Send CathInfo's owner Matthew a gift from his Amazon wish list:
https://www.amazon.com/hz/wishlist/ls/25M2B8RERL1UO

Author Topic: +Schneider Blunders on Sedevacante  (Read 5783 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Catholic Knight

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 797
  • Reputation: +238/-79
  • Gender: Male
Re: +Schneider Blunders on Sedevacante
« Reply #90 on: September 23, 2023, 09:41:25 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • 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.  Thank you for the clarification.  The condition for Opinion No. 5 (that a pope can become a public manifest formal heretic) is purely hypothetical.

    Offline Catholic Knight

    • Full Member
    • ***
    • Posts: 797
    • Reputation: +238/-79
    • Gender: Male
    Re: +Schneider Blunders on Sedevacante
    « Reply #91 on: September 23, 2023, 09:42:27 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • 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.

    I hold to Opinion No. 1 as well.


    Offline Angelus

    • Supporter
    • ***
    • Posts: 1158
    • Reputation: +489/-94
    • Gender: Male
    Re: +Schneider Blunders on Sedevacante
    « Reply #92 on: September 23, 2023, 11:43:21 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • 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.

    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/


    Quote
    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.



    Offline Catholic Knight

    • Full Member
    • ***
    • Posts: 797
    • Reputation: +238/-79
    • Gender: Male
    Re: +Schneider Blunders on Sedevacante
    « Reply #93 on: September 23, 2023, 11:59:03 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • 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/

    "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.

    Online Ladislaus

    • Supporter
    • *****
    • Posts: 46220
    • Reputation: +27190/-5030
    • Gender: Male
    Re: +Schneider Blunders on Sedevacante
    « Reply #94 on: September 23, 2023, 12:00:37 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • 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.

    You struggle with reading comprehension, as you made clear when you claimed and continued to claim that Jorge couldn't be the Pope because Ratzinger hadn't had his funeral and burial before the conclave.

    It's clear from the text that St. Robert separates the opinion #1 from #2 - #5.  He's deferring the discussion of #1 and then proceeding to debate #2 - #5 IF it were possible that a Pope could fall into heresy.

    A.  Pope can become a heretic.
    -- [Opinion #1]

    B. Pope cannot become a heretic.
    -- [Opinions #2 - #5]

    Of all the opinions in category B, 2-5, (which he's dealing here), assuming that a Pope can fall into heresy, #5 is the true one (in that category or context of opinions).


    Online Ladislaus

    • Supporter
    • *****
    • Posts: 46220
    • Reputation: +27190/-5030
    • Gender: Male
    Re: +Schneider Blunders on Sedevacante
    « Reply #95 on: September 23, 2023, 12:04:30 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • 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.

    Offline Angelus

    • Supporter
    • ***
    • Posts: 1158
    • Reputation: +489/-94
    • Gender: Male
    Re: +Schneider Blunders on Sedevacante
    « Reply #96 on: September 23, 2023, 12:11:58 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • 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.

    Okay. So how do you explain that he says, when discussing the "the fifth true opinion," that it "is the opinion of all the ancient Fathers."


    Here it is again (https://novusordowatch.org/de-romano-pontifice-book2-chapter30/) :

    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, 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.



    Offline Angelus

    • Supporter
    • ***
    • Posts: 1158
    • Reputation: +489/-94
    • Gender: Male
    Re: +Schneider Blunders on Sedevacante
    « Reply #97 on: September 23, 2023, 12:14:11 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • "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.

    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.


    Offline Quo vadis Domine

    • Supporter
    • *****
    • Posts: 4750
    • Reputation: +2896/-667
    • Gender: Male
    Re: +Schneider Blunders on Sedevacante
    « Reply #98 on: September 23, 2023, 12:19:55 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • It’s interesting that Saint Robert stated that #1 was not only *not certain*, but that it also wasn’t the common opinion. Also notice that he said that #1 is probable. 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.”


    For what doth it profit a man, if he gain the whole world, and suffer the loss of his own soul? Or what exchange shall a man give for his soul?

    Offline Angelus

    • Supporter
    • ***
    • Posts: 1158
    • Reputation: +489/-94
    • Gender: Male
    Re: +Schneider Blunders on Sedevacante
    « Reply #99 on: September 23, 2023, 12:24:43 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • 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.”

    Yes, because Bellarmine said that the "fifth true opinion" is "the opinion of all the ancient Fathers." The "common opinion" can be none other than the one held by "all the ancient Fathers," right?

    Offline SeanJohnson

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 15060
    • Reputation: +10006/-3162
    • Gender: Male
    Re: +Schneider Blunders on Sedevacante
    « Reply #100 on: September 23, 2023, 01:14:00 PM »
  • Thanks!2
  • No Thanks!0
  • 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.

    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. 

    Rom 5: 20 - "But where sin increased, grace abounded all the more."


    Offline Catholic Knight

    • Full Member
    • ***
    • Posts: 797
    • Reputation: +238/-79
    • Gender: Male
    Re: +Schneider Blunders on Sedevacante
    « Reply #101 on: September 23, 2023, 04:48:22 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • 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.

    Offline Catholic Knight

    • Full Member
    • ***
    • Posts: 797
    • Reputation: +238/-79
    • Gender: Male
    Re: +Schneider Blunders on Sedevacante
    « Reply #102 on: September 23, 2023, 04:53:27 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • The Catacombs Forum agrees with Fr. David Hewko and Bishop Athanasius Schneider in holding Opinion No. 3:

    Fr. Hewko: Bishop Schneider's Commentary on the Validity of Francis as Pope (thecatacombs.org)

    Offline Angelus

    • Supporter
    • ***
    • Posts: 1158
    • Reputation: +489/-94
    • Gender: Male
    Re: +Schneider Blunders on Sedevacante
    « Reply #103 on: September 23, 2023, 05:24:59 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • 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.

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

    Quote
    This is the opinion of all the ancient Fathers, who teach that manifest heretics soon [mox — better translation: immediately] lose all jurisdiction,

    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?

    Offline DecemRationis

    • Supporter
    • ****
    • Posts: 2312
    • Reputation: +867/-144
    • Gender: Male
    Re: +Schneider Blunders on Sedevacante
    « Reply #104 on: September 23, 2023, 05:27:59 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • PS to DR: Does 6 theologians suffice?  If not, there's more at the link just provided.

    Certainly. 

    I’ll check out the citation.
    Rom. 3:25 Whom God hath proposed to be a propitiation, through faith in his blood, to the shewing of his justice, for the remission of former sins" 

    Apoc 17:17 For God hath given into their hearts to do that which pleaseth him: that they give their kingdom to the beast, till the words of God be fulfilled.