In this Remnant article, +Schneider endorses Billot’s “universal consent = sanation of invalid election” argument (ok, even if you disagree, it’s still a respected argument by a respected classical too-tier theologian), but then proceeds to say:
1) The St. Bellarmine argument about ipso facto deposition is wrong (ok, but does he really understand St. Robert’s true argument, or is he just accepting the debatable Sede interpretation of it, which says the deposition happens without any prior Church involvement?),
But..
2) He also suggests Cajetan, JST, et al are also wrong, since (he claims) there are no administrative means by which a pope can be deposed (not even by God, with the Church merely declaring that fact?),
And concludes, therefore, even a truly heretical pope can and must only be endured, as there is no recourse.
Not unexpectedly, tge Remnant comment box under the article has exploded into a CI-style bloodbath:
https://remnantnewspaper.com/web/index.php/articles/item/6815-about-the-validity-of-the-pontificate-of-pope-francis
It seems to me that there are only three ways +Schneider’s position is even theologically plausible:Well, the Church's cardinals and bishops can indeed declare the fact of heresy, they're obligated to do so too, but beyond warning the pope and all the sheep, that's about all they can do.
1) Even declared heretics remain inside the Catholic Church (an opinion made by zero classical theologians)
Or
2) A declaratory statement of heresy by the Church is without effect, and the declared heretic retains his office (novel and impious);
Or
3) It is not permissible or possible for the Church even to declare the fact of heresy (to the detriment of souls everywhere, and regardless of the contrary opinion of so many classical theologians).
The site "One Peter Five" posted the same +Schneider garbage theology. Maybe this will give +Vigano the opportunity to come out full-force and address this topic. +Schneider is obviously trying to keep the indulter sheep inside the V2 umbrella, while +Vigano is doing the opposite.
Bishop Schneider holds Opinion No. 3 of the Five Opinions expounded upon by St. Robert Bellarmine. Opinion No. 3 is the following:
That a pope who is even a manifest heretic is not deposed ipso facto and cannot be deposed by the Church.
Here is what St. Robert Bellarmine writes regarding Opinion No. 3:
“The third opinion is on another extreme, that the Pope is not and cannot be deposed either by secret or manifest heresy. Turrecremata in the aforementioned citation relates and refutes this opinion, and rightly so, for it is exceedingly improbable. Firstly, because that a heretical Pope can be judged is expressly held in the Canon, Si Papa, dist. 40, and with Innocent [321]. And what is more, in the Fourth Council of Constantinople, Act 7, the acts of the Roman Council under Hadrian are recited, and in those it was contained that Pope Honorius appeared to be legally anathematized, because he had been convicted of heresy, the only reason where it is lawful for inferiors to judge superiors. Here the fact must be remarked upon that, although it is probable that Honorius was not a heretic, and that Pope Hadrian II was deceived by corrupted copies of the Sixth Council, which falsely reckoned Honorius was a heretic, we still cannot deny that Hadrian, with the Roman Council, and the whole Eighth Synod sensed that in the case of heresy, a Roman Pontiff can be judged. Add, that it would be the most miserable condition of the Church, if she should be compelled to recognize a wolf, manifestly prowling, for a shepherd.”
(Source: https://novusordowatch.org/de-romano-pontifice-book2-chapter30 (https://novusordowatch.org/de-romano-pontifice-book2-chapter30/))
The other cleric that I know of that holds Opinion No. 3 is Fr. David Hewko. In the following sermon, Fr. Hewko defends Bishop Schneider's position:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ikbnapWN-Xg
And Fr. Hewko wrongly uses Archbishop Lefebvre to defend his position.
Fr. Hewko has stated that even if a pope were to admit that he was a heretic, he would remain pope until a future pope judges him.
Opinion No. 3 opposes the Magisterium of Pope Pius XII who taught in Mystici Corporis (Paragraph 22) that the public sin of manifest formal heresy by its very nature separates the heretic from the Church:
“Siquidem non omne admissum, etsi grave scelus, eiusmodi est ut — sicut schisma, vel haeresis, vel apostasia faciunt — suapte natura hominem ab Ecclesiae Corpore separet.”
“For not every sin, however grave it may be, is such as of its own nature to sever a man from the Body of the Church, as does schism or heresy or apostasy.”
The pope is simply saying that sin does not separate one from the Church as schism or heresy do.
Bishop Schneider holds Opinion No. 3 of the Five Opinions expounded upon by St. Robert Bellarmine. Opinion No. 3 is the following:
That a pope who is even a manifest heretic is not deposed ipso facto and cannot be deposed by the Church.
Here is what St. Robert Bellarmine writes regarding Opinion No. 3:
“The third opinion is on another extreme, that the Pope is not and cannot be deposed either by secret or manifest heresy. Turrecremata in the aforementioned citation relates and refutes this opinion, and rightly so, for it is exceedingly improbable. Firstly, because that a heretical Pope can be judged is expressly held in the Canon, Si Papa, dist. 40, and with Innocent [321]. And what is more, in the Fourth Council of Constantinople, Act 7, the acts of the Roman Council under Hadrian are recited, and in those it was contained that Pope Honorius appeared to be legally anathematized, because he had been convicted of heresy, the only reason where it is lawful for inferiors to judge superiors. Here the fact must be remarked upon that, although it is probable that Honorius was not a heretic, and that Pope Hadrian II was deceived by corrupted copies of the Sixth Council, which falsely reckoned Honorius was a heretic, we still cannot deny that Hadrian, with the Roman Council, and the whole Eighth Synod sensed that in the case of heresy, a Roman Pontiff can be judged. Add, that it would be the most miserable condition of the Church, if she should be compelled to recognize a wolf, manifestly prowling, for a shepherd.”
(Source: https://novusordowatch.org/de-romano-pontifice-book2-chapter30 (https://novusordowatch.org/de-romano-pontifice-book2-chapter30/))
The other cleric that I know of that holds Opinion No. 3 is Fr. David Hewko. In the following sermon, Fr. Hewko defends Bishop Schneider's position:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ikbnapWN-Xg
And Fr. Hewko wrongly uses Archbishop Lefebvre to defend his position.
Fr. Hewko has stated that even if a pope were to admit that he was a heretic, he would remain pope until a future pope judges him.
Opinion No. 3 opposes the Magisterium of Pope Pius XII who taught in Mystici Corporis (Paragraph 22) that the public sin of manifest formal heresy by its very nature separates the heretic from the Church:
“Siquidem non omne admissum, etsi grave scelus, eiusmodi est ut — sicut schisma, vel haeresis, vel apostasia faciunt — suapte natura hominem ab Ecclesiae Corpore separet.”
“For not every sin, however grave it may be, is such as of its own nature to sever a man from the Body of the Church, as does schism or heresy or apostasy.”
“Certain sins – viz., apostasy, heresy and schism – of their nature cut off the guilty from the living Body of Christ…..It can hardly be denied that those who take up any of these positions – most evidently is this the case with the deliberate apostate – sever themselves by their own act from membership of the Church.”
(The Teaching of the Catholic Church, Volume II, Arranged and Edited by Canon George Smith, New York, 1961, Fourteenth Printing, p. 708)
“In the encyclical (i.e., Mystici Corporis), the Holy Father speaks of schism, heresy, and apostasy, as sins which, of their very nature, separate a man from the Body of the Church. He thereby follows the traditional procedure adopted by St. Robert himself in his De ecclesia militante.”
(Monsignor Joseph Fenton, The Status of St. Robert Bellarmine's Teaching about Membership of Occult Heretics in the Catholic Church, The American Ecclesiastical Review, March 1950, p. 219)
“Public heretics (and a fortiori, apostates) are not members of the Church. They are not members because they separate themselves from the unity of Catholic faith and from the external profession of the faith. Obviously, therefore, they lack one of the three factors-baptism, profession of the same faith, union with the hierarchy-pointed out by Pius XII as requisite for membership in the Church (see above, p. 238). The same pontiff has explicitly pointed out that, unlike other sins, heresy, schism, and apostasy, automatically sever a man from the Church. ‘For not every sin, however grave and enormous it be, is such as to sever a man automatically from the Body of the Church, as does schism or heresy or apostasy‘ (MCC 30, italics ours).”
(Monsignor G. Van Noort, S.T.D., Dogmatic Theology, Volume II, Christ’s Church, 153)
Not sure why you’re citing all this, since none of it is in dispute.
I’m simply pointing out that you’re misreading Pius XII, who’s simply saying that sin doesn’t separate one from the Church (eg., as schism and heresy do).
The Third Opinion (which Bellarmine calls "exceedingly improbable") is also the position of the Neo-SSPX:
https://sspx.org/en/news-events/news/question-papal-heresy-part-4-20547
Can a Pope Fall in Notorious Heresy?
On the other hand, if we are talking about notorious heresy, it is obvious that he cannot during his lifetime: notorious heresy is in fact heresy that is declared by the competent superior, and since the Pope has no superior here on earth, no one is competent to declare his heresy canonically. From a strictly canonical perspective, the Pope therefore during his lifetime could fall only into occult heresy. Once he has died, his heresy can obviously be declared by his successor and become notorious. But that does not authorize us to say that the Pope could fall into notorious heresy, since by definition this fall could take place only during his lifetime.
This authorizes us only to say that a Pope could be anathematized posthumously, provided that we are not misled by the expression, since a deceased pope is no longer Pope. In reality, this anathema pertains strictly speaking not to his person but to his statements: the heresy is notorious, but it is so if it is understood not in the first sense, as a person’s moral act, but in the second sense, as the doctrinal description of a proposition.
So who are you gonna believe? St. Robert Bellarmine, Doctor of the Church? Or some poorly-trained theologians from the SSPX? Or the SSPX's best buddy, "bishop" Schneider.
Thanks for pointing this out. I thought the neo-SSPX held to the Fourth Opinion:
That a manifest heretic does not fall from the pontificate by himself ipso facto, but must be judged by the Church to fall from office.
This is the basis of Salza and Siscoe's book which was promoted by the neo-SSPX.
Bishop Schneider holds Opinion No. 3 of the Five Opinions expounded upon by St. Robert Bellarmine. Opinion No. 3 is the following:
That a pope who is even a manifest heretic is not deposed ipso facto and cannot be deposed by the Church.
Here is what St. Robert Bellarmine writes regarding Opinion No. 3:.
“The third opinion is on another extreme, that the Pope is not and cannot be deposed either by secret or manifest heresy. Turrecremata in the aforementioned citation relates and refutes this opinion, and rightly so, for it is exceedingly improbable.
Thanks. I knew it was one of the five, but didn't recall which # it was. I think that this #3 was held by like one guy who's long dead, and yet St. Robert mentions it because Turrecremata refuted the guy and he adds his own points. I don't think anyone has held this opinion from that time until it's resurfaced here from +Schneider, and I guess Fr. Hewko also. I find this opinion absurd. So Jorge could run around claiming he's become a Buddhist and nothing could be done about it? No, St. Robert, John of St. Thomas, and others said that God would not allow the Church not to have a remedy for that type of scenario. St. Robert called it "extreme" and "exceedingly improbable" ... and he's certainly right about that.
.
If a Doctor of the Church says this idea is "exceedingly improbable", then why do so many people believe in it today, especially people who want to adhere to the traditional teachings of the Church? :confused:
I don’t know anyone who holds to Bouix’s opinion (which per my previous post is not the same as Schneider’s):
Schneidee has actually just invented a 6th Opinion, even more untenable than Bouix:
Bouix said a pope privately a heretic is irremovable.
Schneider says even a declared heretic pope is irremovable (a scenario Bouix never even considers).
.
If a Doctor of the Church says this idea is "exceedingly improbable", then why do so many people believe in it today, especially people who want to adhere to the traditional teachings of the Church? :confused:
I believe it is because many in Trad circles fail to come to know or accept the following doctrine that must be believed with Divine and Catholic Faith:.
The public sin of manifest formal heresy by its very nature separates the heretic from the Church.
I believe it is because many in Trad circles fail to come to know or accept the following doctrine that must be believed with Divine and Catholic Faith:
The public sin of manifest formal heresy by its very nature separates the heretic from the Church.
.
Yes, but maybe this question is too broad for this discussion, but what I'm wondering is, how can anyone who wants to adhere to tradition begin a sentence with the words, "I reject St. Robert Bellarmine's teaching on ..." How can such a sentence end well? And why do people not accept the teaching of a Doctor of the Church??!
Yes, but maybe this question is too broad for this discussion, but what I'm wondering is, how can anyone who wants to adhere to tradition begin a sentence with the words, "I reject St. Robert Bellarmine's teaching on ..." How can such a sentence end well? And why do people not accept the teaching of a Doctor of the Church??!
.
Yes, but maybe this question is too broad for this discussion, but what I'm wondering is, how can anyone who wants to adhere to tradition begin a sentence with the words, "I reject St. Robert Bellarmine's teaching on ..." How can such a sentence end well? And why do people not accept the teaching of a Doctor of the Church??!
Because his is a minority opinion, with the majority siding with Cajetan, JST, Billot, Billuart, Vitoria, Suarez, etc (who certainly did not consider disagreeing with Bellarmine impious.
Other top theologians disagreed with St. Robert, and they were not condemned by the Church. St. Robert, though a Doctor, is not Magisterium, and the Doctors are not infallible.True, but Pius XI, when declaring St. Robert Bellarmine a Doctor of the Church in Providentissimus Deus (1931), made a point of highlighting his teachings on the Roman Pontiff:
+Schneider also says (deceptively) that the idea that a pope could be declared a heretic and removed is +Bellarmine's "opinion", thus he dismisses the idea. Then he claims that a pope can't be removed is the theological consensus, while in fact, it's also an opinion. This guy is just bad news; total Modernist liar.
Lol…so Billuart is a heretic for rejecting this “dogma” and nobody knew it until you started posting on CI?
Quite a few new “dogmas” are revealed here in precisely such a way!
True, but Pius XI, when declaring St. Robert Bellarmine a Doctor of the Church in Providentissimus Deus (1931), made a point of highlighting his teachings on the Roman Pontiff:
But it is an outstanding achievement of St Robert, that the rights and privileges divinely bestowed upon the Supreme Pontiff, and those also which were not yet recognized by all the children of the Church at that time, such as the infallible Magisterium of the Pontiff speaking ex cathedra, he both invincibly proved and most learnedly defended against his adversaries. Moreover, he appeared even up to our times as a defender of the Roman Pontiff of such authority that the Fathers of the [1870] Vatican Council employed his writings and opinions to the greatest possible extent.
So, in this dispute ...
#1) Sean, CK didn't call it a "dogma" but a "doctrine".
#2) CK, Pius XII taught that the sin of heresy separates from the Church, but he didn't stipulate what kind of heresy, manifest, notorious, public, declared, etc. He left the details of that controversy unsettled.
Nevertheless, +Schneider denies that ANY type of heresy: apostasy, profession of a false religion, manifest, public, notorious, declared ... he denies that any of these would remove the man from the Church, and therefore from the papacy, so the criticism of +Schneider as denying this doctrine does stand, as +Schneider covers the entire gamut of every side of the controversy ... except for the "once Catholic, always Catholic by virtue of the Baptismal character", which does appear incompatible now with the teaching of Pius XII.
So, in this dispute ...
#1) Sean, CK didn't call it a "dogma" but a "doctrine".
#2) CK, Pius XII taught that the sin of heresy separates from the Church, but he didn't stipulate what kind of heresy, manifest, notorious, public, declared, etc. He left the details of that controversy unsettled.
Nevertheless, +Schneider denies that ANY type of heresy: apostasy, profession of a false religion, manifest, public, notorious, declared ... he denies that any of these would remove the man from the Church, and therefore from the papacy, so the criticism of +Schneider as denying this doctrine does stand, as +Schneider covers the entire gamut of every side of the controversy ... except for the "once Catholic, always Catholic by virtue of the Baptismal character", which does appear incompatible now with the teaching of Pius XII.
Minority opinion?
Sean seems to be back and forth on this. On the one hand, he seems to back Salza and Siscoe's claim that Bellarmine's position was identical to that of Cajetan, but then he says Bellarmine's opinion is now the minority opinion. How if he had the same opinion as Cajetan et al? In any case, I've seen 20th century theologians who hold that St. Robert's position had become the common theological opinion.
Lad seems to be living in his own imagination again, as I clearly showed (just a couple posts above) S&S distinguishing between Bellarmine and Cajetan.
Lad seems to be living in his own imagination again, as I clearly showed (just a couple posts above) S&S distinguishing between Bellarmine and Cajetan.
They do nothing of the sort. But, again, S&S say you're a schismatic and outside the Church, but just keep on promoting their fantasies, not realizing that it's the same principles you're backing that lead them to conclude that you're outside the Church also.
Wait, I’m confused, didn’t you post many times in the past that Saint Robert’s opinion and Cajetan’s opinion were the same?
Wait, I’m confused, didn’t you post many times in the past that Saint Robert’s opinion and Cajetan’s opinion were the same using S&S as a reference?
You can continue to live in your own solipsistic, flat world.
For any who care to be bothered by the truth, SS have a website full of content distinguishing between Bellarmine and Cajetan/JST.
He most certainly did, and that's the S&S fantasy also, that St. Robert holds that the Pope wouldn't be deposed until the Church judged him deposed, which is identical to Cajetan's opinion. St. Robert rejects that because unless the fall from office occurred a priori to the judgment, the Church would be judging a Pope, which is not permissible. I actually think you can find the seeds of SedePrivationism in St. Robert Bellarmine, but that's a different matter.
Cajetan and JST are not exactly identical either, despite the fact that you always lump them together. It was primarily based on JST that Father Chazal developed his sedeimpoundist position, which, despite his denials, is in fact nearly identical to sedeprivationism.
Bellarmine says at that point, deposition is ipso facto; Cajetan/JST say a second Church action must declare God has deposed the pope).
Only that they agree that the Church must be involved in the process of declaring the fact of papal heresy. Where they differ, is what happens next (Bellarmine says at that point, deposition is ipso facto; Cajetan/JST say a second Church action must declare God has deposed the pope).I thought that in the past you held that they were identical. Thanks for the clarification.
Apparently, grasping that distinction surpasses Lad’s intellectual capabilities.
Have a great day!
Nobody ever made the argument that Cajetan and JST were identical in all respects, but that they agree the Church must take two steps in papal deposition (ie., declaration of heresy; declaration God has deposed the pope) vs Bellarmine’s one step process (ie., the Church announces the fact of papal heresy, at which point Bellarmine says the pope is deposed ipso facto, making a second Church declaration unnecessary).
Anyway, a huge problem with Cajetan’s opinion is the fact that it’s a doctrine (I believe dogma) of the Church that a council cannot judge a pope. A putative “pope” must have fallen first in order for him to be judged by a Council, thus the fifth opinion of Bellarmine is the correct one.
I thought that in the past you held that they were identical. Thanks for the clarification.
Anyway, a huge problem with Cajetan’s opinion is the fact that it’s a doctrine (I believe dogma) of the Church that a council cannot judge a pope. A putative “pope” must have fallen first in order for him to be judged by a Council, thus the fifth opinion of Bellarmine is the correct one.
I’m tuning out the windbag, but will respond to you:
Neither Cajetan nor JST judge the pope. They first declare the fact of his heresy, and then in a second action, that GOD has deposed him.
:facepalm: and you don't even see what's actually being disputed here. This makes it clear that you don't even understand the argument. They declare that God HAS deposed him. When did God depose him? Before or immediately after ANY declaration, whether of heresy or of loss of office. Both declarations would violate the condemnation of Vatican I, which Magisterially endorsed suprema sedes a nemine judicatur, unless the man had been deposed from the papacy BEFORE any such declaration, which is the point of St. Robert.
John of St. Thomas distinguished between the Pope being deposed and our KNOWING that he's been deposed, but then erroneously concluded that the Pope isn't actually deposed until we know he's been deposed. It's like the old argument about whether a tree falling in the woods makes a sound unless there's someone around to hear it. He was arguing effectively that there's no sound made unless there's someone there to hear it. But he misses the fact that something does in fact objectively happen even if no one happens to be there, namely the air is stirred with the waves, in such a way that if someone WERE there, he would hear it. Strangely, it's really the same debate as we have over phenomenology. Does something have objective reality before it's perceived?
Now, even with this debate about the thing itself and knowing about the thing, St. Robert Bellarmine holds that we can KNOW that a Pope has become a heretic without any declaration. I mean, if Jorge were running around saying, "Nah, Jesus is only symbolically present in the Holy Eucharist." we don't need any kind of declaration to know that he's heretical, nor do we need a declaration to be able to know that Jorge is pertinacious about it. Now, if the heresy is something less obvious, then that's where it becomes more tricky. And I'll make another post on that.
Now, even with this debate about the thing itself and knowing about the thing, St. Robert Bellarmine holds that we can KNOW that a Pope has become a heretic without any declaration. I mean, if Jorge were running around saying, "Nah, Jesus is only symbolically present in the Holy Eucharist." we don't need any kind of declaration to know that he's heretical, nor do we need a declaration to be able to know that Jorge is pertinacious about it. Now, if the heresy is something less obvious, then that's where it becomes more tricky. And I'll make another post on that.
No, Sean. If you actually read Bellarmine, his entire reason for rejecting Cajetan is that the Church cannot render a judgment regarding a sitting Pope, so the deposition must happen a priori to any such judgment. Every theologian who's ever read Bellarmine has read it that way, which is the obvious sense of his text. S&S and you are playing games with the fact that Bellarmine says the Church has to judge heresy whereas Cajetan says the Church has to declare him deposed, but the core principle in the dispute is whether deposition occurs prior to or after the Church's judgment of deposition. You're playing with nonsensical semantics.
Bellarmine is clearly right. If the Pope remains the Pope until the judgment is rendered, you're violating the principle of suprema sedes a nemine judicatur. In fact, the contrary was officially condemned later at Vatican I, which dogmatically backed the notion of Conciliarism on grounds that undermine Cajetan and SJT's position. So the Cajetan/JST position is implicitly heretical after Vatican I. Father Kramer does a good job of pointing this out.
But Bellarmine does hold that there's a distinction between the loss of authority and the loss of office, i.e. he was basically a sedeprivationist or sedeimpoundist before the terms were coined.
No. The loss of office takes place at the same time the authority is lost. A declaration only makes the loss of office explicitly known. Canon 188.4º of the 1917 Code calls this a tacit renunciation of office.
I disagree. St. Robert cited Pope St. Celestine regarding Nestorius, and the quote makes the distinction, putting those who preach heresy in the state of excommunicandus, where he could not exercise authority, but the fact is he remained in office for a couple years after that condition before he was removed.
Billuart:
"Nevertheless, the more common opinion (sententia communior) holds that Christ, by a special dispensation, for the common good and tranquility of the Church, will continue to give jurisdiction even to a manifestly heretical pope, until he has been declared a manifest heretic by the Church."
(Summa S. Thomae of Charles Rene Billuart, O.P. (1685-1757) Secunda Secundae, 4th Dissertation: On the Vices Opposed to Faith, Article 3)
The relevance of Billuart's quote is that sedevacantists interpret St. Bellarmine as proposing a manifest heretic is deprived of office ipso facto (without any judgment or declaration of the Church).
Billuart is saying exactly the opposite, and more than this, is saying that it is the more common position of approved theologians (i.e., not just his own opinion).
Billuart explains the reason for this more common opinion a couple paragraphs earlier in the same article: "...the law and praxis of the Church require that a heretic be denounced before he loses his jurisdiction, not for his own benefit, but for the benefit and tranquility of the faithful.
Even more importantly, this more common opinion (which opposes the erroneous and univocal sedevacantist interpretation of St. Bellarmine's words) is sanctioned by the magisterial teaching of the Church itself in the Papal Bull of Pope Martin V, Ad Evitanda Scandala ("To avoid scandal"):"To avoid the scandals and the many perils that can befall timorous consciences, we mercifully grant to the faithful of Christ, by the force of this decree (tenore praesentium), that henceforth no one will be obliged, under the pretext of any sentence or ecclesiastical censure generally promulgated by law or by man, to avoid the communion of any person, in the administration or reception of the Sacraments, or in any other matters sacred or profane, or to eschew the person, or to observe any ecclesiastical interdict, unless a sentence or censure of this kind shall have been published by a judge, and denounced specially and expressly, whether against a person, or a college, or university, or church, or a certain place or territory. Neither the Apostolic Constitutions, nor any other laws remain in force to the contrary."
Note also in the following passage, that when Billuart says "or themselves depart from the Church," he means they themselves leave the Church of their own accord (not that by endorsing some heresy, they have departed from the Church):
"If manifest heretics had to be avoided before their denunciation, this would endanger souls and generate anxiety of conscience, since there would be uncertainty as to who are manifest heretics, some persons affirming, and others denying, as actually happened in the case of Jansenism. It is very difficult for lay people to know with certainty if someone is a manifest heretic or not, since in most cases the subject-matter of the heresy surpasses their understanding. For all these reasons, the Council prudently decided that only those who have been denounced would have to be avoided. These reasons, however, do not apply anymore once the heretic leaves the Church of his own accord."
I think you’re misconstruing (in red above) jurisdiction with the office. The heretic loses the office ipso facto, but for the common good Christ supplies jurisdiction. With the declaration the supplied jurisdiction disappears as well.
I think you’re misconstruing (in red above) jurisdiction with the office. The heretic loses the office ipso facto, but for the common good Christ supplies jurisdiction. With the declaration the supplied jurisdiction disappears as well.
Billuart:.
"Nevertheless, the more common opinion (sententia communior) holds that Christ, by a special dispensation, for the common good and tranquility of the Church, will continue to give jurisdiction even to a manifestly heretical pope, until he has been declared a manifest heretic by the Church."
(Summa S. Thomae of Charles Rene Billuart, O.P. (1685-1757) Secunda Secundae, 4th Dissertation: On the Vices Opposed to Faith, Article 3)
Who exactly does he mean by the Church? :popcorn:
Bottom line is that since Vatican I only Bellarmine's opinion remains standing. It is absolutely essential that the Pope have been ipso facto deposed by God BEFORE the Church could render any kind of judgment regarding the man who used to be Pope. To hold anything else would be to assert the heresy condemned by Vatican I that the Church can pass judgment on a Pope.
This is the bottom line: theological consensus vel non since Vatican I.
Johnson quoting stuff from the first half of the 1700s holding that something was "the more common opinion". After Vatican I condemned this "more common opinion" as implicitly heretical, 20th century theologians hold that Bellarmine's was THE theological consensus on the matter. But, as I pointed out, some theologians hold that God would grant jurisdiction to even an Antipope through color of title, so the meaning here is unclear. I in fact rejected SVism as untenable (vs. SPism) due to the Ecclesiavacantist problem, until some SVs cited these passages about jurisidiction through color of title. I still hold SPism to be more adequate, but no longer reject SVism as untenable.
Johnson resorts to all manner of deceptive tactics to justify his heresies. I don't mince any words here, as Johnson's ecclesiology is overly heretical, indistinguishable really from Old Catholicism.
Bottom line is that since Vatican I only Bellarmine's opinion remains standing. It is absolutely essential that the Pope have been ipso facto deposed by God BEFORE the Church could render any kind of judgment regarding the man who used to be Pope. To hold anything else would be to assert the heresy condemned by Vatican I that the Church can pass judgment on a Pope.
Just imagine this scenario. We know that by some estimates upwards of 97% - 99% of episcopal sees had been usurped by Arians during that crisis. Let's say that the Arians, who were the majority, had succeeded in putting their man on the See of Peter. According to Salza and Sizcoe (and Johnson), the Arian Church would then have been the True Church of Christ and the Anti-Arian Fathers, such as St. Athanasius, would have been non-Catholics and outside the Church. And since only the officially-appointed-with-jurisdiction bishops and Cardinals could "remove" a Pope by some declaration, that would have been the end of the Church, despite St. Athanasius' famous statement that if the Church were reduced to a handful, there would be the Church. Also, S&S & Johnson condemn the activities of St. Athanasius and a few other Fathers who went around consecrating orthodox bishops in the areas whose sees had been usurped by Arians. And of course S&S condemn Archbishop Lefebvre as non-Catholics (while Joe Biden remains a Catholic), as well as the Resistance and Sean Johnson. Something like this is a simple enough argumentum ad absurdum to de-legitimize the S&S position, but Johnson remains oblivious to it, that he's condemning himself while promoting S&S.Total lie by Loudestmouth:
I'm less concerned about theological consensus than I am with the clear teaching of Vatican I. I'm sure there are holdouts who make arguments that the Cajetan/SJT position is still tenable since Vatican I, but I imagine they are few and far between. I don't want to digress into that subject again, but the main point is that the citation from the early 1700s was before Vatican I and may have changed, and such a citation cannot be adduced as proof of anything. Sean needs to explain why Vatican I doesn't implicitly condemn the Cajetan/SJT positions.
Unable to withstand that reality, he explodes (yet again) in a vomitous explosion of emotional pouting…and another 600 posts.
Yes, consensus is not the right word. Sean needs to show us at least one theologian, post-V1, that agrees with him, or believes that the Cajetan/SJT position survives V1.
Or attempt to demonstrate how VI doesn't preclude Cajetan/JST. Now, he mentioned Cardinal Journet (though I don't recall that he hasn't cited him yet). As I said, there are probably some holdouts who feel the opinion can survive VI. But the major point was that this quote from Billuart that he keeps spamming in cannot stand on its own, since that was a reference to the "more common opinion" ... in the early 1700s and before Vatican I. It's very possible that Billuart himself, after Vatican I, would have rejected the opinion, just as St. Thomas would have revised his thinking about the Immaculate Conception after the dogmatic declaration of Pius IX.
Cardinal Journet, who favoured the opinion of John of St. Thomas on the deposition of a heretic pope, was the last and lone prominent representative of the miniscule faction that dissented from what has become the morally unanimous position of theologians and canonists on this point since the late nineteenth century.
Kramer, Paul. To deceive the elect: The catholic doctrine on the question of a heretical Pope . Kindle Edition.
First Vatican Council, been rejected with virtual unanimity by theologians, since it could be clearly seen, in the light of the absolute supremacy and injudicability of the pope set forth in solemn definition of the primacy, to be contrary to the faith of the Church.
Kramer, Paul. To deceive the elect: The catholic doctrine on the question of a heretical Pope . Kindle Edition.
Fr. Kramer on Journet:
The above is a footnote to this sentence:
Sean appears to have "one."
We should all have some questions about the weight of "theological consensus", since nearly every bishop and theologian upheld Vatican II and the NOM as Catholic (with the only exception among theologians I know being +Guerard des Lauriers). With regard to bishops, we had +Lefebvre and +de Castro Mayer, but even +Lefebvre at one point signed the docuмents. Only one I know who didn't was Bishop Arrigo Pintonello. Did all these theologians suddenly become non-Catholics some time prior to Vatican II? Or perhaps there's more weight being given the "theological consensus" than it deserves. We had 97% - 99% of the episcopal Sees taken over by Arians during that crisis. Did they then represent the Ecclesia Docens?
Acts 4:19
But Peter and John answering, said to them: If it be just in the sight of God, to hear you rather than God, judge ye.
Acts 5:29
But Peter and the apostles answering, said: We ought to obey God, rather than men.
This is the bottom line: theological consensus vel non since Vatican I. Fr. Kramer argues that it is the consensus that only the Bellarmine opinion (as you and others interpret it) remains standing. At an absolute minimum, Sean must show us, with theologians of authority, that your view of the Bellarmine opinion is wrong.
But better, and more to the point, Sean needs to make his case with theologians post-Vatican I - not Billuart - that some declaration of the Church is necessary, otherwise the pope remains pope. Otherwise, he can disagree with you, but he shows himself a lone wolf going against the "pack" - rather like you with regard to BoD, ironically. You interpret Trent against the unanimous voice of post-Trentian theologians. I wait to hear Sean point to theological authority post-V1 and pre-V2 showing his view accords with Vatican I. I'm not saying he can't . . . Fr. Kramer says he can't.
I wait for him to show us Fr. Kramer is wrong.
I disagree. St. Robert cited Pope St. Celestine regarding Nestorius, and the quote makes the distinction, putting those who preach heresy in the state of excommunicandus, where he could not exercise authority, but the fact is he remained in office for a couple years after that condition before he was removed.
To be clear, Fr. Paul Kramer teaches that St. Robert Bellarmine actually held to Opinion No. 1:
That the pope simply cannot become a formal heretic, and therefore cannot be deposed for heresy.
Fr. Paul Kramer also hold to Opinion No. 1.
To be clear, Fr. Paul Kramer teaches that St. Robert Bellarmine actually held to Opinion No. 1:
That the pope simply cannot become a formal heretic, and therefore cannot be deposed for heresy.
Fr. Paul Kramer also hold to Opinion No. 1.
Right. But he argues that if a "pope" were to fall into heresy, he would ipso facto fall from the papacy and the Church. That is the Bellarmine opinion we are addressing.
Yes, we understand that, but his #1 opinion was a "pious belief" and not a theological opinion per se. I hold to #1 myself and believe that these non-popes were never popes. Unlike Father Kramer, I hold that the first such illegitimately-elected non-pope was Angelo Roncalli (I find the Siri Theory to be highly probable).
But, as St. Robert did, putting aside #1, of the remaining opinions, he sided with one and refuted the others.
Yes. Thank you for the clarification. The condition for Opinion No. 5 (that a pope can become a public manifest formal heretic) is purely hypothetical.
I respond: there are five opinions on this matter.
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.
...
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, and namely St. Cyprian who speaks on Novation, who was a Pope in schism with Cornelius: “He cannot hold the Episcopacy, although he was a bishop first, he fell from the body of his fellow bishops and from the unity of the Church” [332]. There he means that Novation, even if he was a true and legitimate Pope; still would have fallen from the pontificate by himself, if he separated himself from the Church. The same is the opinion of the learned men of our age, as John Driedo teaches [333], those who are cast out as excommunicates, or leave on their own and oppose the Church are separated from it, namely heretics and schismatics. He adds in the same work [334], that no spiritual power remains in them, who have departed from the Church, over those who are in the Church. Melchior Cano teaches the same thing, when he says that heretics are not part of the Church, nor members [335], and he adds in the last Chapter, 12th argument, that someone cannot even be informed in thought, that he should be head and Pope, who is not a member nor a part, and he teaches the same thing in eloquent words, that secret heretics are still in the Church and are parts and members, and that a secretly heretical Pope is still Pope. Others teach the same, whom we cite in Book 1 of de Ecclesia. The foundation of this opinion is that a manifest heretic, is in no way a member of the Church; that is, neither in spirit nor in body, or by internal union nor external. For even wicked Catholics are united and are members, in spirit through faith and in body through the confession of faith, and the participation of the visible Sacraments. Secret heretics are united and are members, but only by an external union: just as on the other hand, good Catechumens are in the Church only by an internal union but not an external one. Manifest heretics by no union, as has been proved.
We need to get this correct guys. Bellarmine is a Saint. We can't misrepresent him. As you can see below, Bellarmine held the 5th opinion, although he did not reject the 1st opinion completely.
1st opinion: It is "probable" and "can be easily defended" BUT "it is not certain" and "the common opinion is to the contrary."
5th opinion: It is the "true opinion" and "is the opinion of all the ancient Fathers."
https://novusordowatch.org/de-romano-pontifice-book2-chapter30/
We need to get this correct guys. Bellarmine is a Saint. We can't misrepresent him. As you can see below, Bellarmine held the 5th opinion, although he did not reject the 1st opinion completely.
After introducing #1, St. Robert says that "it will be worthwhile to see what the response should be if the Pope could be a heretic". So he's discussing #2 - #5 within the constraint or context of what the "response should be" IF #1 is not the case.
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, and namely St. Cyprian who speaks on Novation, who was a Pope in schism with Cornelius: “He cannot hold the Episcopacy, although he was a bishop first, he fell from the body of his fellow bishops and from the unity of the Church” [332]. There he means that Novation, even if he was a true and legitimate Pope; still would have fallen from the pontificate by himself, if he separated himself from the Church. The same is the opinion of the learned men of our age, as John Driedo teaches [333], those who are cast out as excommunicates, or leave on their own and oppose the Church are separated from it, namely heretics and schismatics. He adds in the same work [334], that no spiritual power remains in them, who have departed from the Church, over those who are in the Church. Melchior Cano teaches the same thing, when he says that heretics are not part of the Church, nor members [335], and he adds in the last Chapter, 12th argument, that someone cannot even be informed in thought, that he should be head and Pope, who is not a member nor a part, and he teaches the same thing in eloquent words, that secret heretics are still in the Church and are parts and members, and that a secretly heretical Pope is still Pope. Others teach the same, whom we cite in Book 1 of de Ecclesia. The foundation of this opinion is that a manifest heretic, is in no way a member of the Church; that is, neither in spirit nor in body, or by internal union nor external. For even wicked Catholics are united and are members, in spirit through faith and in body through the confession of faith, and the participation of the visible Sacraments. Secret heretics are united and are members, but only by an external union: just as on the other hand, good Catechumens are in the Church only by an internal union but not an external one. Manifest heretics by no union, as has been proved.
"The opinion, that a pope cannot be a heretic, (the first opinion outlined by Bellarmine) is the one that is most commonly taught as the most probable by the majority of theologians and Doctors: St. Robert Bellarmine, St. Alphonsus de Liguori, Francisco Suárez, Melchior Cano, Domingo Soto, John of St. Thomas, Juan de Torquemada, Louis Billot, Joachim Salaverri, A. Maria Vellico, Charles Journet, Cardinal Tommaso de Vio 'Cajetan', Francesco Bordoni, Pedro de Simanca, Domingo Bañez, and Martino Bonacina – and Bonacina cites others who were of the same opinion. For roughly a century this nearly unanimous opinion has been the most common, even among those who admit only the hypothetical possibility of a pope falling from office due to public defection into heresy. Matthæus Conte a Coronata, who believed it to be actually possible for a pope to fall from office automatically due to heresy (the fifth opinion outlined by Bellarmine), is the rare exception among recent authors that comes into mind. Of the Five Opinions outlined by Bellarmine on the question of the deposition of a heretic pope, these two, the first, and the fifth considered merely as a hypothesis, are the only two opinions still held by prominent canonists and theologians."
(Kramer, Paul. To deceive the elect: The catholic doctrine on the question of a heretical Pope . Kindle Edition.)
Angelus, Fr. Paul Kramer does not agree with you.
It’s interesting that Saint Robert stated that #1 was not only not certain, but that it also wasn’t the common opinion. See his words below in red.
“The first is of Albert Pighius, who contends that the Pope cannot be a heretic, and hence would not be deposed in any case: 806 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.”
Bottom line is that since Vatican I only Bellarmine's opinion remains standing. It is absolutely essential that the Pope have been ipso facto deposed by God BEFORE the Church could render any kind of judgment regarding the man who used to be Pope. To hold anything else would be to assert the heresy condemned by Vatican I that the Church can pass judgment on a Pope.
Agree with me? Can you read the Bellarmine quote I provided? What does Bellarmine say? Fr. Paul Kramer's opinion about what Bellarmine says is a secondary concern.
The Fathers were not specifically speaking about a heretical pope. They were speaking about manifest heretics. All manifest heretics automatically cease to be members of the Church, and if they held any office, they lose that office as well. Pope Pius XII confirmed the unanimous teaching of the Fathers when he taught in Mystici Corporis that heresy by its very nature severs the heretic from the Church.
This is the opinion of all the ancient Fathers, who teach that manifest heretics soon [mox — better translation: immediately] lose all jurisdiction,
PS to DR: Does 6 theologians suffice? If not, there's more at the link just provided.
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?
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.
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/ (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.
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.
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.
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...
Ignored, but unrefuted ^^^
:popcorn:
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?
(https://www.ecclesiamilitans.com/Screenshots/09_First_Opinion.png)
(https://www.ecclesiamilitans.com/Screenshots/03_Title.png)
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
More and more, like Bellarmine, I lean towards believing that a true pope could never fall into heresy as pope.
We have to understand the context of the Patristic quotes. There's almost always a condition, "If the pope were to become a heretic ..." This doesn't necessarily grant that the condition is possible, though I think by making these statements, they also say that they cannot out definitively rule out the possibility. When +Bellarmine states that it's a pious opinion, it just means there's no solid theological proof for the conclusion.
The "Number 1" that I said was my position was this: "1. He [Bergoglio] was never elected Pope." I was not referring to Opinion #1 in Bellarmine.
Like Bellarmine, I say that Opinion #1 (Albert Pighius's opinion) is "probable" but "not certain," but IF a Pope does, in fact, fall into manifest heresy, he certainly loses his office immediately (Opinion #5).
The Church Fathers unanimously taught that IF any bishop (the bishop of Rome not excluded) were to fall into heresy, then he would immediately lose his office. That is what Bellarmine agreed with. It is a CONDITIONAL statement. This is what I have been trying to say, but obviously not getting my point across.
So then we are in agreement that the Fathers did NOT unanimously teach that a pope can definitely be a heretic. Correct?
I think a lot of SVs have moved to that position, believing instead that these guys were never popes in the first place.Perhaps believing certain ones like Roncalli was never pope is a long shot, but do we really need to have public manifestations whereby a huge percentage of people know that JPII held to heresies before his election? It seems to me that we don't because the position that a true pope could never fall into heresy after his election would override that requirement. If we believe as did Bellarmine that it's not possible, then if the guy is a heretic after the election, then he had to be a heretic before the election.
To me, though, if they were not manifest heretics before their election, then there must be some other reason for their illegitimacy, i.e. an illegitimate election. To me that's yet another point in favor of the Siri Theory. With that theory, Roncalli, Montini, and Wojtyla were never legitimately elected in the first place.
I feel that if a Pope like Roncalli hadn't been a manifest heretic before his election (he was under suspicion at the Vatican, but that's a step removed from being a manifest heretic), that means he was effectively an occult heretic and so would have been legitimately elected pope (unless you hold to the extreme theory that even occult heretics cannot be popes ... forget which # that is). I believe, again just a "pious belief", that an occult heretic who became a legitimate Pope would be converted, but as certainty that he would be prevented by God from wrecking the Church, even if it meant that God would strike him dead before he could do so.
And that's another intriguing aspect of Siri Theory, that the conspirators waited until Siri had accepted (according to Paul Williams, he took the name Gregory XVII, which would not have happened, nor would the white smoke have happened, until he accepted). I think these conspirators realized also that a legitimate Pope would be protected by the Holy Ghost from wrecking the Church. They thought they had their man in Pius IX, but he converted from his liberalism (possible Masonic membership also) and turned on them, to the point that the Masonic lodges went through the trouble of "excommunicating" him from Masonry ... assuming it was true). Pius IX had been perhaps THE most liberal Cardinal in the Church before his election. In any case, they waited until Siri was elected and accepted, where they could more easily have just threatened him before the conclave, since Siri had been considered the undisputed favorite "papabile" before the election, and the stated choice of Pius XII. But if they had threatened him from accepting, then even though it was under duress and threat, there's no provision for that in law. He wouldn't have been the legitimate pope. But once he accepted, the law holds that any resignation under duress or threat is considered null and void. Thus the replacement candidate would have been illegitimate, and therefore free to perpetrate his wreckage upon the Church.
Correct. But I don't think I ever said that the Fathers taught "that a pope can definitely be a heretic." Where did I say that?
I think I said that the Church Fathers unanimously taught that anyone having "jurisdiction" in the Church who fell into heresy would immediately lose his office, which is what Bellarmine says in Opinion #5.
Bellarmine is "not certain" whether or not a Pope can fall into heresy. But he leans toward Opinion #1 (that of Albert Pighius) which says that a Pope cannot fall into heresy. In case he is wrong, however, Bellarmine agrees with Opinion #5 that that a heretical Pope would immediately lose his office.
Okay. Sorry for any misunderstanding on my part. The issue is closed from my side. Thanks.