Author Topic: Francis Includes Schismatic Heretics in Martyrology (Read 14357 times)

trad123 · « **Reply #125 on:** May 13, 2023, 04:22:29 AM »

Plenus Venter,

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?

trad123 · « **Reply #126 on:** May 13, 2023, 04:23:54 AM »

Quote from: trad123 on May 13, 2023, 04:05:01 AM

Louis Card. Billot

the immaculate conception of Deipara

This failed to translate to:

the immaculate conception of the Mother of God.

Plenus Venter · « **Reply #127 on:** May 13, 2023, 04:29:20 AM »

Quote from: 2Vermont on May 12, 2023, 07:33:54 AM

How are you sure that you aren't the one who misunderstands him?

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.

BELLARMINE'S POSITION?

I'm not certain that I understand Bellarmine perfectly, because I am not a theologian, and it's very likely that I am missing some of the nuances of the debate. Perhaps more than nuances...

Bellarmine's volume on the Roman Pontiff actually precedes his volume on Councils.

Here is why I believe that St Robert holds that the intervention of the Church is required in his 'ipso facto' papal deposition scenario, before you, as an individual, can hold the Pope to be Pope no longer and stop praying for him:

FIRST POINT: THE POPE DOES NOT HAVE FEWER RIGHTS THAN A BISHOP

"Now the fifth true opinion, 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. This is the opinion of all the ancient Fathers, who teach that manifest heretics soon lose all jurisdiction... The foundation of this opinion is that a manifest heretic, is in no way a member of the Church; that is neither in spirit or body, or by internal union nor external..."

Explaining his rejection of the 'fourth opinion' of Cajetan:

"...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, an heretic is to be shunned: and he understands this before excommunication and sentence of a judge...
Now in regard to reason this is indeed very certain. A non-Christian cannot in any way be Pope, as Cajetan affirms in the same book, and the reason is because he cannot be the head of that which he is not a member, and he is not a member of the Church who is not a Christian. But a manifest heretic is not a Christian... Therefore, a manifest heretic cannot be Pope."

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?

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?

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

FOURTH POINT: THE ROLE OF THE CHURCH/COUNCIL

St Robert's subsequent study on Councils gives the answer to our question as to who the 'men' are through whom the pope is deposed. St Robert says that the Pope remains Supreme Pontiff until he is convicted by the legitimate judgement of a Council. Why would he say it if he did not mean it?:

"...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)

"...whether or not it is lawful for a Council to be summoned by anyone other than the Pope when the Pope should not summon it, for the reason that he is a heretic or a schismatic...
I respond that in no cause can a true and perfect Council... be convoked without the authority of the Pope, because he has the authority to define questions of faith. For the particular authority is in the head, in Peter; to whom it was commanded to confirm his brethren, and therefore for whom the Lord prayed lest his faith would fail (Luke 22). Still in... (this)... case an imperfect Council could be gathered which would suffice to provide for the Church from the head. For the Church, without a doubt, has the authority to provide for itself from the head, although it cannot, without the head, make determinations on many things on which it can with the head, as Cajetan rightly teaches in his little work, de Potestate Papae c. 15 and 16, and much earlier on the priests of the Roman Church in their epistle to Cyprian, which is 7 in the second book of the works of Cyprian. Hence, the imperfect Council can happen, if either it is summoned by the college of Cardinals, or the Bishops themselves come together in a place of themselves." (Bk I, On Councils, Ch XIV, Certain Doubts are Answered - again, not addressed to Protestants)

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?

Plenus Venter · « **Reply #128 on:** May 13, 2023, 04:35:44 AM »

Quote from: trad123 on May 13, 2023, 04:22:29 AM

Plenus Venter,

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:

"...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).

trad123 · « **Reply #129 on:** May 13, 2023, 04:39:22 AM »

Quote from: Plenus Venter on May 13, 2023, 04:35:44 AM

I would say St Robert Bellarmine's advice regarding bishops preaching heresy is applicable

Can laymen recognize a person as a heretic prior to the judgement of the Church?

CathInfo.com

Author Topic: Francis Includes Schismatic Heretics in Martyrology (Read 14357 times)

trad123

Re: Francis Includes Schismatic Heretics in Martyrology

trad123

Re: Francis Includes Schismatic Heretics in Martyrology

Plenus Venter

Re: Francis Includes Schismatic Heretics in Martyrology

Plenus Venter

Re: Francis Includes Schismatic Heretics in Martyrology

trad123

Re: Francis Includes Schismatic Heretics in Martyrology