CathInfo.com

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.


[ . . . ]

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:

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.

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.



[ . . . ]

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

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:

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.