Author Topic: +Schneider Blunders on Sedevacante (Read 5823 times)

Catholic Knight · « **Reply #105 on:** September 23, 2023, 05:49:07 PM »

Quote from: Angelus on September 23, 2023, 05:24:59 PM

St. Robert Bellarmine in the paragraph discussing the Fifth true opinion said:

A Pope is, by definition, a person who has "jurisdiction." The Fathers unanimously declare that ANY heretic (including a Pope) immediately loses that jurisdiction.

So, the ancient Fathers were not just discussing a heretic as a non-member of the Church. Bellarmine states very clearly that the ancient Fathers were specifically referencing a heretic who had "jurisdiction" and automatically loses it because of manifest heresy.

Can we just agree on what Bellarmine said and did not say?

A pope has jurisdiction. Yes. But bishops have jurisdiction as well. In referencing the Fathers and what they said, St. Robert Bellarmine did not reference any of the Fathers speaking directly about a pope:

"Next, the Holy Fathers teach in unison, that not only are heretics outside the Church, but they even lack all Ecclesiastical jurisdiction and dignity ipso facto. Cyprian says: 'We say that all heretics and schismatics have not power and right' [327]. He also teaches that heretics returning to the Church must be received as laymen; even if beforehand they were priests or bishops in the Church [328]. Optatus teaches that heretics and schismatics cannot hold the keys of the kingdom of heaven, nor loose or bind [329]. Ambrose and Augustine teach the same, as does St. Jerome who says: 'Bishops who were heretics cannot continue to be so; rather let them be constituted such who were received that were not heretics' [330]."
(Source: https://novusordowatch.org/de-romano-pontifice-book2-chapter30/)

None of the Fathers explicitly stated something like "a pope can fall into heresy and if he did he would automatically cease to be pope and lose all jurisdiction". If they unanimously taught this explicitly, then Opinion No. 1 would be untenable. But they didn't. Opinion No. 1 basically says that with a special assistance of God, a true pope is prevented from falling into heresy. I suggest you read Fr. Paul Kramer's work as he goes into detail in defending Opinion No. 1.

SeanJohnson · « **Reply #106 on:** September 23, 2023, 06:05:20 PM »

Quote from: SeanJohnson on September 23, 2023, 01:14:00 PM

Another Ladislausian fantasy.

Your delusion that Cajetan and JST's position is prohibited since V1 (i.e., because that council ruled that "the First See is judged by no one"), and that consequently only St. Bellarmine's position remains permissible, seems to have been missed by all the following post-V1/pre-V2 theologians, who apparently never got the memo, and sided with Cajetan/JST (refuting this latest invention of yours):

In addition to Journet (previously cited), I list the following:

1) Salaverri, Sacrae Theologiae Summa, IB, 2015, Keep the Faith, p. 217;

2) F.X. Wernz, Jus Decretalium, II, Rome, 1899, tit. xxx, n. 615.

3) Tanquerey, Synopsis heologiae dogmaticae Fundamentalis, 1897, No. 180, f. 3. p. 465). 9. 470 1907 edition.

4) Smith, Elements of Ecclesiastical Law, Vol I, 9th ed, (New York, Benzinger Bros.), p. 240.

5) de Groot, V. Summa Apologetica de Ecclesia Catholica, Mans, 1890, Q. XII, art IV, arg iii, p. 25.

All these manuals were written and received imprimaturs after the First Vatican Council. None of these theologians (or canonists) were conciliarists, and they all affirmed that “the First See is judged by no one.”

How could that be? Because, as I've already explained twice, there are two types of judgments: Coercive and Non-Coercive (aka "discretionary").

V1 was concerned with the former, and not the latter (were this not so, all the authors above could not maintain their positions after V1).

You're simply either ignorant or ill-disposed (or both) regarding this distinction, and consequently, you've gone off into lalaland...again.

You can find all these citations (and many more) here: http://www.trueorfalsepope.com/p/the-true-meaning-of-bellarmines-ipso.html

Ironically, Loudestmouth's mutilation of Vatican I actually condemns St. Bellarmine, who said:

"The fourth reason [a council can be convoked] is suspicion of heresy in the Roman Pontiff … for then a general Council ought to be gathered either to depose the Pope (consequent coercive judgment) if he should be found to be a heretic (antecedent discretionary judgment); or certainly to admonish him if he seemed to be incorrigible in morals. As it is related in the 8th Council, act. ult. canon 21, general Councils ought to impose judgment on controversies arising in regard to the Roman Pontiff—albeit not rashly." (De Concilio, lib. I, cap ix.)

PS to DR: Does 6 theologians suffice? If not, there's more at the link just provided.

Ignored, but unrefuted ^^^

Angelus · « **Reply #107 on:** September 23, 2023, 07:14:07 PM »

Quote from: Catholic Knight on September 23, 2023, 05:49:07 PM

A pope has jurisdiction. Yes. But bishops have jurisdiction as well. In referencing the Fathers and what they said, St. Robert Bellarmine did not reference any of the Fathers speaking directly about a pope:

"Next, the Holy Fathers teach in unison, that not only are heretics outside the Church, but they even lack all Ecclesiastical jurisdiction and dignity ipso facto. Cyprian says: 'We say that all heretics and schismatics have not power and right' [327]. He also teaches that heretics returning to the Church must be received as laymen; even if beforehand they were priests or bishops in the Church [328]. Optatus teaches that heretics and schismatics cannot hold the keys of the kingdom of heaven, nor loose or bind [329]. Ambrose and Augustine teach the same, as does St. Jerome who says: 'Bishops who were heretics cannot continue to be so; rather let them be constituted such who were received that were not heretics' [330]."
(Source: https://novusordowatch.org/de-romano-pontifice-book2-chapter30/)

None of the Fathers explicitly stated something like "a pope can fall into heresy and if he did he would automatically cease to be pope and lose all jurisdiction". If they unanimously taught this explicitly, then Opinion No. 1 would be untenable. But they didn't. Opinion No. 1 basically says that with a special assistance of God, a true pope is prevented from falling into heresy. I suggest you read Fr. Paul Kramer's work as he goes into detail in defending Opinion No. 1.

Sorry, I don't need Fr. Paul Kramer to tell me what Bellarmine said when I can read Bellarmine myself. And, as I have shown in an earlier post, Fr. Paul Kramer apparently thinks that Bellarmine holds Opinion #1 as his preferred opinion rather than Opinion #5, which is his actual preference. Kramer's interpretation of Bellarmine is false, as I demonstrated earlier.

To summarize, Bellarmine said that the Opinion #1 was "probable." In theology, the word "probable" has a technical meaning (implying a mid-quality opinion), specifically it is not "certain" (the highest quality opinion). Bellarmine called Opinion #5 "certain" and "true" and the "common opinion" and the "opinion of all the ancient Fathers."

Why would Bellarmine prefer a "probable" opinion over a "certain" opinion? The answer, he wouldn't. It would be irrational to do so. Do you understand what I'm saying? Fr. Kramer has incorrectly interpreted Bellarmine.

Catholic Knight · « **Reply #108 on:** September 23, 2023, 07:32:45 PM »

Quote from: Angelus on September 23, 2023, 07:14:07 PM

Sorry, I don't need Fr. Paul Kramer to tell me what Bellarmine said when I can read Bellarmine myself. And, as I have shown in an earlier post, Fr. Paul Kramer apparently thinks that Bellarmine holds Opinion #1 as his preferred opinion rather than Opinion #5, which is his actual preference. Kramer's interpretation of Bellarmine is false, as I demonstrated earlier.

To summarize, Bellarmine said that the Opinion #1 was "probable." In theology, the word "probable" has a technical meaning (implying a mid-quality opinion), specifically it is not "certain" (the highest quality opinion). Bellarmine called Opinion #5 "certain" and "true" and the "common opinion" and the "opinion of all the ancient Fathers."

Why would Bellarmine prefer a "probable" opinion over a "certain" opinion? The answer, he wouldn't. It would be irrational to do so. Do you understand what I'm saying? Fr. Kramer has incorrectly interpreted Bellarmine.

You are the one who has incorrectly interpreted St. Robert Bellarmine. Nowhere does the Doctor of the Church state that it is the unanimous teaching of the Fathers that a pope can be a heretic. None of the Fathers directly referred to a pope being a heretic.

I gave you a direct quote from St. Robert Bellarmine in my previous post that outlines his quoting of the Fathers, but it seems you have ignored it or have not read it carefully.

Angelus · « **Reply #109 on:** September 23, 2023, 07:53:20 PM »

Quote from: Catholic Knight on September 23, 2023, 07:32:45 PM

You are the one who has incorrectly interpreted St. Robert Bellarmine. Nowhere does the Doctor of the Church state that it is the unanimous teaching of the Fathers that a pope can be a heretic. None of the Fathers directly referred to a pope being a heretic.

I gave you a direct quote from St. Robert Bellarmine in my previous post that outlines his quoting of the Fathers, but it seems you have ignored it or have not read it carefully.

Bellarmine, when relating the Fifth Opinion, was clearly talking about the Roman Pontiff. The Roman Pontiff is a bishop. Bellarmine used what "the ancient Fathers" said about bishops universally and applied it to the specific case of the Bishop of Rome.

You seem to be saying (correct me if I'm misinterpreting you) that because "the ancient Fathers" did not specifically apply their doctrine to "the Pope" that this means that "the ancient Fathers" thought that "the Pope" (the bishop of Rome) should be treated differently that all other bishops. Is that the point that you are trying to make?

Catholic Knight · « **Reply #110 on:** September 23, 2023, 08:42:02 PM »

Quote from: Angelus on September 23, 2023, 07:53:20 PM

You seem to be saying (correct me if I'm misinterpreting you) that because "the ancient Fathers" did not specifically apply their doctrine to "the Pope" that this means that "the ancient Fathers" thought that "the Pope" (the bishop of Rome) should be treated differently that all other bishops. Is that the point that you are trying to make?

No. My point is that the Fathers did not side either way on the question of whether a pope can be a formal heretic.

Angelus · « **Reply #111 on:** September 23, 2023, 08:58:54 PM »

Quote from: Catholic Knight on September 23, 2023, 08:42:02 PM

No. My point is that the Fathers did not side either way on the question of whether a pope can be a formal heretic.

So, that (bold/underlined above) is your interpretation of "the ancient Fathers," right? But that is not Bellarmine's interpretation of what "the ancient Fathers" said. Bellarmine claims that "the opinion of all the ancient Fathers" was the Fifth Opinion that he describes.

Again, Bellarmine wrote:

Quote

Now the fifth true opinion, is that a Pope who is a manifest heretic, ceases in himself to be Pope and head, just as he ceases in himself to be a Christian and member of the body of the Church: whereby, he can be judged and punished by the Church. This is the opinion of all the ancient Fathers, who teach that manifest heretics soon [mox — better translation: immediately] lose all jurisdiction...

Bellarmine uses the pronoun "this" (in red) to refer to his prior sentence. Bellarmine said in that prior sentence that "a Pope who is a manifest heretic, ceases in himself to be Pope and head, just as he ceases in himself to be a Christian...." Therefore, Bellarmine is saying that HE THINKS that "the opinion of all the ancient Fathers" is synonymous with the opinion that he just stated, calling it the Fifth true opinion.

Do you understand what I have just said? If so, then your statement that "the Fathers did not side either way..." contradicts Bellarmine's interpretation of the "ancient Fathers." Knowing that, do you persist in thinking that your interpretation is the true one and Bellarmine's is false?

Ladislaus · « **Reply #112 on:** September 24, 2023, 10:42:04 AM »

What an utter waste of time. Bellarmine favored one of two opinions. If a Pope can be a heretic, which is all we care about here, we know which opinion he preferred.

We have two Bennyvacantists arguing something for pages when they both come to the same conclusion. One of them keeps claiming that Bergoglio's conclave was illegitimate because Ratzinger didn't receive funeral rite (because he was already dead), and thereby discredits himself on any other topic.

Ladislaus · « **Reply #113 on:** September 24, 2023, 10:46:42 AM »

Quote from: SeanJohnson on September 23, 2023, 06:05:20 PM

Ignored, but unrefuted ^^^

What's there to refute? I said there were likely some holdouts even after Vatican I. Besides that, you don't actually cite anything from these sources, just claim that they hold what you say. If they actually hold to Cajetan/SJT's opinion after Vatican I, then they're simply wrong, as the majority of theologians concluded also, but my guess is that they have nuances to it that exceed your ability to grasp. So why don't you actually cite the texts? Maybe they explain why they believe that the opinion is still tenable after Vatican I. More than likely, however, they have sedeprivationist nuances in their opinion.

Bottom line is that Vatican I dogmatized the principle of suprema sedes a nemine judicatur, and so no judgment can be rendered against a Pope unless the erstwhile Pope had already ceased ipso facto to be the pope. Pope Innocent II or III (forget which one) taught that a heretical pope shows himself "to have already been judged", and so the declaration is merely a clarification of something that had already taken place.

Let's take a scenario where a Pope goes openly heretical in the month of May. It isn't until October that an Imperfect Council can convene to declare him deposed. Meanwhile, in June, July, August, and September, this "Pope" continues to issue Encyclicals, some of which contain errors, etc. This Council convenes and declares that this "Pope" had departed from the Church in May, from the time he became a manifest heretic. So was he the Pope in the intervening months?

Nor does your S&S link actually cite most of the texts, just make a claim about what they're saying and put them in a footnote.

Catholic Knight · « **Reply #114 on:** September 24, 2023, 05:22:25 PM »

Quote from: Angelus on September 23, 2023, 08:58:54 PM

So, that (bold/underlined above) is your interpretation of "the ancient Fathers," right? But that is not Bellarmine's interpretation of what "the ancient Fathers" said. Bellarmine claims that "the opinion of all the ancient Fathers" was the Fifth Opinion that he describes.

Again, Bellarmine wrote:

Bellarmine uses the pronoun "this" (in red) to refer to his prior sentence. Bellarmine said in that prior sentence that "a Pope who is a manifest heretic, ceases in himself to be Pope and head, just as he ceases in himself to be a Christian...." Therefore, Bellarmine is saying that HE THINKS that "the opinion of all the ancient Fathers" is synonymous with the opinion that he just stated, calling it the Fifth true opinion.

Do you understand what I have just said? If so, then your statement that "the Fathers did not side either way..." contradicts Bellarmine's interpretation of the "ancient Fathers." Knowing that, do you persist in thinking that your interpretation is the true one and Bellarmine's is false?

As I wrote earlier, St. Robert Bellarmine held to Opinion No. 1. If he believed that it was the unanimous teaching of the Fathers that a pope can become a heretic (and subsequently fall from office and lose all jurisdiction), then he would have not held to Opinion No. 1.

Angelus · « **Reply #115 on:** September 24, 2023, 06:02:41 PM »

Quote from: Catholic Knight on September 24, 2023, 05:22:25 PM

As I wrote earlier, St. Robert Bellarmine held to Opinion No. 1. If he believed that it was the unanimous teaching of the Fathers that a pope can become a heretic (and subsequently fall from office and lose all jurisdiction), then he would have not held to Opinion No. 1.

Why are you referencing secondary interpretations of Bellarmine, rather than quoting directly what Bellarmine himself said?

Quote

The first is of Albert Pighius, who contends that the Pope cannot be a heretic, and hence would not be deposed in any case [319]: such an opinion is probable, and can easily be defended, as we will show in its proper place. Still, because it is not certain, and the common opinion is to the contrary, it will be worthwhile to see what the response should be if the Pope could be a heretic.

Bellarmine said that it was "probable" that Albert Pighius was correct. But Bellarmine wasn't sure. So, as a fallback, Bellarmine said that IF a Pope does become a heretic, that Pope would immediately lose his office without the need of any declaratory judgement.

In summary: Bellarmine was not certain about Opinion #1, but he was certain about Opinion #5.

Ladislaus · « **Reply #116 on:** September 24, 2023, 07:23:57 PM »

Quote from: Angelus on September 24, 2023, 06:02:41 PM

Why are you referencing secondary interpretations of Bellarmine, rather than quoting directly what Bellarmine himself said?

Have you read all of Bellarmine? [Obvious answer: no.] In that passage he says that he'd deal with it in another place.

Angelus · « **Reply #117 on:** September 24, 2023, 07:59:14 PM »

Quote from: Ladislaus on September 24, 2023, 07:23:57 PM

Have you read all of Bellarmine? [Obvious answer: no.] In that passage he says that he'd deal with it in another place.

No, I haven't read all of Bellarmine. I agree that he wants to believe Opinion #1, but he admits that it is "not certain." He says that there is no historical example of a Pope falling into "heresy." But he then says with certainty (Opinion #5) that IF, in the future, a Pope does fall into heresy, then that Pope would immediately lose his office.

The situation that we are dealing with at the moment is a papal claimant, Bergoglio, who has officially taught heresy (Amoris Laetitia). There are two options:

1. He was never elected Pope.
OR
2. He was elected Pope but has fallen into heresy.

Number 1 is my position (as I have explained on antipope.com). But for those who, incorrectly, think Bergoglio was canonically-elected to the papacy, Number 2 has clearly occurred.

And Bellarmine explains that IF Number 2 were to happen "the Pope" would immediately lose his office. None of this "we can't judge the Pope" nonsense.

Catholic Knight · « **Reply #118 on:** September 25, 2023, 06:54:07 AM »

Quote from: Angelus on September 24, 2023, 06:02:41 PM

Why are you referencing secondary interpretations of Bellarmine, rather than quoting directly what Bellarmine himself said?

Bellarmine said that it was "probable" that Albert Pighius was correct. But Bellarmine wasn't sure. So, as a fallback, Bellarmine said that IF a Pope does become a heretic, that Pope would immediately lose his office without the need of any declaratory judgement.

In summary: Bellarmine was not certain about Opinion #1, but he was certain about Opinion #5.

Opinion No. 1 and Opinion No. 5 clash with each other. From the perspective of IF a pope CAN be a heretic, then St. Robert Bellarmine would hold to Opinion No. 5. However, he personally held that a pope CANNOT be a heretic. If he really believed that the unanimous teaching of the Fathers was that a pope CAN be a heretic, then he would not have personally held that a pope CANNOT be a heretic.

Catholic Knight · « **Reply #119 on:** September 25, 2023, 06:56:57 AM »

Quote from: Angelus on September 24, 2023, 07:59:14 PM

No, I haven't read all of Bellarmine. I agree that he wants to believe Opinion #1, but he admits that it is "not certain." He says that there is no historical example of a Pope falling into "heresy." But he then says with certainty (Opinion #5) that IF, in the future, a Pope does fall into heresy, then that Pope would immediately lose his office.

The situation that we are dealing with at the moment is a papal claimant, Bergoglio, who has officially taught heresy (Amoris Laetitia). There are two options:

1. He was never elected Pope.
OR
2. He was elected Pope but has fallen into heresy.

Number 1 is my position (as I have explained on antipope.com). But for those who, incorrectly, think Bergoglio was canonically-elected to the papacy, Number 2 has clearly occurred.

And Bellarmine explains that IF Number 2 were to happen "the Pope" would immediately lose his office. None of this "we can't judge the Pope" nonsense.

Opinion No. 1 is my position as well. We are in a agreement, then, that the Fathers did not unanimously teach that a pope can be a heretic.

Author Topic: +Schneider Blunders on Sedevacante (Read 5823 times)

Catholic Knight

Re: +Schneider Blunders on Sedevacante

SeanJohnson

Re: +Schneider Blunders on Sedevacante

Angelus

Re: +Schneider Blunders on Sedevacante

Catholic Knight

Re: +Schneider Blunders on Sedevacante

Angelus

Re: +Schneider Blunders on Sedevacante

Catholic Knight

Re: +Schneider Blunders on Sedevacante

Angelus

Re: +Schneider Blunders on Sedevacante

Ladislaus

Re: +Schneider Blunders on Sedevacante

Ladislaus

Re: +Schneider Blunders on Sedevacante

Catholic Knight

Re: +Schneider Blunders on Sedevacante

Angelus

Re: +Schneider Blunders on Sedevacante

Ladislaus

Re: +Schneider Blunders on Sedevacante

Angelus

Re: +Schneider Blunders on Sedevacante

Catholic Knight

Re: +Schneider Blunders on Sedevacante

Catholic Knight

Re: +Schneider Blunders on Sedevacante