Author Topic: Francis Includes Schismatic Heretics in Martyrology (Read 10168 times)

SeanJohnson · « **Reply #150 on:** May 13, 2023, 09:36:33 AM »

Quote from: Ladislaus on May 13, 2023, 09:19:41 AM

And you can't "context your way out" of the fact that your ecclesiology is heretical.

JST was a heretic. Noted.

SeanJohnson · « **Reply #151 on:** May 13, 2023, 09:44:44 AM »

Quote from: 2Vermont on May 13, 2023, 09:21:45 AM

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;

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.

2Vermont · « **Reply #152 on:** May 13, 2023, 10:11:36 AM »

Quote from: SeanJohnson on May 13, 2023, 09:44:44 AM

First, you need to specify whether you are accusing them of falsely attributing words to JST, or are disagreeing with their own argument;

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.

I already provided the link with the Latin. The bracketed words are not there. There aren't even brackets.

Besides, what would be a "reliable translation"? You take S&S's word for their translation. How are you sure they have a "reliable translation"?

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.

SeanJohnson · « **Reply #153 on:** May 13, 2023, 10:32:55 AM »

Quote from: 2Vermont on May 13, 2023, 10:11:36 AM

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.

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).

trad123 · « **Reply #154 on:** May 13, 2023, 12:01:56 PM »

Quote

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.

If Christ only deposes a heretical pope immediately after the Church has declared the heretical pope to be incorrigible, and therefore a manifest heretic, it doesn't appear that the Church could ever state that such a man was a heretic prior to this declaration.

In other words, the Church would not be able to say Francis lost his pontificate prior to the declaration in time, such as when he first uttered his heresies publicly in years past, but rather only at the very instant the Church declares him to be a manifest heretic.

trad123 · « **Reply #155 on:** May 13, 2023, 12:34:22 PM »

Fr. Kramer: Salza remains obstinate in heresy ....

http:// trad cat knight . blogspot . com /2018/01/fr-kramer-salza-remains-obstinate-in.html?m=1

[ . . . ]

Salza says "that the nature of the sin of heresy does not sever the juridical, external bonds"; and Pius XII teaches that heresy "by its very nature separates a man from the Body of the Church" ("suapte natura hominem ab Ecclesiae Corpore separet").

Since the nature of heresy is the nature of the sin of heresy, and the sundering of the judicial, external bonds separates a man from the body of the Church; Salza's proposition is manifestly seen to directly and immediately oppose, deny, and reject the de fide doctrine of the universal magisterium definitively set forth by Pius XII in his authentic magisterium in Mystici Corporis.

Salza says, "that the nature of the sin of heresy does not sever the juridical, external bonds . . . It is rather the nature of notorious heresy that does so."

The specific nature of the sin of heresy and that of what is properly defined as notorious heresy are one and the same nature: they are both of the same species of heresy. I have already explained this, but for Salza, the penny doesn't drop.

Salza & Siscoe say that the sin of heresy is internal, but the crime is external, and that the external sin of heresy is of the nature of a crime. Now, if the internal sin is not of the nature of a crime, and the external sin is of the nature of a crime; then the internal sin and the external sin are necessarily of different natures.

Yet Salza contradicts his own doctrine by saying:

2) "I never said the internal sin and the external sin are of a different nature. I said just the opposite!" He flatly contradicts his own doctrine. However, I never accused him of actually saying that explicitly, but I did say that the false premise on which his proposition is based is that the internal act and the extetnal act are each of a different nature.

Salza is obviously lying when he says, "I said just the opposite!"

The opposite of that proposition would state, "The internal act and the extetnal act are each of the same nature." He did not state the opposite, but he stated: "the nature of the sin of heresy does not sever the juridical, external bonds . . . It is rather the nature of notorious heresy that does so."

However, the nature of the two is the same.

What Salza obstinately refused to affirm is what the Catholic faith professes, namely, that the sin of heresy by its very nature, whether considered formally under its moral aspect as a sin, under its legal aspect as a crime, or its metaphysical aspect as an act of defection; severs one from the body of the Church when that sin is committed with a public act.

[ . . . ]

2Vermont · « **Reply #156 on:** May 13, 2023, 01:03:53 PM »

Quote from: SeanJohnson on May 13, 2023, 10:32:55 AM

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.

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

trad123 · « **Reply #157 on:** May 13, 2023, 02:14:32 PM »

Quote from: Plenus Venter on May 13, 2023, 04:29:20 AM

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?

Let me quote the entirety of # 2:

Quote

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.

In another text, quoted below, Bellarmine says an occult heretic can be convicted of heresy, and consequently can be judged by men.

Both texts mention John de Turrecremata, and both texts quoted are discussing the matter of an occult heretic pope.

St. Robert Bellarmine. On the Church Militant (De Controversiis) (pp. 85-88) translated by Ryan Grant.

Quote

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.

[ . . . ]

trad123 · « **Reply #158 on:** May 13, 2023, 04:37:12 PM »

Quote from: Plenus Venter on May 13, 2023, 04:29:20 AM

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?

I doubt anyone has ceased praying for him, as we all pray that heretics be converted to the faith, unless you mean to say that in regards to una cuм.

No one disputes any of us can depose someone and insert another in his place, after all there are no conclavists on this forum.

From what was quoted previously:

St. Robert Bellarmine. On the Church Militant (De Controversiis) (pp. 85-88) translated by Ryan Grant.

Quote

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.

[ . . . ]

Consequently, where Bellarmine says from De Membris Ecclesiae, which you quoted, when he says:

Quote

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

It follows that by "heretical bishops", Bellarmine means occult heretics who have yet to have their heresy made manifest, and therefore until either such bishops separate themselves publicly from the Church, or being convicted of heresy they then remain occult heretics and do not lose jurisdiction, nor dignity.

trad123 · « **Reply #159 on:** May 13, 2023, 04:45:24 PM »

Quote from: Plenus Venter on May 13, 2023, 04:29:20 AM

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

As was already quoted, "he is not removed by God unless it is through men, refers to an occult heretic.

You quoted already that the faithful can already determine by themselves who are false prophets, it therefore follows that the faithful are allowed to make judgment.

St. Robert Bellamine

Opera Omnia, Tomus Secundus, Controversiarum De Membris Ecclesiae, Liber Primus, De Clerics, Caput VII

https://archive.org/details/operaomnia02bell_0/page/428/mode/2up

From Page 428

Quote

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.

Using Google Translate:

Quote

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.

trad123 · « **Reply #160 on:** May 13, 2023, 04:55:18 PM »

The censures are not necessary if the heresy is already established as being manifest.

https://www.cathinfo.com/catholic-living-in-the-modern-world/francis-includes-schismatic-heretics-in-martyrology/msg883621/#msg883621

Quote

"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."

https://www.cathinfo.com/sspx-resistance-news/miles-christi-volume-24-discussion-fr-chazal's-newsletter/msg867593/#msg867593

Quote

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".

trad123 · « **Reply #161 on:** May 13, 2023, 04:59:40 PM »

Quote

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)

I think this is sufficiently answered, again with the following:

St. Robert Bellarmine. On the Church Militant (De Controversiis) (pp. 85-88) translated by Ryan Grant.

Quote

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.

[ . . . ]

trad123 · « **Reply #162 on:** May 13, 2023, 05:05:45 PM »

Quote

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?

A Reply to John Salza and Robert Siscoe IV

By Father Paul Kramer

http://traditionalcatholicisminnigeria.blogspot.com/2016/08/a-reply-to-john-salza-and-robert-siscoe_26.html

[ . . . ]

-----------------------------------------

The claim of Salza and Siscoe, that I reject "the Common Theological Opinion on the Loss of Office for a Heretical Pope;"is in fact a very cunning lie.

First they quote Billuart who does not speak of a common opinion, but of a more common opinion: “According to the more common opinion, Christ by a particular providence, for the common good and the tranquillity of the Church, continues to give jurisdiction to an even manifestly heretical pontiff until such time as he should be declared a manifest heretic by the Church.”

What they neglect to mention is that Billuart died in 1758, and that opinion is no longer the more common one. With their characteristic truculence, Salza and Siscoe say, 《 "If Fr. Kramer rejects this teaching (and he does), let him produce a citation from a reputable theologian who teaches otherwise – that is, that a heretical pope will lose his office".

Here's the citations:

Dominic Prummer:

“The power of the Roman Pontiff is lost. . . (c) By his perpetual insanity or by formal heresy. And this at least probably. . . . The Authors indeed commonly teach that a pope loses his power through certain and notorious heresy, but whether this case is really possible is rightly doubted.” (Manuale Iuris Canonci. Freiburg im Briesgau: Herder 1927. p. 95)

F.X. Wernz, P. Vidal:

“Finally, there is the fifth opinion – that of Bellarmine himself – which was expressed initially and is rightly defended by Tanner and others as the best proven and the most common. For he who is no longer a member of the body of the Church, i.e. the Church as a visible society, cannot be the head of the Universal Church. But a Pope who fell into public heresy would cease by that very fact to be a member of the Church. Therefore he would also cease by that very fact to be the head of the Church. Indeed, a publicly heretical Pope, who, by the commandment of Christ and the Apostle must even be avoided because of the danger to the Church, must be deprived of his power as almost all admit.” (Ius Canonicuм. Rome: Gregorian 1943. 2:453)

Note that Wernz and Vidal interpret Bellarmine as I do, and as did all other experts in Canon Law. Salza and Siscoe attempt to deceive their readers by twisting Bellarmine's words out of context to make it appear like he's saying the opposite of what he intends.

A. Vermeersch, I. Creusen:

“The power of the Roman Pontiff ceases by death, free resignation (which is valid without need for any acceptance, c.221), certain and unquestionably perpetual insanity and notorious heresy. At least according to the more common teaching, the Roman Pontiff as a private teacher can fall into manifest heresy. Then, without any declaratory sentence (for the supreme See is judged by no one), he would automatically fall from a power which he who is no longer a member of the Church is unable to possess.” (Epitome Iuris Canonici. Rome: Dessain 1949. p. 340)

Eduardus F. Regatillo:

“The Roman Pontiff ceases in office: . . . (4) Through notorious public heresy? Five answers have been given: 1. ‘The pope cannot be a heretic even as a private teacher.’ A pious thought, but essentially unfounded. 2. ‘The pope loses office even through secret heresy.’ False, because a secret heretic can be a member of the Church. 3. ‘The pope does not lose office because of public heresy.’ Objectionable. 4. ‘The pope loses office by a judicial sentence because of public heresy.’ But who would issue the sentence? The See of Peter is judged by no one (Canon 1556). 5. ‘The pope loses office ipso facto because of public heresy.’ This is the more common teaching, because a pope would not be a member of the Church, and hence far less could be its head.” (Institutiones Iuris Canonici. 5th ed. Santander: Sal Terrae, 1956. 1:396)

Matthaeus Conte a Coronata:

“2. Loss of office of the Roman Pontiff. This can occur in various ways: . . . c) Notorious heresy. Certain authors deny the supposition that the Roman Pontiff can become a heretic. It cannot be proven however that the Roman Pontiff, as a private teacher, cannot become a heretic – if, for example, he would contumaciously deny a previously defined dogma. Such impeccability was never promised by God. Indeed, Pope Innocent III expressly admits such a case is possible. If indeed such a situation would happen, he would, by divine law, fall from office without any sentence, indeed, without even a declaratory one. He who openly professes heresy places himself outside the Church, and it is not likely that Christ would preserve the Primacy of His Church in one so unworthy. Wherefore, if the Roman Pontiff were to profess heresy, before any condemnatory sentence (which would be impossible anyway) he would lose his authority.” (Institutiones Iuris Canonici. Rome: Marietti 1950. I:3I2, p. 3I6).

trad123 · « **Reply #163 on:** May 13, 2023, 05:28:33 PM »

Quote from: Plenus Venter on May 13, 2023, 04:29:20 AM

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?

No.

Plenus Venter · « **Reply #164 on:** May 13, 2023, 06:43:13 PM »

Quote from: trad123 on May 13, 2023, 04:45:24 PM

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.

Author Topic: Francis Includes Schismatic Heretics in Martyrology (Read 10168 times)

SeanJohnson

Re: Francis Includes Schismatic Heretics in Martyrology

SeanJohnson

Re: Francis Includes Schismatic Heretics in Martyrology

2Vermont

Re: Francis Includes Schismatic Heretics in Martyrology

SeanJohnson

Re: Francis Includes Schismatic Heretics in Martyrology

trad123

Re: Francis Includes Schismatic Heretics in Martyrology

trad123

Re: Francis Includes Schismatic Heretics in Martyrology

2Vermont

Re: Francis Includes Schismatic Heretics in Martyrology

trad123

Re: Francis Includes Schismatic Heretics in Martyrology

trad123

Re: Francis Includes Schismatic Heretics in Martyrology

trad123

Re: Francis Includes Schismatic Heretics in Martyrology

trad123

Re: Francis Includes Schismatic Heretics in Martyrology

trad123

Re: Francis Includes Schismatic Heretics in Martyrology

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