That’s only a problem if you adhere to the sedevacantist interpretation of Bellarmine’s “ipso facto loss of office” position (a questionable interpretation of St. Robert’s position, and in any case, one never endorsed by the Church).
The Bishop and SSPX obviously prefer John of St. Thomas/Cajetan/Suarez and Company, for which the above statement poses no problem (ie., an heretical pope is not removed without the Church declaring the fact of his heresy, and a second declaration that God has deposed him).
I'm no theologian so maybe you can help me understand this better:
Bull of Pope Paul IV — cuм Ex Apostolatus Officio, 1559“Further, if ever it should appear that any bishop (even one acting as an archbishop, patriarch or primate), or a cardinal of the Roman Church, or a legate (as mentioned above), or even the Roman Pontiff (whether prior to his promotion to cardinal, or prior to his election as Roman Pontiff), has beforehand deviated from the Catholic faith or fallen into any heresy, We enact, decree, determine and define:
— “Such promotion or election in and of itself, even with the agreement and unanimous consent of all the cardinals, shall be null, legally invalid and void.
— “It shall not be possible for such a promotion or election to be deemed valid or to be valid, neither through reception of office, consecration, subsequent administration, or possession, nor even through the putative enthronement of a Roman Pontiff himself, together with the veneration and obedience accorded him by all.
— “Such promotion or election, shall not through any lapse of tune in the foregoing situation, be considered even partially legitimate in any way . . .
— “Each and all of the words, as acts, laws, appointments of those so promoted or elected —and indeed, whatsoever flows therefrom — shall be lacking in force, and shall grant no stability and legal power to anyone whatsoever.
— “Those so promoted or elected, by that very fact and without the need to make any further declaration, shall be deprived of any dignity, position, honor, title, authority, office and power.”
"Should appear?" What does that mean?
If they were a known heretic before election it sounds like the election was void since a non-Catholic can't become pope.
Plus because Vatican II states that we worship the same god as Muslims, it is a false religion and any person
intending to implement VII would not be Catholic. Therefore they would be equivalent to using a potato chip at the consecration at Mass instead of unleavened bread - it’s invalid matter and no consecration takes place. A public heretic or apostate is not “valid matter”for any office in the Church as such a one is barred by divine law from the papacy.
What do you make of the last part of the quote above that is highlighted? It sounds like no declaration is necessary. Does a Papal Bull qualify as "endorsed by the Church"?
Coronata — Institutions Juris Canonici, 1950“Appointment to the Office of the Primacy.
1. What is required by divine law for this appointment . . . Also required for validity is that the one elected be a member of the Church; hence, heretics and apostates (at least public ones) are excluded. . . ”
“It cannot be proven however that the Roman Pontiff, as a private teacher, cannot become a heretic — if, for example, he would contumaciously deny a previously defined dogma. Such impeccability was never promised by God. Indeed, Pope Innocent III expressly admits such a case is possible.
“If indeed such a situation would happen, he [the Roman Pontiff] would, by divine law, fall from office without any sentence, indeed, without even a declaratory one. He who openly professes heresy places himself outside the Church, and it is not likely that Christ would preserve the Primacy of His Church in one so unworthy. Wherefore, if the Roman Pontiff were to profess heresy, before any condemnatory sentence (which would be impossible anyway) he would lose his authority.”
Same here? No sentence necessary? Does Canon Law qualify as "endorsed by the Church"?
Marato — Institutions Juris Canonici, 1921“Heretics and schismatics are barred from the Supreme Pontificate by the Divine Law itself, because, although by divine law they are not considered incapable of participating in a certain type of ecclesiastical jurisdiction, nevertheless, they must certainly be regarded as excluded from occupying the throne of the Apostolic See, which is the infallible teacher of the truth of the faith and the center of ecclesiastical unity.”
This Canon Law sounds like the election of a heretic is void in the first place.
Billot — De Ecclesia, 1927“Given, therefore, the hypothesis of a pope who would become notoriously heretical, one must concede without hesitation that he would by that very fact lose the pontifical power, insofar as, having become an unbeliever, he would by his own will be cast outside the body of the Church.”
So what does "notoriously heretical" mean and "without hesitation". It doesn't sound like a declaration is necessary since he cast himself out.
St. Francis de Sales:“Now when the Pope is explicitly a heretic, he falls ipso facto from his dignity and out of the Church . . . ”
What does ipso facto mean? Would that mean without sentence?St. Robert Bellarmine:“A Pope who is a manifest heretic automatically ceases to be a Pope and head, just as he ceases automatically to be a Christian and a member of the Church. Wherefore, he can be judged and punished by the Church. This is the teaching of all the ancient Fathers who teach that manifest heretics immediately lose all jurisdiction.”
Automatically and immediately doesn't sound like a sentencing is necessary.St. Alphonsus Liguori:“If ever a Pope, as a private person, should fall into heresy, he should at once fall from the Pontificate. If, however, God were to permit a pope to become a notorious and contumacious heretic, he would by such fact cease to be pope, and the apostolic chair would be vacant.”
"Notorious and contumacious" heretic. Would this apply to the post VII popes? "At once" sounds like a sentencing isn't necessary. "As a private person" sounds like their heresy doesn't have to be "ex cathedra". Is that right?St. Antoninus:“In the case in which the Pope would become a heretic, he would find himself, by that very fact alone and without any other sentence, separated from the Church. A head separated from a body cannot, as long as it remains separated, be head of the same body from which it was cut off.”
Again, it sounds like a sentencing isn't necessary. ??
quotes taken from:
https://cmri.org/articles-on-the-traditional-catholic-faith/quotes-from-theologians-supporting-the-sedevacantist-position/
Topic: Benedict nearing death? (Read 11695 times)