convict him of heresy, they could also judge and depose him even against his will. Therefore, the heretics have nothing: why would they complain if the Roman Pontiff presides at a Council before he were condemned?
"...they do not swear that they are not going to say what they think in the Council, or that they are not going to depose him if they were to clearly prove that he is a heretic."
"d) The fourth reason is suspicion of heresy in the Roman Pontiff, if perhaps it might happen, or if he were an incorrigible tyrant; for then a general Council ought to be gathered either to depose the Pope if he should be found to be a heretic, or certainly to admonish him, if he seemed incorrigible in morals. As it is related in the 8th Council, act. ult. can. 21, general Councils ought to impose judgment on controversies arising in regard to the Roman Pontiff - albeit not rashly..." (Ch IX On the Utility or even the Necessity of Celebrating Councils - ie not addressed to Protestants)
CHAPTER X: On Secret Infidels
[ . . . ]
Moreover it is certain, whatever one or another might think, a secret heretic, if he might be a Bishop, or even the Supreme Pontiff, does not lose jurisdiction, nor dignity, or the name of the head in the Church, until either he separates himself publicly from the Church, or being convicted of heresy is separated against his will; for this reason, Celestine and Nicholas say (loc. cit.) that a heretical Bishop, to the extent that he began to preach heresy, could bind and loose no one although without a doubt if he had already conceived the error, were it before he began to preach publicly, he could still bind and loose.
[ . . . ]
FIFTH POINT: THE TESTIMONY OF CONTEMPORARY THEOLOGIANS
Suarez, Fellow Jesuit and Contemporary (1548-1614):
"I affirm: If he is a heretic and incorrigible, the Pope ceases to be Pope as soon as a declarative sentence of his crime is pronounced against him by the legitimate jurisdiction of the Church (...) In the first place, who should pronounce such a sentence? Some say that it should be the Cardinals; and the Church could undoubtedly assign this faculty to them, above all if it were established with the consent and decision of the Supreme Pontiffs, just as was done for the election. But to this day we do not read anywhere that such a judgment has been confided to them. For this reason, it must be affirmed that of itself it belongs to all the Bishops of the Church. For since they are the ordinary pastors and pillars of the Church, one should consider that such a case concerns them. And since by divine law, there is no greater reason to affirm that the matter involves some Bishops more than others, and since, according to human law, nothing has been established in the matter, it must necessarily be held that the matter should be referred to all of them, and even to a general Council. This is the common opinion of the doctors. One can read Cardinal Albano expounding upon this point at length in De Cardinalibus (q.35, 1584 ed, vol 13, p2)"
John of St Thomas, Contemporary (1589-1644):
"Bellarmine and Suárez therefore think that the Pope, by the very fact that he is a manifest heretic and declared incorrigible, is immediately deposed by Christ the Lord and not by any authority of the Church." If you read Suarez above, for him the declaration comes from the 'legitimate jurisdiction of the Church'. Isn't it only normal? Would St Robert have required less?
CONCLUSION
I'm not claiming infallibility in my understanding of Bellarmine. However, wouldn't you agree that the texts I have cited at least provide enough doubt as to make it rash for an individual Catholic to hold up St Robert Bellarmine's teaching as a reason for him to definitively declare, on that basis, the vacancy of the Apostolic See? And even if it were certain that St Robert Bellarmine did teach that an individual could make such a judgement, do you not agree it would still be rash to do so given the many weighty theological opinions to the contrary, even if some imagine that a modern day 'theologian' such as Fr Kramer could definitively settle this long-standing debate?
As was already quoted, "he is not removed by God unless it is through men, refers to an occult heretic.You are quite mistaken. That is the reason St Robert gives for this opinion being false. With secret heretics there is precisely nothing for men to judge.
You are quite mistaken. That is the reason St Robert gives for this opinion being false. With secret heretics there is precisely nothing for men to judge.
When Bellarmine says, "For Jurisdiction is certainly given to the Pontiff by God, but with the agreement of men, as is obvious; because this man, who beforehand was not Pope, has from men that he would begin to be Pope, therefore, he is not removed by God unless it is through men", he refutes the second opinion that holds that a pope who would be even a secret heretic would be deposed by God. A pope cannot be deposed, but can be removed, and only by men. A pope could be judged for heresy by men, i.e. by Church authorities who determine that the sin is obstinate, and then they can declare the loss of office; or he can lose office by himself alone by manifest heresy if the obstinacy is patent in a notorious manner. In both cases, the pope would lose office by the notoriety of his own criminal act. In the first case the declaration would make the obstinacy notorious. In the second, the notoriety of the act itself would ipso facto effect the loss of office, before the judgment is made. Having lost office, the former pope could then be judged and punished by the Church.
Thus, the second opinion is that the Pope, in the very instant in which he falls into heresy, even if it is only interior, is outside the Church and deposed by God, for which reason he can be judged by the Church. That is, he is declared deposed by divine law, and deposed de facto, if he still refused to yield. This is of John de Turrecremata [320], but it is not proven to me. For Jurisdiction is certainly given to the Pontiff by God, but with the agreement of men, as is obvious; because this man, who beforehand was not Pope, has from men that he would begin to be Pope, THEREFORE, he is not removed by God unless it is through men. But a secret heretic cannot be judged by men, nor would such wish to relinquish that power by his own will. Add, that the foundation of this opinion is that secret heretics are outside the Church, which is false, and we will amply demonstrate this in our tract de Ecclesia, bk 1.
CHAPTER X: On Secret Infidels
Lastly, it remains to speak of secret infidels, i.e. those who have neither internal faith nor any Christian virtue, but nevertheless profess the Catholic faith due to some temporal advantage and mix with the true faithful by the communion of the Sacraments. Both the Confessionists and Calvinists teach that such men in no way pertain to the true Church, and even some Catholics, one of whom is John de Turrecremata, 236 although this author perhaps meant nothing other than that they require faith for someone can be said to be united by an internal union to the body of Christ, which is the Church, which would be very true. Nevertheless, we follow the manner of speaking of a great many authors who teach that they who are joined with the remaining faithful only by an external profession are true parts and even members of the Church but withered and dead. 237
[ . . . ]
2) Next the same thing is proven from the testimonies of those Fathers who teach in a common consensus that those who are outside the Church have no authority or jurisdiction in the Church. 241 Moreover, right reason manifestly teaches the same thing: By what arrangement can it be devised or imagined that one might have jurisdiction and hence be the head of the Church, who is not a member of the Church? Whoever heard of a head which was not a member? Moreover it is certain, whatever one or another might think, a secret heretic, if he might be a Bishop, or even the Supreme Pontiff, does not lose jurisdiction, nor dignity, or the name of the head in the Church, until either he separates himself publicly from the Church, or being convicted of heresy is separated against his will; for this reason, Celestine and Nicholas say (loc. cit.) that a heretical Bishop, to the extent that he began to preach heresy, could bind and loose no one although without a doubt if he had already conceived the error, were it before he began to preach publicly, he could still bind and loose.
[ . . . ]
Please provide a "reliable translation" for JST's quotes. Until you do, there is no reason for any of us to take S&S's translation as gospel.ON THE DEPOSITION OF THE POPE
ON THE DEPOSITION OF THE POPE
Text of John of St. Thomas O.P.
Translated from the Latin and annotated by Fr. Pierre-Marie O.P. (Avrillé. France)
and published in Le Sel de la Terre [No. 90, Fall 2014]
Translated from French to English by Fr. Juan Carlos Ortiz
When Bellarmine says, "For Jurisdiction is certainly given to the Pontiff by God, but with the agreement of men, as is obvious; because this man, who beforehand was not Pope, has from men that he would begin to be Pope, therefore, he is not removed by God unless it is through men", he refutes the second opinion that holds that a pope who would be even a secret heretic would be deposed by God. A pope cannot be deposed, but can be removed, and only by men. A pope could be judged for heresy by men, i.e. by Church authorities who determine that the sin is obstinate, and then they can declare the loss of office; or he can lose office by himself alone by manifest heresy if the obstinacy is patent in a notorious manner. In both cases, the pope would lose office by the notoriety of his own criminal act. In the first case the declaration would make the obstinacy notorious. In the second, the notoriety of the act itself would ipso facto effect the loss of office, before the judgment is made. Having lost office, the former pope could then be judged and punished by the Church.
A Reply to John Salza and Robert Siscoe IV
By Father Paul Kramer
Fr Kramer makes Bellarmine say the opposite of what he actually says. St Robert says that a Pope guilty of secret heresy is not deposed because what is secret cannot be judged by men, and God only removes the Pope through men, just as he only establishes him in office through men. But Fr Kramer adds "or he can lose office by himself (=God not removing him through men!) "if the obstinacy is patent in a notorious manner". A lesson in how to make a theologian say what you want him to say...
Quote from: Ladislaus (https://www.cathinfo.com/index.php?topic=70939.msg883801#msg883801)
St. Robert Bellarmine is blatantly and explicitly clear that there can be no judgment or sentence passed on a pope who has not already been removed from office by divine action. S&S position is utterly absurd and ludicrous.
Where the argument must be made is in determining what constitutes manifest heresy and incorrigibility / pertinacity. Is a juridical sentence or judgment required to establish pertinacity? Answer of course is no, but this is the only thing that can be debated. To continue babbling that St. Robert believes the a pope is separated from office ministerially by some official judgment of the Church is utterly absurd when he clearly says the exact opposite.
“According to the more common opinion, Christ, by a particular providence, for the common good and the tranquility of the Church, continues to give jurisdiction to an even manifestly heretical pontiff until such time as he be declared a manifest heretic by the Church.”
St. Robert Bellarmine is blatantly and explicitly clear that there can be no judgment or sentence passed on a pope who has not already been removed from office by divine action. S&S position is utterly absurd and ludicrous.Do you mean like here:
Where the argument must be made is in determining what constitutes manifest heresy and incorrigibility / pertinacity. Is a juridical sentence or judgment required to establish pertinacity? Answer of course is no, but this is the only thing that can be debated. To continue babbling that St. Robert believes the a pope is separated from office ministerially by some official judgment of the Church is utterly absurd when he clearly says the exact opposite.
Do you mean like here:Sorry, I forgot, you said he has already been judged and condemned... by you! Exactly what St Robert had in mind, I'm sure.
"...the Roman Pontiff cannot be deprived of his right to summon Councils and preside over them... unless he were first convicted by the legitimate judgement of a Council and is not the Supreme Pontiff... the supreme prince, as long as he is not declared or judged to have legitimately been deprived of his rule, is always the supreme judge...""
"It happens also that the Pope in a Council is not only the judge, but has many colleagues, that is, all the Bishops who, if they could convict him of heresy, they could also judge and depose him even against his will. Therefore, the heretics have nothing: why would they complain if the Roman Pontiff presides at a Council before he were condemned?
Siscoe and Salza's translation cannot be considered "reliable" since they took the liberty to add their own words to the quote to help push their agenda. And they made a point of not bolding that section. Pretty sneaky. At the very least it places doubt on what they assert JST meant in his quote.Not the only instance, they mistranslated Hervé in V1 para 500 to say that 'only a Council has the right to declare deposed' or similar when the original Latin has it 'the Church only (as in merely) has the right' and the context makes it clear Canon Herve was refuting the Conciliarist heresy. I fear for Mr. Johnson lest his excessive and misplaced confidence in them leads him to hell with the Mason and lawyer.
To show this was no isolated incident, here is another example where they weren't "reliable" in order to push their agenda. In this case they omitted important phrases:
Scratch That: How Salza & Siscoe misrepresent Fr. Laymann in their Crusade against Sedevacantism – Novus Ordo Watch
(https://novusordowatch.org/2022/01/scratch-that-salza-siscoe-laymann/)
Not the only instance, they mistranslated Hervé in V1 para 500 to say that 'only a Council has the right to declare deposed' or similar when the original Latin has it 'the Church only (as in merely) has the right' and the context makes it clear Canon Herve was refuting the Conciliarist heresy. I fear for Mr. Johnson lest his excessive and misplaced confidence in them leads him to hell with the Mason and lawyer.Not deposed since impossible, but declare the See vacant
Original :
b) Non ratione haereseos: Nam posito quod, ut persona privata, heretieus publice quidem, nolorie et contumaciter fieri possit
Pontifex, -—— quod generatim negant theologi, suavem Christi
Providentiam erga Ecclesiam et promissiones ejus divinas spec-
tantes (4) — ipso facio hereseos a pontificali potestate excideret, « dum propria voluniale transferrelur exira corpus Ecclesise, factus
infidelis ». Tunc Concilium [Ecclesia] jus tantum haberet sedem vacantem declarandi, ut ad electionem tuto procedere possent
consueti electores (5).
Sorry for the OCR errors but you can get it on archive.org and search the words.