Author Topic: "To Deceive the Elect" by Fr. Paul Kramer now available (Read 10312 times)

Ladislaus · « **Reply #210 on:** November 05, 2019, 09:29:29 AM »

Quote from: SeanJohnson on November 05, 2019, 09:21:28 AM

Ps: May I ask whether you are of the priestly/religious or lay state?

My guess is that PaxChristi2 is either Siscoe or Salza. Remember there was a PaxChristi who was duking it out with Father Kramer on another forum who turned out to be one of the two (I forget which one).

Ladislaus · « **Reply #211 on:** November 05, 2019, 09:41:11 AM »

I disagree with the assertion that a Pope can be judged. I also disagree with the notion that Canonical penalties can be applied to a Pope, unless said penalties are also divine law, and a certain canonical provision is merely a restatement thereof. Pope Celestine declared that Nestorius had forfeited his powers "by divine sentence" for preaching heresy.

What happens is that the Church "judges" in the sense of coming to know the truth of a proposition: "Jorge Bergoglio has left the Church." That is to make a judgment about something that had already taken place a priori to the judgment itself. It's to come to the knowledge of and to aver the truth of that particular proposition. That's why St. Robert Bellarmine likens it to the work of an arbitrator, someone who merely discerns the facts or the truth about a GIVEN situation.

Then any further declarations have the effect of materially removing the office, or, rather, the DESIGNATION to office. Just as the Church applies the designation to a papal candidate, so too the Church removes it later ... but the Church can only remove it once God has already separated the man from the office.

1) Jorge Bergoglio is publicly a heretic (vs. in an occult manner).
2) Church comes to the realization that he is a heretic ... that's when the heresy becomes manifest.
3) At the point that the Church comes to this realization, he ceases to have any formal authority.
4) Then the Church removes the designation of office, either explicitly, or implicitly (by giving the designation to another, i.e. holding another election).

Ladislaus · « **Reply #212 on:** November 05, 2019, 09:44:28 AM »

Now, I can think of one way in which a man could be stripped of the papal office through human agency ... if someone were to murder the pope. At that point the matter becomes incapable of sustaining the form. So some have argued that by designating a man a heretic vitandus, this has the same effect, of rendering the man incapable of sustaining the form. But designating him guilty of heresy and a vitandus is in fact to render a judgement against the pope. Most of the theologians dealing with this issue claim that the man is show to have been "already judged" (aka by God), and I believe this is backed up by a couple of popes, Pope St. Celestine "by divine sentence"), and another one I can't recall.

Don Paolo · « **Reply #213 on:** November 05, 2019, 10:28:40 AM »

《in his commentary on the 4th and 5th Opinions, Bellarmine is not arguing that a Pope does not have to be "judged" before being ipso facto deposed. What he is trying to prove is that a Pope does not have to be authoritatively deposed, to lose his office (since a Pope cannot be authoritatively deposed while he remains Pope). That's what he's objecting to about Cajetan's opinion, and the contrary is what he's trying to prove in his commentary on the 5th Opinion. 》

This argument comes straight out of the Salza/Siscoe fundamentalist screed, True or False Pope?. It is an argument straight out of Alice's wonderland. Bellarmine is not TRYING to prove that a pope doesn't have to be authoritatively deposed -- he asserts explicitly that the pope can be judged neither by the bishops nor the cardinals; and therefore he falls from office ipso facto "by himself". This is not "my interpretation"; but Bellarmine plainly makes this assertion in his refutation of Opinion No. 4.

Pax Vobis · « **Reply #214 on:** November 05, 2019, 10:43:09 AM »

Quote

I disagree with the assertion that a Pope can be judged.

It depends how you use the word "judge". He can be judged in the sense that they are convicting him of an crime he brought upon himself. But that is what a judge does in a case of murder too. The pope is innocent until proven guilty (of heresy). Once the Cardinals decide heresy, then the pope is no longer the pope, so they can "judge" that he be removed from office. Before heresy is determined, he's still the pope, so they have no power to "judge" him. This is why the determination/declaration of OBSTINATE heresy is so important.
.
On the other hand, most sedes argue that a heretic pope is guilty until proven innocent. This is why they think they can depose him on their own. They are "judging" him incorrectly because they don't have the 1) authority, 2) vocation, or 3) training to investigate a pope. This is how one "judges" in error.

Pax Vobis · « **Reply #215 on:** November 05, 2019, 10:45:42 AM »

Quote

but Bellarmine plainly makes this assertion in his refutation of Opinion No. 4.

But this is a contradiction of his Opinion 2.
.
As Pax Christi points out, there has to be more to the story. +Bellarmine is not dumb enough to contradict himself in a matter of pages. There must be missing context.

SeanJohnson · « **Reply #216 on:** November 05, 2019, 10:52:20 AM »

Quote from: Don Paolo on November 05, 2019, 10:28:40 AM

《in his commentary on the 4th and 5th Opinions, Bellarmine is not arguing that a Pope does not have to be "judged" before being ipso facto deposed. What he is trying to prove is that a Pope does not have to be authoritatively deposed, to lose his office (since a Pope cannot be authoritatively deposed while he remains Pope). That's what he's objecting to about Cajetan's opinion, and the contrary is what he's trying to prove in his commentary on the 5th Opinion. 》

This argument comes straight out of the Salza/Siscoe fundamentalist screed, True or False Pope?. It is an argument straight out of Alice's wonderland. Bellarmine is not TRYING to prove that a pope doesn't have to be authoritatively deposed -- he asserts explicitly that the pope can be judged neither by the bishops nor the cardinals; and therefore he falls from office ipso facto "by himself". This is not "my interpretation"; but Bellarmine plainly makes this assertion in his refutation of Opinion No. 4.

Well, just to play devil’s advocate, PC2 is saying those who only read Bellarmine’s commentary on opinion 4 & 5 will unavoidably but mistakenly come to that conclusion.

So my question would then become: “Have you read through Bellarmine’s other commentary on the subject, as PC2 has?

If so, and there is still a dispute between you two as to what Bellarmine’s real position was, then that is frustrating (ie., how can we apply his theology to the current situation, if we can’t even reach consensus on what he was saying?).

As an aside, it is also a bit frustrating as more a spectator than participant in this thread, that it whooshes by so quickly:

Everyone is already taking sides on whether Bellarmine was right or wrong, but we don’t even know what he really said (Roman adage: “A translator is a traitor,” meaning we tend to interpret in our favor), or whether his thoughts -whatever they are- even apply to a universally heretical hierarchy.

I would liked to have resolved those two issues before getting into Bellarmine vs Cajetan/JST.

Ladislaus · « **Reply #217 on:** November 05, 2019, 12:06:32 PM »

Quote from: PaxChristi2 on November 04, 2019, 06:35:26 PM

In the latter case, at least according to the opinion of Bellarmine, if the bishops can “convict him of heresy” he will immediately be ipso facto deposed - not by the force of their judgment, but by God Himself who will not do so without it. After convicting him of heresy, they would be able to “judge and punish him” (with a coactive judgement) by deposing him even against his will, since he would then no longer be Pope.

So ... if he's already "no longer pope", then what is he being "deposed" from here? Are you implying the material-formal distinction?

Ladislaus · « **Reply #218 on:** November 05, 2019, 12:13:23 PM »

Here's why I feel this is being muddled:

In a discretionary judgment, the Pope is not being judged per se, what is being ascertained, as Torquemada explains, is the truth of the proposition: "Jorge Bergoglio is no longer Catholic." So the Pope is not the object of this judgment, but rather, the proposition, "Jorge is not a Catholic."

This is NOT some kind of formal juridical thing, but rather, merely the Church coming to the knowledge and awareness of Jorge's non-Catholicity.

This requires no specific process, no declaration, of any kind. There are cases where the truth of the proposition would be just self-evident. "I, Jorge, have become a Buddhist" or "I, Jorge, don't believe in the Real Presence." No proceedings or declaration is required here.

It's in cases where there's disagreement or dispute or where Jorge adamantly denies the proposition that there needs to be a process of some kind, so that the Church might discern the truth of the matter.

We are not talking about any kind of LEGAL "conviction" where it comes to a discretionary judgment. "convinco" can have that technical legal term, but it is not so used when applied to a discretionary judgment. In that context it just means that the Church has come to be "convinced" that he's in fact a heretic.

Ladislaus · « **Reply #219 on:** November 05, 2019, 12:20:07 PM »

If we had, for instance, a man elected to the papacy during the time of the Arian crisis, and at some point he became an Arian, when the majority of the hierarchy had also gone Arian, ... what then?

So this man is the legitimate pope, despite being an Arian, simply because the majority of the "Church" had gone Arian and the true Catholics were in a minority and therefore not in a position to convene a General Council, much less get a verdict to declare that the man is a heretic.

This is the situation we're in. If Traditional Catholics were in charge, they would certainly want to subject Jorge to a "discretionary judgment".

Pax Vobis · « **Reply #220 on:** November 05, 2019, 12:32:51 PM »

Quote

This requires no specific process, no declaration, of any kind. There are cases where the truth of the proposition would be just self-evident. "I, Jorge, have become a Buddhist" or "I, Jorge, don't believe in the Real Presence." No proceedings or declaration is required here.

I get what you're saying but that's just theory. In practice, there would always be a declaration, even in a self-evident case, because the law requires all the "i's" be dotted and "t's" crossed. In your example, it would be mere formality, but still required. As I said earlier, even in a self-evident case where the pope exclaims he is a Buddhist, packs up his bags and leaves Rome for India, there would still be a governmental requirement to declare that he vacated the office of his own will, even if for historical purposes. Or, it would be implied as part of the new election process.
.
Think about when a pope dies...that's as self evident as you get. But there's still a process to record his death, with witnesses identifying the body, etc.

Ladislaus · « **Reply #221 on:** November 05, 2019, 02:33:03 PM »

Quote from: Pax Vobis on November 05, 2019, 12:32:51 PM

I get what you're saying but that's just theory. In practice, there would always be a declaration, ...

Yes, I'm certain that in most cases there would be a declaration, for the sake of clarity, even if Bergoglio were to declare himself a Jєω, then run off, get married, and become a rabbi.

DecemRationis · « **Reply #222 on:** November 05, 2019, 03:22:35 PM »

Quote from: PaxChristi2 on November 05, 2019, 01:44:43 AM

For example, have you ever noticed how Bellarmine appears to directly contradict himself by saying, in the 5th Opinion (and 2nd) that a Pope who falls into occult heresy remains Pope, while in his commentary on the 4th Opinion he seems to say that exact opposite - that a Pope who loses the virtue of faith (i.e., an occult heretic) ceases to be Pope, since "the virtue of faith is a necessary disposition to retain the form of the Pontificate"? Have you ever noticed that apparent contradiction? I always noticed it. I now know that he actually doesn't contradict himself, but you would never in a million years be able to figure out why, if all you had to go on is his commentary on those two opinions.

It is not a settled question whether an "occult heretic" is truly a member of the Church or not. Of course, if his heresy is occult, there is nothing perceptible to other Catholics who therefore have no ground for rejecting someone who is truly an occult heretic. When that heresy is manifested, in a discipline or teaching that is contrary to the Gospel and the Catholic faith, it's a different story. As a practical matter, why would it be necessary for the Church to be rid of an occult heretic who imposed no heresy on the Church?

An occult heretic loses the interior disposition of faith, and loses the necessary interior bond that unites him with Christ. We can't judge the interior dispositiion, but of course Christ can, does and will. Lacking the bond of faith, the occult heretic is not of the Church, is not one of the faithful, though he may appear to be to us. This is a minority opinion but viable and not rejected by the Church, and I think it makes sense in light of the necessity of possession of the Catholic faith to be one of Christ's.

St. Robert says in rejecting the second opinion that an occult heretic falls outside the Church and is deposed by God, thus open to the judgment of men, that:

Quote

For Jurisdiction is certainly given to the Pontiff by God, but with the agreement of men, as is obvious; because this man, who beforehand was not Pope, has from men that he would begin to be Pope, therefore, he is not removed by God unless it is through men. But a secret heretic cannot be judged by men, nor would such wish to relinquish that power by his own will. Add, that the foundation of this opinion is that secret heretics are outside the Church, which is false, and we will amply demonstrate this in our tract de Ecclesia, bk 1.

Bellarmine, Robert. On the Roman Pontiff (De Controversiis Book 1) . Mediatrix Press. Kindle Edition.

You can see his emphasis in rejecting the opinion is the impossibility of something undisclosed and secret to men being judged by men. I am not familiar with the full discussion by St. Robert in de Ecclesia. Of course I know that he was of the sensible and I believe correct view that an occult heretic must be treated by men as part of the Church, since he is by all ostensible appearances. I am not sure if he believes that a secret heretic, without the Catholic faith, is still a member of the Church in the eyes of God, i.e., spiritually speaking. In any event, as I said, it is an open question whether occult heretics are outside the Church. See, for example, Fr. Salaverri in his manual on the Church of Christ:

Quote

That formal, but occult, heretics are not members of the Church, is defended by some authors, such as Suárez, Molina, Billuart, Franzelin, Michelitsch, Stolz, Fraghi, Journet, Zapalena, and a few others. But the contrary opinion is more common.[12]

https://lumenscholasticuм.wordpress.com/2016/12/05/fr-salaverri-on-whether-heretics-apostates-schismatics-and-excommunicates-are-members-of-the-church/

My own personal theory: most if not all of the V2 popes may have been "occult heretics," lacking the interior, spiritual bond with Christ - the necessary possession of the Catholic faith - and therefore, not Catholics upon assumption of the throne of Peter, and the charism of the Holy Ghost that would protect someone who possessed the Catholic faith upon elevation to the pontificate was absent. While appearing to be of the Church, and having the right to be treated by other men as such absent manifest heresy, they were not in fact Catholic. Hence, errors in discipline, teaching, etc. were possible without offending traditional Catholic teaching regarding true popes.

This would be supported by the bull of Paul IV in cuм Ex.

DecemRationis · « **Reply #223 on:** November 05, 2019, 03:34:20 PM »

And this is our quandary. Because of the "occult" nature of their heresy, we are at pains what to make of men whose appearance and actions give way to a debatable question among theologians about whether they are formal heretics. They may lack the interior bond necessary but the expression is disguised or not given full expression, and thus they continued (continue - so far) in office and wreaked their havoc in the Church Militant.

Ladislaus · « **Reply #224 on:** November 05, 2019, 06:14:49 PM »

Quote from: DecemRationis on November 05, 2019, 03:22:35 PM

My own personal theory: most if not all of the V2 popes may have been "occult heretics," lacking the interior, spiritual bond with Christ - the necessary possession of the Catholic faith - and therefore, not Catholics upon assumption of the throne of Peter, and the charism of the Holy Ghost that would protect someone who possessed the Catholic faith upon elevation to the pontificate was absent. While appearing to be of the Church, and having the right to be treated by other men as such absent manifest heresy, they were not in fact Catholic. Hence, errors in discipline, teaching, etc. were possible without offending traditional Catholic teaching regarding true popes.

This is interesting. I personally believe that not only were these men occult heretics ... but even deliberate conscious infiltrators, enemy agents, bent on attempting to destroy the Church. They would of course deliberately try to keep their heresy occult so that they could wreak even more havoc.

This is actually a very interesting question overall. If I'm a deliberate agent of destruction, but I keep my heresy occult, could I go define a dogma that's erroneous (on purpose)?

Of course, I think that there's enough public evidence about these men to suggest that it's quite possible, even probable, they they were infiltrators. Given that positive doubt, this puts the into the papa dubius state.

Author Topic: "To Deceive the Elect" by Fr. Paul Kramer now available (Read 10312 times)

Ladislaus

Re: "To Deceive the Elect" by Fr. Paul Kramer now available

Ladislaus

Re: "To Deceive the Elect" by Fr. Paul Kramer now available

Ladislaus

Re: "To Deceive the Elect" by Fr. Paul Kramer now available

Don Paolo

Re: "To Deceive the Elect" by Fr. Paul Kramer now available

Pax Vobis

Re: "To Deceive the Elect" by Fr. Paul Kramer now available

Pax Vobis

Re: "To Deceive the Elect" by Fr. Paul Kramer now available

SeanJohnson

Re: "To Deceive the Elect" by Fr. Paul Kramer now available

Ladislaus

Re: "To Deceive the Elect" by Fr. Paul Kramer now available

Ladislaus

Re: "To Deceive the Elect" by Fr. Paul Kramer now available

Ladislaus

Re: "To Deceive the Elect" by Fr. Paul Kramer now available

Pax Vobis

Re: "To Deceive the Elect" by Fr. Paul Kramer now available

Ladislaus

Re: "To Deceive the Elect" by Fr. Paul Kramer now available

DecemRationis

Re: "To Deceive the Elect" by Fr. Paul Kramer now available

DecemRationis

Re: "To Deceive the Elect" by Fr. Paul Kramer now available

Ladislaus

Re: "To Deceive the Elect" by Fr. Paul Kramer now available