-
http://www.the-pope.com/journet.html
An extract from
THE CHURCH OF THE WORD INCARNATE
An Essay in Speculative Theology
by
Charles Journet
(Professor at the Major Seminary of Fribourg)
Translated by
A. H. C. Downes
Volume One:
The Apostolic Hierarchy
Sheed and Ward
London and New York
1955
Page 425:
PERMANENT JURISDICTION: FOURTH DIVISION
D. The Sole Remedy for a Bad Pope: a Text of Cajetan's on Prayer
The Church has no power to change the form of her government, nor to control the destiny of him who, once validly elected, is no vicar of hers but Vicar of Christ. Consequently she has no power to punish or depose her head. She is born to obey. This truth may seem hard, but the best theologians have never attenuated it; rather, they have accentuated it. To make us aware of all that we ought to be ready to suffer for the Church, of how much heroism she can ask of us, they have proposed extreme cases. They have supposed a Pope who shall scandalise the Church by the gravest sins; they have supposed him to be incorrigible; and then they ask whether the Church can depose him. Their answer is, no. For no one on earth can touch the Pope.
In his Summa de Ecclesia (lib. II, cap. cvi) Cardinal Turrecremata pointed out several remedies for such a calamity: respectful admonitions, direct resistance to bad acts, and so forth. All these could, of course, prove useless.
There remains a supreme resource, never useless, terrible sometimes as death, as secret as love. This is prayer, the resource of the saints. "See that I do not have to complain of you to Jesus crucified," wrote Catherine of Siena to Pope Gregory XI; "there is none other to whom I can appeal, since you have no superiors on earth." And again, a little earlier in the same letter: "Take care, as you value your life, that you commit no negligence."
To the bad theologians who thought that the Church would be defenceless if not allowed to depose a vicious Pope, Cardinal Cajetan, who had seen the reign of Alexander VI, had but one answer: he reminded them of the power of prayer. For never has it such power as in such crises. We must always have recourse to prayer, as one of the purest weapons a Christian can use. But here it is not only a "common" means, i.e. one to be used along with others, it is the "proper" means, the proper instrument for the use of the Church in distress. "If you tell me that prayer is but a common remedy to be used against all the ills that afflict us, and that for the special evil that troubles us here we need a proper remedy - since every effect comes of a proper cause, not merely from general causes - I reply, in a general way, that the highest causes, although they play the part of common causes in respect of lower effects, play in fact the part of proper causes in respect of higher effects. And that is why prayer, which is to be put among the highest of supernatural second causes, is only a common cause of lower effects; but it is a proper cause and the proper remedy for the highest effects, such as would be - since it is matter reserved for God - the removal from this world of a still believing but incorrigible Pope."[1] The same author sufficiently indicates the sort of prayer to be offered when he reproaches his contemporaries for their manner of reciting the Divine Office and of celebrating Mass.
[1] De Comparatione Auctoritatis Papae et Concilii, cap. xxvii, no. 422.
Page 426:
Here he shows both the clarity of his genius and the charity of his heart. "The divine Wisdom," he says, "who in the natural order governs lower things through the higher and these last through the highest second causes, acts in a similar way in the supernatural order, to which belong grace and faith, and the Church based on the faith. On the other hand, causes are proportionate to their effects, the highest causes having the highest effects. If then, on the one hand, the means available to human effort ["providentia humana"], even if super-elevated by the authority of the Church, are a force inferior to prayer, appointed as the highest of second causes by God, to whom all creatures, corporeal or spiritual, are subject; and if, on the other hand, a remedy against a bad but still believing Pope[1] is among the highest effects in the Church, it follows that God, in His wisdom, must have given the Church for remedy against a bad Pope, not now any of these merely human means which may avail for the rest of the Church, but prayer alone. And can the prayer of the Church, when she perseveringly asks things needful for her salvation, be any less efficacious than merely human means? Is not the fervent prayer of an individual soul who asks such things for himself, already efficacious and infallible?[2] If then the salvation of the Church demands that such and such a Pope should be removed, then undoubtedly the prayer we have mentioned will remove him. And if it be not necessary, why question the goodness of the Lord, who refuses what we wish and gives us what we ought to prefer? ... But alas, it seems that we are come to the days announced by the Son of Man when He asked whether, on His return, He should find faith on the earth. For the promises relating to the highest and most efficacious of second causes are held to be of nothing worth. They say that we must depose a bad Pope by human means; that one cannot be content with resort to prayer and to divine providence alone! But why do they say that, if not because they prefer human means to the efficacy of prayer, because the animal man does not perceive the things of God, because they have learnt to trust in man, not in the Lord, and to put their hope in the flesh? So, if a Pope hardened in evil ways appears, his subordinates, without leaving their own vices, content themselves with daily murmurings against the evil regime; they do not seek to avail themselves, save perhaps in a dream and without faith, of the remedy of prayer; so that what Scripture predicts comes about by their fault, namely that it is due to the sins of the people that a hypocrite reigns over them, holy in respect of his office, but a devil at heart ... We have become blind to the point of refusing to pray as we ought, while yet desiring the fruit of prayer; of refusing to sow, while still wanting to reap. Let us not call ourselves Christians any longer! Or if we do, let us turn to Christ; and the Pope, were he frantic, furious, tyrannical, a render, dilapidator and corrupter of the Church, would be overcome. But if we do not know how to overcome ourselves, what right have we to complain of being
[1] Great theologians have admitted that the Pope could personally fall into the sin of heresy. See Excursus IX.
[2] St. Thomas, III Con. Gen., xcv and xcvi.
Page 427:
unable to break through the evils that surround us by prayers that not only fail to rise through our roofs, but do not even mount as far as our heads? And the worst of all is this: God of old upbraided His people for honouring Him with their lips while their hearts were far from Him; but in the days of the revelation of grace, God is not even honoured with lips, for nothing is less intelligible than the recitation of the divine office, nothing said more quickly than the Mass; the time given to these seems long, too long, but time enough is found for play, business and worldly pleasures, and for loitering over them endlessly."[1]
Thus, even though his private life should be grievously sinful, the Pope cannot be deposed. Immense scandal might be given, but his doctrinal infallibility would be unaffected. And it remains true that no temptation is superhuman. God, who is faithful, will suffer none who seeks Him to be tempted beyond his strength, and to each He offers inwardly the help that will enable him to overcome (cf. I Cor. x. 13).
[1] De Comparatione Auctoritatis Papae et Concili, cap. xxvii, nos. 417-20.
* * *
Page 482:
Excursus IX
LOSS OF THE PONTIFICATE
How can the pontificate, once validly held, be lost? At the most in two ways.
a. The first - and at bottom, as we shall see, the only way - is by the disappearance of the subject himself; whether as a result of an inevitable event (death or
Page 483:
that species of death which consists in irremediable loss of reason), or as a result of the free renunciation of the pontificate such as that of St. Celestine V, "che fece ... il gran' rifiuto". The Pope was considered as having resigned when he was so placed that he could not possibly exercise his powers: "It appears that in those times, when a bishop was removed from his see by a capital sentence (death, exile, relegation) or by an equivalent measure emanating from the secular authority, the see was considered as vacant. It was under these circuмstances that the Roman Church replaced in the third century Pontianus by Anteros, in the sixth century Silverius by Vigilius, in the seventh Martin by Eugenius" (L. Duchesne, The Early History of the Church, vol. III, p. 160, note 1).
b. The second way would be by deposition. If deposition means, properly, deprivation by a superior authority, it is evident that the Pope, having the highest spiritual jurisdiction on earth, can never in this sense be deposed. When then the deposition of a Pope is spoken of it can only be in some improper sense. Two cases present themselves.
First, there is the deposition of a doubtful Pope. But a Pope whose election remains uncertain was never Pope, so that there is no question here of deposition properly so called.
Next comes the debated case of an HERETICAL Pope.
Many theologians hold that the assistance promised by Jesus to the successors of Peter will not only prevent them from publicly teaching heretical doctrine, but will also prevent them from falling into heresy in their private capacity. If that view is correct the question does not arise. St. Robert Bellarmine, in his De Romano Pontifice (lib. II, cap. xxx), already held this thesis as probable and easy to defend. It was however less widespread in his time than it is to-day. It has gained ground, largely on account of historical studies which have shown that what was once imputed to certain Popes, such as Vigilius, Liberius, Honorius as a private heresy, was in fact nothing more than a lack of zeal and of courage in certain difficult moments, to proclaim and especially to define precisely, what the true doctrine was.
Nevertheless, numerous and good theologians of the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries have admitted that the Pope as a private person could fall into heresy and not only in secret but even openly.
Some, such as Bellarmine and Suarez, considered that such a Pope, withdrawing himself from the Church, was ipso facto deposed, "papa haereticus est depositus". It seems that heresy was regarded by these theologians as a kind of moral ѕυιcιdє suppressing the very subject of the Papacy. Thus we come back without difficulty to the first way in which the pontificate can be lost.
Others, such 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. And to make this clear they fall back on an explanation of the same nature as those we have used in Excursus IV. The remark on the one hand that in divine law the Church is to be united to the Pope as the body is to the head; and on the other that, by divine law, he who shows himself a heretic is to be avoided after one or two admonitions (Tit. iii. 10). There is therefore an absolute contradiction between the fact of being Pope and the fact of persevering in heresy after one or two admonitions. The Church's
Page 484:
action is simply declaratory, it makes it plain that an incorrigible sin of heresy exists; then the authoritative action of God disjoins the Papacy from a subject who, persisting in heresy after admonition, becomes in divine law, inapt to retain it any longer. In virtue therefore of Scripture the Church designates and God deposes. God acts with the Church, says John of St. Thomas, somewhat as a Pope would act who decided to attach indulgences to certain places of pilgrimage, but left it to a subordinate to designate which these places should be (II-II, q. i; disp. 2, a. 3, no. 29, Vol. VII, p. 264). The explanation of Cajetan and John of St. Thomas - which, according to them, is also valid, properly applied, as an interpretation of the enactments of the Council of Constance - brings us back in its turn to the case of a subject who becomes in Divine law incapable at a given moment of retaining the papacy. It is also reducible to the loss of the pontificate by default of the subject. This then is the fundamental case and the others are merely variants. In a study in the Revue Thomiste (1900, p. 631, Lettres de Savonarole aux princes chretiens pour la reunion d'un concile), P. Hurtaud, O.P., has entered a powerful plea in the case - still open - of the "Piagnoni". He makes reference to the explanation of Roman theologians prior to Cajetan, according to which a Pope who fell into heresy would be deposed ipso facto: the Council concerned would have only to put on record the fact of heresy and notify the Church that the Pope involved had forfeited his primacy. Savonarola, he says, regarded Alexander VI as having lost his faith. "The Lord, moved to anger by this intolerable corruption, has, for some time past, allowed the Church to be without a pastor. For I bear witness in the name of God that this Alexander VI is in no way Pope and cannot be. For quite apart from the execrable crime of simony, by which he got possession of the [papal] tiara through a sacrilegious bargaining, and by which every day he puts up to auction and knocks down to the highest bidder ecclesiastical benefices, and quite apart from his other vices - well-known to all - which I will pass over in silence, this I declare in the first place and affirm it with all certitude, that the man is not a Christian, he does not even believe any longer that there is a God; he goes beyond the final limits of infidelity and impiety" (Letter to the Emperor).[1] Basing our argument on the doctrinal authorities which Cajetan was soon to invoke, we should say that Savonarola wished to collect together the Council, not because, like the Gallicans, he placed a Council above the Pope (the Letters to the Princes are legally and doctrinally unimpeachable), but so that the Council, before which he would prove his accusation, should declare the heresy of Alexander VI in his status as a private individual. P. Hurtaud concludes: "Savonarola's acts and words - and most of his words are acts - should be examined in detail. Each of his words should be carefully weighed and none of the circuмstances of his actions should be lost sight of. For the friar is a master of doctrine; he does not only know it but he lives it too. In his conduct nothing is left to chance or the mood of the moment. He has a theological or legal principle as the motive power in each one of his decisions. He should not be judged by general laws, for his guides are principles of an exceptional order - though I do not mean by this that he placed himself above or outside the common law. The rules he invokes are admitted by the best Doctors of the Church; there is nothing exceptional in them save the circuмstances which make them lawful, and condition their application."
[1] These were neither new nor isolated accusations. cf. Schnitzer, Savonarola, Italian translation by E. Rutili, Milan, 1931, vol. ii, p. 303.
[END OF EXTRACT]
-
Thanks Sean. This quote from your post should be applied to Bergoglio:
"First, there is the deposition of a doubtful Pope. But a Pope whose election remains uncertain was never Pope, so that there is no question here of deposition properly so called."
Universi Dominici Gregis (https://www.vatican.va/content/john-paul-ii/en/apost_constitutions/docuмents/hf_jp-ii_apc_22021996_universi-dominici-gregis.html) states that any papal election that does not follow the specific prescriptions of that Apostolic Constitution is null and void (UDG 76). The 2013 papal election did not follow the specific prescription of UDG requiring that the beginning the election take place AFTER the death of the Pope (UDG 49). Therefore, the 2013 papal election was null and void.
Here are the quotes from UDG:
49. When the funeral rites for the deceased Pope have been celebrated according to the prescribed ritual, and everything necessary for the regular functioning of the election has been prepared, on the appointed day — and thus on the fifteenth day after the death of the Pope or, in conformity with the provisions of No. 37 of the present Constitution, not later than the twentieth — the Cardinal electors shall meet in the Basilica of Saint Peter's in the Vatican, or elsewhere, should circuмstances warrant it, in order to take part in a solemn Eucharistic celebration with the Votive Mass Pro Eligendo Papa.19 This celebration should preferably take place at a suitable hour in the morning, so that in the afternoon the prescriptions of the following Numbers of this Constitution can be carried out.
76. Should the election take place in a way other than that prescribed in the present Constitution, or should the conditions laid down here not be observed, the election is for this very reason null and void, without any need for a declaration on the matter; consequently, it confers no right on the one elected.
Therefore, Jorge Mario Bergoglio was not "validly elected" and, he was "never Pope."
-
Thanks Sean. This quote from your post should be applied to Bergoglio:
Universi Dominici Gregis (https://www.vatican.va/content/john-paul-ii/en/apost_constitutions/docuмents/hf_jp-ii_apc_22021996_universi-dominici-gregis.html) states that any papal election that does not follow the specific prescriptions of that Apostolic Constitution is null and void (UDG 76). The 2013 papal election did not follow the specific prescription of UDG requiring that the beginning the election take place AFTER the death of the Pope (UDG 49). Therefore, the 2013 papal election was null and void.
Here are the quotes from UDG:
Therefore, Jorge Mario Bergoglio was not "validly elected" and, he was "never Pope."
I believe UDG applies to elections after a pope has died, not after a pope has resigned.
The pragraph you cited begins:
"49. When the funeral rites for the deceased Pope have been celebrated according to the prescribed ritual..."
-
I believe UDG applies to elections after a pope has died, not after a pope has resigned.
The pragraph you cited begins:
"49. When the funeral rites for the deceased Pope have been celebrated according to the prescribed ritual..."
Sean, you are correct to believe that "UDG applies to elections after a pope has died." That is exactly what I have been saying.
But your statement seems to imply that there is some other Church law that allows a papal election "after a pope has resigned." I assure you that no such Church law was in force in 2013.
UDG was the only expression of Church law governing papal elections in 2013.
-
Sean, you are correct to believe that "UDG applies to elections after a pope has died." That is exactly what I have been saying.
But your statement seems to imply that there is some other Church law that allows a papal election "after a pope has resigned." I assure you that no such Church law was in force in 2013.
UDG was the only expression of Church law governing papal elections in 2013.
I believe that papal resignation, not having occurred in 600 years, was overlooked, and therefore left unaddressed; it seems to have disappeared from the collective consciousness.
But the rule governing papal resignation would be found here:
Can. 332 §1. The Roman Pontiff obtains full and supreme power in the Church by his acceptance of legitimate election together with episcopal consecration. Therefore, a person elected to the supreme pontificate who is marked with episcopal character obtains this power from the moment of acceptance. If the person elected lacks episcopal character, however, he is to be ordained a bishop immediately.
§2. If it happens that the Roman Pontiff resigns his office, it is required for validity that the resignation is made freely and properly manifested but not that it is accepted by anyone.
-
I believe that papal resignation, not having occurred in 600 years, was overlooked, and therefore left unaddressed; it seems to have disappeared from the collective consciousness.
But Sean, what does such a "belief" have to do with the law of papal elections, without which law we cannot determine whether a Pope was validly or invalidly elected? In other words, only by applying the law of papal election requirements to the factual election proceedings can validity or invalidity be determined.
Journet says the following in the first sentence of your post:
"The Church has no power to change the form of her government, nor to control the destiny of him who, once validly elected, is no vicar of hers but Vicar of Christ."
Everything depends on the "validity" of the election, because and invalid Pope would be a "doubtful Pope." And Journey says
"First, there is the deposition of a doubtful Pope. But a Pope whose election remains uncertain was never Pope, so that there is no question here of deposition properly so called."
How can Journet's words "doubtful" and "uncertain" have any meaning if we don't have the papal election law to use as a standard by which we judge the doubt or uncertainty?
-
But Sean, what does such a "belief" have to do with the law of papal elections, without which law we cannot determine whether a Pope was validly or invalidly elected? In other words, only by applying the law of papal election requirements to the factual election proceedings can validity or invalidity be determined.
Journet says the following in the first sentence of your post:
"The Church has no power to change the form of her government, nor to control the destiny of him who, once validly elected, is no vicar of hers but Vicar of Christ."
Everything depends on the "validity" of the election, because and invalid Pope would be a "doubtful Pope." And Journey says
"First, there is the deposition of a doubtful Pope. But a Pope whose election remains uncertain was never Pope, so that there is no question here of deposition properly so called."
How can Journet's words "doubtful" and "uncertain" have any meaning if we don't have the papal election law to use as a standard by which we judge the doubt or uncertainty?
That the hierarchy has unanimously consented to the election means that there is no doubt as to his legitimacy, and heals in the root any defect in the election process. (Billot)
-
I believe that papal resignation, not having occurred in 600 years, was overlooked, and therefore left unaddressed; it seems to have disappeared from the collective consciousness.
But the rule governing papal resignation would be found here:
Can. 332 §1. The Roman Pontiff obtains full and supreme power in the Church by his acceptance of legitimate election together with episcopal consecration. Therefore, a person elected to the supreme pontificate who is marked with episcopal character obtains this power from the moment of acceptance. If the person elected lacks episcopal character, however, he is to be ordained a bishop immediately.
§2. If it happens that the Roman Pontiff resigns his office, it is required for validity that the resignation is made freely and properly manifested but not that it is accepted by anyone.
Yes, the Canon dealing with a papal resignation is in 332 §2. There is no doubt about that. But that Canon does not say anything about an election being triggered by a mere papal resignation.
But look at canon 349:
Can. 349 The cardinals of the Holy Roman Church constitute a special college which provides for the election of the Roman Pontiff according to the norm of special law. The cardinals assist the Roman Pontiff either collegially when they are convoked to deal with questions of major importance, or individually when they help the Roman Pontiff through the various offices they perform, especially in the daily care of the universal Church.
In Canon 349, you see reference to "the norm of special law." That special law of "the election of the Roman Ponfiff" is found in the Apostolic Constitution, Universi Dominici Gregis (https://www.vatican.va/content/john-paul-ii/en/apost_constitutions/docuмents/hf_jp-ii_apc_22021996_universi-dominici-gregis.html).
-
That the hierarchy has unanimously consented to the election means that there is no doubt as to his legitimacy, and heals in the root any defect in the election process. (Billot)
Please provide the full quote (with context) from Billot. The way you state it, it seems to disagree with John of St. Thomas and others.
Below is what I said to the user NIFH in another thread (https://www.cathinfo.com/sspx-resistance-news/eleison-comments-two-kinds-of-bishop-v-(no-839)/msg900216/#msg900216) concerning the same issue:
I will try to go systematically through this exchange.
1. You stated that John of St. Thomas taught that the "Universal Peaceful Acceptance" of a particular Pope can be "de fide." If understood correctly (as referring to a "dogmatic fact"), I agree that it is possible for a past papal claimant to be accepted by a Pope or and Ecuмenical Council.
2. Only a Church authority with the power to declare a "dogmatic fact" (such as a Pope or an Ecuмenical Council) can declare that a particular papal claimant was, in the past, actually a Pope. The opinions of laymen or Cardinals or Bishops or priests on the matter are not relevant. Again, only a Pope or an Ecuмenical council can declare a "dogmatic fact."
3. As John of St. Thomas says in another place (which I quoted earlier), that it is his opinion that only a lawfully/duly/properly elected papal claimant can be the subject of "universal peaceful acceptance" declaration made by a Pope or an Ecuмenical Council. An unlawfully-elected Pope would not be considered, according to John of St. Thomas.
4. The precise theological dogma involved when a Pope or an Ecuмenical Council declares a "dogmatic fact" is discussed in Ott in Part 2, Chapter 1, §13, 3: Bearers of Infallibility. In that section, Ott explains that ONLY the Pope and a valid Ecuмenical Council can declare new infallible dogmas.
5. There is no general theological dogma called "universal peaceful acceptance" dogma. You seem to have access to Ott's book. Tell me where I can find this "dogma" of "universal peaceful acceptance" discussed in Ott's book.
6. Now, turning to Bergoglio. The the declaration of "universal peaceful acceptance" does not apply to him for two reasons:
a) there has been no declaration of "dogmatic fact" made by a later Pope or an Ecuмenical Council that Bergoglio was a valid Pope.
b) there would never be such a declaration of "dogmatic fact" made in Bergoglio's case anyway because his election was unlawful.
-
Please provide the full quote (with context) from Billot. The way you state it, it seems to disagree with John of St. Thomas and others.
Below is what I said to the user NIFH in another thread concerning the same issue:
Billot:
"Finally, whatever you still think about the possibility or impossibility of the aforementioned hypothesis [of a Pope falling into heresy], at least one point must be considered absolutely incontrovertible and placed firmly above any doubt whatever: the adhesion of the universal Church will be always, in itself, an infallible sign of the legitimacy of a determined Pontiff, and therefore also of the existence of all the conditions required for legitimacy itself. It is not necessary to look far for the proof of this, but we find it immediately in the promise and the infallible providence of Christ: ‘The gates of hell shall not prevail against it,’ and ‘Behold I shall be with you all days.’ For the adhesion of the Church to a false Pontiff would be the same as its adhesion to a false rule of faith,[2] (http://file:///C:/Users/user/Desktop/PUA.docx#_ftn2) seeing that the Pope is the living rule of faith which the Church must follow and which in fact she always follows. As will become even more clear by what we shall say later, God can permit that at times a vacancy in the Apostolic See be prolonged for a long time. He can also permit that doubt arise about the legitimacy of this or that election. He cannot however permit that the whole Church accept as Pontiff him who is not so truly and legitimately.
"Therefore, from the moment in which the Pope is accepted by the Church and united to her as the head to the body, it is no longer permitted to raise doubts about a possible vice of election or a possible lack of any condition whatsoever necessary for legitimacy. For the aforementioned adhesion of the Church heals in the root all fault in the election and proves infallibly the existence of all the required conditions.”[3]
(http://file:///C:/Users/user/Desktop/PUA.docx#_ftn3)
-
There's only one thing that needs to be known about "Sedevacantism", that the Magisterium and the Public worship of the Church cannot become corrupt. Therefore these men have not been legitimate Popes acting freely in the exercise of their office. If you want to claim they were blackmailed and not acting freely, that's fine. But, apart from that type of scenario, your attribution of this degree of corruption to the Magisterium and to the Mass is simply not Catholic. Quibble all you want about depositus this or deponendus that. It's all a distraction from the core heresy you promote.
-
Billot:
"... the adhesion of the universal Church will be always, in itself, an infallible sign of the legitimacy of a determined Pontiff, and therefore also of the existence of all the conditions required for legitimacy itself. It is not necessary to look far for the proof of this, but we find it immediately in the promise and the infallible providence of Christ: ‘The gates of hell shall not prevail against it,’
(http://file:///C:/Users/user/Desktop/PUA.docx#_ftn3)
Simply pasting this over and over again does not make it true. Attributing corruption to the Magisterium and to the Mass is a much greater violation of the truth that "The gates of hell shall not prevail against it..."
Apart from this pious consideration, Billot provides no theological proof for this, and it's falsified by 1) at least two historical counter-examples and 2) the principles behind cuм ex Apostolatus.
I wonder what Billot would say about the heresy of attributing corruption to the Magisterium and the Mass if he were alive.
-
Billot:
"Finally, whatever you still think about the possibility or impossibility of the aforementioned hypothesis [of a Pope falling into heresy], at least one point must be considered absolutely incontrovertible and placed firmly above any doubt whatever: the adhesion of the universal Church will be always, in itself, an infallible sign of the legitimacy of a determined Pontiff, and therefore also of the existence of all the conditions required for legitimacy itself. It is not necessary to look far for the proof of this, but we find it immediately in the promise and the infallible providence of Christ: ‘The gates of hell shall not prevail against it,’ and ‘Behold I shall be with you all days.’ For the adhesion of the Church to a false Pontiff would be the same as its adhesion to a false rule of faith,[2] (http://file:///C:/Users/user/Desktop/PUA.docx#_ftn2) seeing that the Pope is the living rule of faith which the Church must follow and which in fact she always follows. As will become even more clear by what we shall say later, God can permit that at times a vacancy in the Apostolic See be prolonged for a long time. He can also permit that doubt arise about the legitimacy of this or that election. He cannot however permit that the whole Church accept as Pontiff him who is not so truly and legitimately.
"Therefore, from the moment in which the Pope is accepted by the Church and united to her as the head to the body, it is no longer permitted to raise doubts about a possible vice of election or a possible lack of any condition whatsoever necessary for legitimacy. For the aforementioned adhesion of the Church heals in the root all fault in the election and proves infallibly the existence of all the required conditions.”[3]
(http://file:///C:/Users/user/Desktop/PUA.docx#_ftn3)
Billot mentions "infallibility" multiple times in that quote. He is referring to what is called a "dogmatic fact." When he mentions "the universal Church" or "the Church" in this context, he is necessarily referring to the infallible teaching authority of the Church, not to the opinions of individuals in the Church.
For a particular fact, such as a valid papal election, to become an infallible fact, a "dogmatic fact," either a Pope or an Ecuмenical Council must settle any controversy. Until that happens, the particular Pontificate would not be an infallible, dogmatic fact.
-
There's only one thing that needs to be known about "Sedevacantism", that the Magisterium and the Public worship of the Church cannot become corrupt. Therefore these men have not been legitimate Popes acting freely in the exercise of their office. If you want to claim they were blackmailed and not acting freely, that's fine. But, apart from that type of scenario, your attribution of this degree of corruption to the Magisterium and to the Mass is simply not Catholic. Quibble all you want about depositus this or deponendus that. It's all a distraction from the core heresy you promote.
You remind me of those who were scandalized in the Lord when he hung on the cross:
"Surely this cannot be God!"
You as much as say the same thing here:
"God could not allow this to happen to the Church, because if He did, I'sd lose my faith."
You can keep repeating that until the cows come home, but all it does is publicly manifest the weakness of your faith.
-
John of St. Thomas:
Objection: We cannot know with certainty of faith that the particular electors have a valid intention of election, nor that they are true and legitimate Cardinals, nor that they observed the form of election required by law, such as the requirement that the Pope be elected by two-thirds majority of the cardinals, as well as the other conditions without which the election is null.
Answer: The acceptance and definition of the Church, inasmuch as it gives the certitude of faith [concerning the legitimacy of the Pope], does not touch upon the conditions of the election, or the intention and genuine identity of the electors, without intermediary, but rather mediately, and as a logical consequence of what it immediately touches upon: namely, that whoever is elected by the persons that the Church designates to choose a Pope in her name, by the very fact that he is accepted by the Church as legitimately elected, is in fact Pope. This latter is what the definition of Martin V, related above, as well as the acceptance of the Church, is really about. Now, from the de fide truth that this man is Pope, it follows as a consequence that all the requisite conditions must have been observed. For, faith does not concern itself primarily with the conditions that must be realized in the electors, but only afterwards with the person elected [i.e., the object of faith is the legitimacy of the one elected, not whether the conditions required for a valid election were met]. It is the same with the definitions of Councils. Faith is not concerned with the prerequisites of the definition—for instance, that the definition was preceded by diligent investigation, or a disputation about the propositions to be defined—for this is not the subject-matter of faith. Nevertheless, once the definition has been given [which is the object of faith], one rightly infers as a theological conclusion that all the things necessary for the definition were in place, and consequently that there was a discussion preceding it. (…)
"Likewise, because it is de fide that this man in particular, accepted by the Church as canonically elected, is the Pope, the theological conclusion is drawn that there were genuine electors, and a real intention of electing, as well as the other requisites, without which the de fide truth could not stand.
"Therefore, we have the certainty of faith, by a revelation implicitly contained in the Creed and in the promise made to Peter, and made more explicit in the definition of Martin V, and applied and declared in act (in exercitio) by the acceptance of the Church, that this man in particular, canonically elected according to the acceptance of the Church, is Pope. The certainty of faith touches this alone [i.e., his legitimacy]; and whatever is prerequisite to it [i.e., the conditions], or else follows upon the fact of the election, is inferred as a theological conclusion drawn from the proposition that is de fide, and is believed mediately.
-
Syllogism:
Major: Francis' acceptance as pope by the entire Church following his election, provides infallible certitude that he became the legitimate Pope.
Minor: One of the conditions required for Francis to have become Pope is that the Chair of Peter was vacant at the time, and hence that Benedict’s abdication was valid.
Conclusion: Since Francis was accepted as Pope by the entire Church, this proves infallibly that the Chair of Peter was vacant and hence that Benedict’s abdication was valid.
http://www.trueorfalsepope.com/p/peaceful-and-universal-acceptance-of.html
-
John of St. Thomas:
Objection: We cannot know with certainty of faith that the particular electors have a valid intention of election, nor that they are true and legitimate Cardinals, nor that they observed the form of election required by law, such as the requirement that the Pope be elected by two-thirds majority of the cardinals, as well as the other conditions without which the election is null.
Answer: The acceptance and definition of the Church, inasmuch as it gives the certitude of faith [concerning the legitimacy of the Pope], does not touch upon the conditions of the election, or the intention and genuine identity of the electors, without intermediary, but rather mediately, and as a logical consequence of what it immediately touches upon: namely, that whoever is elected by the persons that the Church designates to choose a Pope in her name, by the very fact that he is accepted by the Church as legitimately elected, is in fact Pope. This latter is what the definition of Martin V, related above, as well as the acceptance of the Church, is really about. Now, from the de fide truth that this man is Pope, it follows as a consequence that all the requisite conditions must have been observed. For, faith does not concern itself primarily with the conditions that must be realized in the electors, but only afterwards with the person elected [i.e., the object of faith is the legitimacy of the one elected, not whether the conditions required for a valid election were met]. It is the same with the definitions of Councils. Faith is not concerned with the prerequisites of the definition—for instance, that the definition was preceded by diligent investigation, or a disputation about the propositions to be defined—for this is not the subject-matter of faith. Nevertheless, once the definition has been given [which is the object of faith], one rightly infers as a theological conclusion that all the things necessary for the definition were in place, and consequently that there was a discussion preceding it. (…)
"Likewise, because it is de fide that this man in particular, accepted by the Church as canonically elected, is the Pope, the theological conclusion is drawn that there were genuine electors, and a real intention of electing, as well as the other requisites, without which the de fide truth could not stand.
"Therefore, we have the certainty of faith, by a revelation implicitly contained in the Creed and in the promise made to Peter, and made more explicit in the definition of Martin V, and applied and declared in act (in exercitio) by the acceptance of the Church, that this man in particular, canonically elected according to the acceptance of the Church, is Pope. The certainty of faith touches this alone [i.e., his legitimacy]; and whatever is prerequisite to it [i.e., the conditions], or else follows upon the fact of the election, is inferred as a theological conclusion drawn from the proposition that is de fide, and is believed mediately.
Sean, as I have said in that other thread. John of St. Thomas is dealing with how the infallible teaching authority of the Church (through a Pope or a valid Ecuмenical Council) can quiet all concerns regarding unknowns in a previous papal election. Any such controversy can be settled by an infallible authority of the Church declaring a "dogmatic fact." The Church did that at the Council of Constance, which is what John of St. Thomas references.
However, there has been no infallible declaration of a Pope or an Ecuмenical Council that Jorge Mario Bergolio is the legitimate Pope. This has not happened. And it would never happen because his 2013 "election" was null and void. There is no question. It is obvious.
-
Sean, as I have said in that other thread. John of St. Thomas is dealing with how the infallible teaching authority of the Church (through a Pope or a valid Ecuмenical Council) can quiet all concerns regarding unknowns in a previous papal election. Any such controversy can be settled by an infallible authority of the Church declaring a "dogmatic fact." The Church did that at the Council of Constance, which is what John of St. Thomas references.
However, there has been no infallible declaration of a Pope or an Ecuмenical Council that Jorge Mario Bergolio is the legitimate Pope. This has not happened. And it would never happen because his 2013 "election" was null and void. There is no question. It is obvious.
Your comment does not withstand my syllogism (see previous comment).
-
Syllogism:
Major: Francis' acceptance as pope by the entire Church following his election, provides infallible certitude that he became the legitimate Pope.
Minor: One of the conditions required for Francis to have become Pope is that the Chair of Peter was vacant at the time, and hence that Benedict’s abdication was valid.
Conclusion: Since Francis was accepted as Pope by the entire Church, this proves infallibly that the Chair of Peter was vacant and hence that Benedict’s abdication was valid.
http://www.trueorfalsepope.com/p/peaceful-and-universal-acceptance-of.html
Sean, it is a de fide dogma that only a Pope or an Ecuмenical Council can teach infallibly. So your Major is not based on Catholic teaching.
Salza uses the phrase "acceptance as pope by the entire Church." Does that mean that he took a survey of the "entire Church" and this "entire Church" made a papacy infallible? You know that is not how infallibility works in the Catholic Church, right?
-
Sean, as I have said in that other thread. John of St. Thomas is dealing with how the infallible teaching authority of the Church (through a Pope or a valid Ecuмenical Council) can quiet all concerns regarding unknowns in a previous papal election. Any such controversy can be settled by an infallible authority of the Church declaring a "dogmatic fact." The Church did that at the Council of Constance, which is what John of St. Thomas references.
However, there has been no infallible declaration of a Pope or an Ecuмenical Council that Jorge Mario Bergolio is the legitimate Pope. This has not happened. And it would never happen because his 2013 "election" was null and void. There is no question. It is obvious.
"The definition of Pope Martin V that John of St. Thomas referenced earlier is found in the Bull Inter Cunctas (Feb. 22, 1418), which was written after the last sessions of the Council of Constance. The Bull condemns the errors of John Wycliffe and Hus, and contains questions to be asked of those who are suspected of heresy, in order to determine “whether they rightly believe.”
Since these heretics refused to accept the legitimacy of a Pope unless they personally approved of him, one of the questions that was definitively formulated to detect them, is whether they believe the Pope who is reigning at the time (whose name is to be included in the question), is the Successor of St. Peter and possesses the supreme authority in the Church.
As John of St. Thomas and others point out, the question is not if they believe a Pope who passes their test for legitimacy is the successor of St. Peter and possesses supreme authority, but if they believe the man the Church presently recognizes as Pope is the Successor of Peter, etc.. Here is the explanation of this point given by John of St. Thomas:
“Martin V, in the Council of Constance, in the condemnation of the errors of Wycliffe (which is to be found after the fourth, fifth, and last sessions of the Council), in the interrogations that are to be made of those who are suspected in faith, in order to determine whether they believe rightly, puts this question.
‘Also, whether he believes that the Pope canonically elected, who is reigning at the time (his proper name being given), is the successor of Blessed Peter, having supreme authority in the Church of God?’(Denz 674)
“These words do not refer to the truth of that proposition [i.e., whether he is the legitimate Pope] as understood in a general sense—namely, that whoever is lawfully elected is the Supreme Pontiff, but in the particular, concerning whoever is Pope at the time, giving his proper name, for instance, Innocent X [who was Pope when he was writing]. It is of this man, whose proper name is given, that Pope Martin is bidding the person suspect in faith to be asked, whether he believes that he is the successor of Peter and the Supreme Pontiff: therefore this pertains to the act of faith—and not [merely] to an inference or a moral certitude.”
The way this question would be asked today is: “Do you believe Francis is the successor of Blessed Peter, having supreme authority in the Church of God.” Anyone who answered “no” would fail in their “profession of faith” and be marked as a heretic.
John of St. Thomas further explains that it would be contrary to the special providence of God for a man, who does not meet the required conditions, to be accepted as Pope by the Church. He wrote:
t is not merely a pious belief, but a theological conclusion (as we have stated), that God will not permit one to be elected and peacefully accepted by the Church who in fact does not meet the conditions required; this would be contrary to the special providence that God exercises over the Church and the assistance that she receives from the Holy Ghost.
Cardinal Billot teaches the same:
[T]he infallible providence of God will prevent it from ever happening that the whole Church adhere to a false head; consequently, no one will ever be accepted as supreme pontiff who does not meet all the conditions necessary to be a member, whatever those conditions may be. That visibility, therefore, by which the true Church is recognizable as such, is in no way imperiled.[8] (http://file:///C:/Users/user/Desktop/PUA.docx#_ftn8)"
http://www.trueorfalsepope.com/p/peaceful-and-universal-acceptance-of.html
-
"John of St. Thomas proceeds to explain precisely when the universal acceptance becomes sufficient to prove that the man is a legitimate Pope. He wrote:
"All that remains to be determined, then, is the exact moment when the acceptance of the Church becomes sufficient to render the proposition de fide. Is it as soon as the cardinals propose the elect to the faithful who are in the immediate locality, or only when knowledge of the election has sufficiently spread through the whole world, wherever the Church is to be found?
"I REPLY that (as we have said above) the unanimous election of the cardinals and their declaration is similar to a definition given by the bishops of a Council legitimately gathered. Moreover, the acceptance of the Church is, for us, like a confirmation of this declaration. Now, the acceptance of the Church is realized both negatively, by the fact that the Church does not contradict the news of the election wherever it becomes known, and positively, by the gradual acceptance of the prelates of the Church, beginning with the place of the election, and spreading throughout the rest of the world. As soon as men see or hear that a Pope has been elected, and that the election is not contested, they are obliged to believe that that man is the Pope, and to accept him."
http://www.trueorfalsepope.com/p/peaceful-and-universal-acceptance-of.html
-
John of St. Thomas:
"Whoever would deny that a particular man is Pope after he has been peacefully and canonically accepted, would not only be a schismatic, but also a heretic; for, not only would he rend the unity of the Church… but he would also add to this a perverse doctrine, by denying that the man accepted by the Church is to be regarded as the Pope and the rule of faith. Pertinent here is the teaching of St. Jerome (Commentary on Titus, chapter 3) and of St. Thomas (IIa IIae Q. 39 A. 1 ad 3), that every schism concocts some heresy for itself, in order to justify its withdrawal from the Church. Thus, although schism is distinct from heresy, in most cases it is accompanied by the latter, and prepares the way for it. In the case at hand, whoever would deny the proposition just stated would not be a pure schismatic, but also a heretic, as Suarez also reckons (above, in the solution to the fourth objection)."[10] (http://file:///C:/Users/user/Desktop/PUA.docx#_ftn10)
-
St. Alphonsus:
"It is of no importance that in past centuries some Pontiff was illegitimately elected or took possession of the Pontificate by fraud; it is enough that he was accepted afterwards by the whole Church as Pope, since by such acceptance he would have become the true Pontiff.”
-
"John of St. Thomas proceeds to explain precisely when the universal acceptance becomes sufficient to prove that the man is a legitimate Pope. He wrote:
"All that remains to be determined, then, is the exact moment when the acceptance of the Church becomes sufficient to render the proposition de fide. Is it as soon as the cardinals propose the elect to the faithful who are in the immediate locality, or only when knowledge of the election has sufficiently spread through the whole world, wherever the Church is to be found?
"I REPLY that (as we have said above) the unanimous election of the cardinals and their declaration is similar to a definition given by the bishops of a Council legitimately gathered. Moreover, the acceptance of the Church is, for us, like a confirmation of this declaration. Now, the acceptance of the Church is realized both negatively, by the fact that the Church does not contradict the news of the election wherever it becomes known, and positively, by the gradual acceptance of the prelates of the Church, beginning with the place of the election, and spreading throughout the rest of the world. As soon as men see or hear that a Pope has been elected, and that the election is not contested, they are obliged to believe that that man is the Pope, and to accept him."
http://www.trueorfalsepope.com/p/peaceful-and-universal-acceptance-of.html
Sean, that quote doesn't say anything about establishing a "dogmatic fact." It simply states that when a papal election takes place and there is no evidence to the contrary that the election was valid, that Catholics "are obliged to believe that that man is the Pope."
The quote is answering concerns about hypotheticals. For example, someone might say "how do we know that Pius V election was valid?" This is "negative doubt." There is no evidence that Pius V was invalidly elected. John of St. Thomas is answering that in the case where there is nothing more than "negative doubt," Catholics are obliged to accept the election.
However, we currently have an Apostolic Constitution, still in force, Universi Dominici Gregis (https://www.vatican.va/content/john-paul-ii/en/apost_constitutions/docuмents/hf_jp-ii_apc_22021996_universi-dominici-gregis.html) that says this:
76. Should the election take place in a way other than that prescribed in the present Constitution, or should the conditions laid down here not be observed, the election is for this very reason null and void, without any need for a declaration on the matter; consequently, it confers no right on the one elected.
The current law of the Church is clear and explicit. If we can objectively-determine that the law of papal elections was not followed in 2013, the election was null and void. The law requires that Benedict XVI be dead BEFORE the beginning of the election. He was not dead at the beginning of the election. Therefore the 2013 election is null and void.
John of St. Thomas is writing 500 years ago when the papal elections were much different and governed by different laws.
-
John of St. Thomas:
"Whoever would deny that a particular man is Pope after he has been peacefully and canonically accepted, would not only be a schismatic, but also a heretic; for, not only would he rend the unity of the Church… but he would also add to this a perverse doctrine, by denying that the man accepted by the Church is to be regarded as the Pope and the rule of faith. Pertinent here is the teaching of St. Jerome (Commentary on Titus, chapter 3) and of St. Thomas (IIa IIae Q. 39 A. 1 ad 3), that every schism concocts some heresy for itself, in order to justify its withdrawal from the Church. Thus, although schism is distinct from heresy, in most cases it is accompanied by the latter, and prepares the way for it. In the case at hand, whoever would deny the proposition just stated would not be a pure schismatic, but also a heretic, as Suarez also reckons (above, in the solution to the fourth objection)."[10] (http://file:///C:/Users/user/Desktop/PUA.docx#_ftn10)
John of St. Thomas
X. Sit conclusio : De fide divina est immediate hunc hominem in particulari rite electum et acceptatum ab Ecclesia esse summum pontificem, et successorem Petri, no solum quoad se, se detiam quoad nos, licet multo magis quoad nos id manifestur, quando de facto pontifex aliquid definit, nec in ipso exercitio, et quasi practice aliquis Catholicorum ab hac conclusione dessentit, licet in acta signato, et quasi speculative putent se id non credere fide divina.
Translation
“Our conclusion is the following. It is immediately of divine faith that this man in particular, lawfully elected and accepted by the Church, is the supreme pontiff and the successor of Peter, not only in himself but also in relation to us —although it is made much more manifest to us when de facto the pope defines something. In practice, no Catholic disagrees with our conclusion [that his legitimacy is de fide], even though, when he considers it as a theoretical question, he might not think that he believes it with divine faith. (…)”
Rite (https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/rite#Latin) (https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/rite#Latin (https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/rite#Latin))
Etymology
From rītus (https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/ritus#Latin) (“rite, custom”), presumably from an ablative of an old third-declension form *rītis.
Adverb
rīte (not comparable (https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Appendix:Glossary#comparative))
- according to religious usage, with due observances, with proper ceremonies, ceremonially, solemnly, duly
Therefore, according to John of St. Thomas, if the election does not use the proper ceremonies and duly observe all requirements, then that person is not included under John of St. Thomas's opinion. Universi Dominici Gregis (https://www.vatican.va/content/john-paul-ii/en/apost_constitutions/docuмents/hf_jp-ii_apc_22021996_universi-dominici-gregis.html) agrees with John of St. Thomas and goes further to nullify such an improper election, in Section 76:
76. Should the election take place in a way other than that prescribed in the present Constitution, or should the conditions laid down here not be observed, the election is for this very reason null and void, without any need for a declaration on the matter; consequently, it confers no right on the one elected.
-
There's only one thing that needs to be known about "Sedevacantism", that the Magisterium and the Public worship of the Church cannot become corrupt. Therefore these men have not been legitimate Popes acting freely in the exercise of their office. If you want to claim they were blackmailed and not acting freely, that's fine. But, apart from that type of scenario, your attribution of this degree of corruption to the Magisterium and to the Mass is simply not Catholic. Quibble all you want about depositus this or deponendus that. It's all a distraction from the core heresy you promote.
Not one iota of the infallible Magisterium has or can become corrupt. That the pope's ordinary magisterium can and has become corrupt is a historical fact. Did John XXII teach error in the 14th century or not?
The public worship of the Church is immaculately preserved. Each priest who celebrates the Novus Ordo is in disobedience to the current law of the Church. Quo Primum remains the law, no matter how officially the wolves try to abrogate it.
-
Sean, as I have said in that other thread. John of St. Thomas is dealing with how the infallible teaching authority of the Church (through a Pope or a valid Ecuмenical Council) can quiet all concerns regarding unknowns in a previous papal election. Any such controversy can be settled by an infallible authority of the Church declaring a "dogmatic fact." The Church did that at the Council of Constance, which is what John of St. Thomas references.
However, there has been no infallible declaration of a Pope or an Ecuмenical Council that Jorge Mario Bergolio is the legitimate Pope. This has not happened. And it would never happen because his 2013 "election" was null and void. There is no question. It is obvious.
No, the church does not declare dogmatic facts; dogmatic facts are corollaries of dogma.
What JST has said just prior to this quote (supplied by me elsewhere in this thread), is that the universal and unanimous consent of the cardinals is like a definition of an ecuмenical council, and as such is de fide.
-
No, the church does not declare dogmatic facts; dogmatic facts are corollaries of dogma.
What JST has said just prior to this quote (supplied by me elsewhere in this thread), is that the universal and unanimous consent of the cardinals is like a definition of an ecuмenical council, and as such is de fide.
You can see by reading this from the Catholic Encyclopedia how "dogmatic facts" can be "declared/defined":
"Some theologians hold that definitions of dogmatic facts, and especially of dogmatic facts in the wider acceptation of the term, are believed by Divine faith. For instance, the proposition, "every pope duly elected is the successor of Peter", is formally revealed. Then, say these theologians, the proposition, "Pius X has been duly elected pope", only shows that Pius X is included in the general revealed proposition that "every pope duly elected is the successor of Peter". And they conclude that the proposition, "Pius X is successor to Peter", is a formally revealed proposition; that it is believed by Divine faith; that it is a doctrine of faith, de fide; that the Church, or the pope, is infallible in defining such doctrines. Other theologians hold that the definitions of dogmatic facts, in the wider and stricter acceptation, are received, not by Divine faith, but by ecclesiastical faith, which some call mediate Divine faith. They hold that in such syllogisms as this: "Every duly elected pontiff is Peter's successor; but Pius X, for example, is a duly elected pontiff; therefore he is a successor of Peter", the conclusion is not formally revealed by God, but is inferred from a revealed and an unrevealed proposition, and that consequently it is believed, not by Divine, but by ecclesiastical faith. It would then also be held that it has not been formally defined de fide that the Church is infallible in the definition of dogmatic facts. It would be said technically to be theologically certain that the Church is infallible in these definitions; and this infallibility cannot lawfully be questioned. That all are bound to give internal assent to Church definitions of dogmatic facts is evident from the correlative duties of teacher and persons taught. As it belongs to the duty of supreme pastor to define the meaning of a book or proposition, correlatively it is the duty of the subjects who are taught to accept this meaning." (https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/05092a.htm)
The particular "dogmatic fact" in the above examples is that Pius X, the specific man, was the true Pope. In his case, there was no controversy. But with Gregory XII there was controversy. The Council of Constance settled the controversy and declared/defined a "dogmatic fact" that Gregory XII was the Pope prior to Martin V. The Council of Constance was the example that John of St. Thomas used.
-
The particular "dogmatic fact" in the above examples is that Pius X, the specific man, was the true Pope. In his case, there was no controversy. But with Gregory XII there was controversy. The Council of Constance settled the controversy and declared/defined a "dogmatic fact" that Gregory XII was the Pope prior to Martin V. The Council of Constance was the example that John of St. Thomas used.
This is a very long winded way to concede an argument, as you have just made MY point:
An uncontested papal election (ie., one with unanimous consent from the cardinals) is, per JST, Billot, et al, a dogmatic fact, which must be believed to remain Catholic.
But Francis’s election received unanimous consent.
Therefore, Francis’s papacy is a dogmatic fact which must be believed to remain Catholic.
-
Therefore, Francis’s papacy is a dogmatic fact which must be believed to remain Catholic.
:laugh1: Tell that to +Vigano et alii.
Traddieland doesn't need more "dogmatic facts to remain Catholic" -- it needs unquestionably Catholic prelates who clearly adhere to the Catholic Faith as it has existed for 2000 years and indisputably hold an actual position of authority. Traddieland only exists precisely because this is NOT the case.
-
Did John XXII teach error in the 14th century or not?
As a private teacher. Not the same thing. Next...
-
§2. If it happens that the Roman Pontiff resigns his office, it is required for validity that the resignation is made freely and properly manifested but not that it is accepted by anyone.
Therein lies the rub.
-
This is a very long winded way to concede an argument, as you have just made MY point:
An uncontested papal election (ie., one with unanimous consent from the cardinals) is, per JST, Billot, et al, a dogmatic fact, which must be believed to remain Catholic.
But Francis’s election received unanimous consent.
Therefore, Francis’s papacy is a dogmatic fact which must be believed to remain Catholic.
Unanimous consent is irrelevant if we can OBJECTIVELY see that the election was held contrary to the law. Unanimous consent would only come into play when there IS NOT clear, objective evidence of illegitimacy.
Why are you so desperate to support Bergoglio? Simply read the law. Compare the law to the facts of the election. Follow the truth. Bergoglio is the enemy, not "Benevacantists" or "Sedevacantists" or whatever name someone wants to make up.
-
Unanimous consent is irrelevant if we can OBJECTIVELY see that the election was held contrary to the law. Unanimous consent would only come into play when there IS NOT clear, objective evidence of illegitimacy.
Why are you so desperate to support Bergoglio? Simply read the law. Compare the law to the facts of the election. Follow the truth. Bergoglio is the enemy, not "Benevacantists" or "Sedevacantists" or whatever name someone wants to make up.
St. Alphonsus says exactly the opposite (ie., UA renders illegitimacy moot):
“It is of no importance that in past centuries some Pontiff was illegitimately elected or took possession of the Pontificate by fraud; it is enough that he was accepted afterwards by the whole Church as Pope, since by such acceptance he would have become the true Pontiff.”
-
St. Alphonsus says exactly the opposite (ie., UA renders illegitimacy moot):
“It is of no importance that in past centuries some Pontiff was illegitimately elected or took possession of the Pontificate by fraud; it is enough that he was accepted afterwards by the whole Church as Pope, since by such acceptance he would have become the true Pontiff.”
You need to understand St. Alphonsus's context. He is arguing against those people who dream up imaginative reasons (negative doubts) to deny that Pope so-and-so was a Pope in the earlier period of the Church. St. Alphonsus is saying there is no need to worry about those "negative doubts." The Church has already accepted the line of Popes up to his day as the legitimate ones. Who are the real Popes vs. Antipopes matter because those Popes (and the Ecuмenical Councils they convened) declared dogmas.
His statement does not mean that the laws of papal elections can be broken in a recent papal election. Think about it. If that were the case, what would be the purpose of having such laws that state as the penalty for non-compliance the nullity of the election? Just use common sense. You are overthinking things.
-
As a private teacher. Not the same thing. Next...
John XXII taught error with all the same outlets as Pope Francis: letters, speeches etc. The sedevacantists call these outlets "private person" when you bring up John XXII, and call them "magisterium" when you bring up Pope Francis. The two popes used the same means, but only one pope was acting as a private person?
-
John XXII taught error with all the same outlets as Pope Francis: letters, speeches etc. The sedevacantists call these outlets "private person" when you bring up John XXII, and call them "magisterium" when you bring up Pope Francis. The two popes used the same means, but only one pope was acting as a private person?
Talk about misinformation, but in the true sense of the term. Go study what actually happened with John 22 and get back to me. It isn't even a case of apples and oranges; it is more like apples and alligators.
-
You need to understand St. Alphonsus's context. He is arguing against those people who dream up imaginative reasons (negative doubts) to deny that Pope so-and-so was a Pope in the earlier period of the Church. St. Alphonsus is saying there is no need to worry about those "negative doubts." The Church has already accepted the line of Popes up to his day as the legitimate ones. Who are the real Popes vs. Antipopes matter because those Popes (and the Ecuмenical Councils they convened) declared dogmas.
His statement does not mean that the laws of papal elections can be broken in a recent papal election. Think about it. If that were the case, what would be the purpose of having such laws that state as the penalty for non-compliance the nullity of the election? Just use common sense. You are overthinking things.
:facepalm:
-
John XXII taught error with all the same outlets as Pope Francis: letters, speeches etc. The sedevacantists call these outlets "private person" when you bring up John XXII, and call them "magisterium" when you bring up Pope Francis. The two popes used the same means, but only one pope was acting as a private person?
John 22 was not a heretic....
-
John 22 was not a heretic....
It’s true: His error was made not as pope, but as a private doctor, and he repented of his opinion when he was confronted with his error.
-
John 22 was not a heretic....
No one said 'heretic'. He taught error. The fact that now it is heresy means that it always was error.
The point is, John XXII and Pope Francis taught wrong things in speeches and letters. For John, they say, "No problem, he was teaching as a private person," and for Francis, "It's impossible a true pope could do this".
This phenomenon is named 'double standard'.
-
It’s true: His error was made not as pope, but as a private doctor, and he repented of his opinion when he was confronted with his error.
No one said 'heretic'. He taught error. The fact that now it is heresy means that it always was error.
The point is, John XXII and Pope Francis taught wrong things in speeches and letters. For John, they say, "No problem, he was teaching as a private person," and for Francis, "It's impossible a true pope could do this".
This phenomenon is named 'double standard'.
There is a massive difference between the V2 'Popes' and John XXII. John's error was recanted and it was not a dogma until 2 years after his death. The V2 claimants do more than just teach error. They have said stuff that is contradictory to the faith numerous times and have made no effort to fix them. Plus they have also partaken in false religious worship....
John actually condemned heretics which is why this issue on his error was used against him by those with political motivation.
(https://i.imgur.com/OuGrMEO.png)(https://i.imgur.com/94Xr2Zd.png)
-
There is a massive difference between the V2 'Popes' and John XXII. John's error was recanted and it was not a dogma until 2 years after his death. The V2 claimants do more than just teach error. They have said stuff that is contradictory to the faith numerous times and have made no effort to fix them. Plus they have also partaken in false religious worship....
John actually condemned heretics which is why this issue on his error was used against him by those with political motivation.
(https://i.imgur.com/OuGrMEO.png)(https://i.imgur.com/94Xr2Zd.png)
There is a difference between teaching simple error and teaching heresy. That is a separate question from the double standard of the sedevacantists. Whether the pope teaches error or heresy, either way it is a corruption of the truth in his ordinary teaching power. They find it impossible for one individual, and possible for another.
-
I'm no history major, but I have never heard of a time in history when the Church was concretely infiltrated by communists and Freemasons who ascending into the highest ranks of the hierarchy, implementing a new man centered religion, with the help of protestants, and the pope(s) as the ring leader. Not only have the popes since Vatican ll imposed a man centered religion with a new mass, sacraments, saints and miracles, they have persecuted the true, faithful Catholics. How can these popes be the representative of Christ at the same time as representing anti-christ? Praying to devils (all their gods are devils). I don't think any saint, doctor or father of the Church envisioned this scenario.
-
I'm no history major, but I have never heard of a time in history when the Church was concretely infiltrated by communists and Freemasons who ascending into the highest ranks of the hierarchy, implementing a new man centered religion, with the help of protestants, and the pope(s) as the ring leader. Not only have the popes since Vatican ll imposed a man centered religion with a new mass, sacraments, saints and miracles, they have persecuted the true, faithful Catholics. How can these popes be the representative of Christ at the same time as representing anti-christ? Praying to devils (all their gods are devils). I don't think any saint, doctor or father of the Church envisioned this scenario.
The Church Fathers certainly did envision the scenario you describe. Please read the interpretation of the Parable of the Wheat and the Tares by various Church Fathers:
https://aquinas.cc/la/en/~CaMatt.C13.L4
This is just one interpretation from St. Augustine in that Section of the Catena Aurea:
Aug., Cont. Ep. Parm., iii. 2 For when any one of the number of Christians included in the Church is found in such sin as to incur an anathema, this is done, where danger of schism is not apprehended, with tenderness, not for his rooting out, but for his correction. But if he be not conscious of his sin, nor correct it by penitence, he will of his own choice go forth of the Church and be separated from her communion; whence when the Lord commanded, “Suffer both to grow together till the harvest,” He added the reason, saying, “Lest when ye would gather out the tares ye root up the wheat also.” This sufficiently shows, that when that fear has ceased, and when the safety of the crop is certain, that is, when the crime is known to all, and is acknowledged as so execrable as to have no defenders, or not such as might cause any fear of a schism, then severity of discipline does not sleep, and its correction of error is so much the more efficacious as the observance of love had been more careful. But when the same infection has spread to a large number at once, nothing remains but sorrow and groans. Therefore let a man gently reprove whatever is in his power; what is not in let him bear with patience, and mourn over with affection, until He from above shall correct and heal, and let him defer till harvest-time to root out the tares and winnow the chaff. But the multitude of the unrighteous is to be struck at with a general reproof, whenever there is opportunity of saying aught among the people; and above all when any scourge of the Lord from above gives opportunity, when they feel that they are scourged for their deserts; for then the calamity of the hearers opens their ears submissively to the words of their reprover, seeing the heart in affliction is ever more prone to the groans of confession than to the murmurs of resistance. And even when no tribulation lays upon them, should occasion serve, a word of reproof is usefully spent upon the multitude; for when separated it is wont to be fierce, when in a body it is wont to mourn.
-
There is a difference between teaching simple error and teaching heresy. That is a separate question from the double standard of the sedevacantists. Whether the pope teaches error or heresy, either way it is a corruption of the truth in his ordinary teaching power. They find it impossible for one individual, and possible for another.
Yes, well said.