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

Author Topic: Crux of the Pope Problem  (Read 8060 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline RomanTheo

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 327
  • Reputation: +164/-148
  • Gender: Male
Re: Crux of the Pope Problem
« Reply #60 on: May 06, 2018, 03:12:02 PM »
  • Thanks!1
  • No Thanks!0
  • RT, +Bellarmine is very precise and careful to set his arguments into context.  With your hodgepodge of unrelated and without citation quotes it is difficult to judge what you are trying to say. Are you working from your translation of the Latin, or could you cite an English translation and the translator?

    I have the Latin as well as multiple translations in English.  

    The following contains the quotations I cited, in context, taken from the English translation by Ryan Grant.  The portion I quoted previously is underlined:

    St. Robert Bellarmine, De Romano Pontifice: "The tenth argument. A Pope can be judged and deposed by the Church in the case of heresy; as is clear from Dist. 40, can. Si Papa: therefore, the Pontiff is subject to human judgment, at least in some case.
     
    "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.
     
    "Thus, the second opinion is that the Pope, in the very instant in which he falls into heresy, even if it is only interior, is outside the Church and deposed by God, for which reason he can be judged by the Church. That is, he is declared deposed by divine law, and deposed de facto, if he still refused to yield. This is of John de Turrecremata,320 but it is not proven to me. 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.
     
    "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."

    Offline Lighthouse

    • Full Member
    • ***
    • Posts: 872
    • Reputation: +580/-27
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Crux of the Pope Problem
    « Reply #61 on: May 06, 2018, 11:11:48 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!1
  • Aah, you quote the three factions that Bellarmine disagrees with. What is Bellarmine's opinion?


    Online Pax Vobis

    • Supporter
    • *****
    • Posts: 12399
    • Reputation: +7892/-2448
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Crux of the Pope Problem
    « Reply #62 on: May 07, 2018, 09:36:11 AM »
  • Thanks!1
  • No Thanks!0
  • +Bellarmine never says that an unorthodox pope loses ANY part of his office, ergo if one returns to orthodoxy, they could teach with authority.

    Offline Lighthouse

    • Full Member
    • ***
    • Posts: 872
    • Reputation: +580/-27
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Crux of the Pope Problem
    « Reply #63 on: May 07, 2018, 10:47:28 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!1
  • +Bellarmine never says that an unorthodox pope loses ANY part of his office, ergo if one returns to orthodoxy, they could teach with authority.
    Oh, sorry, but yes he does!  He says he favors the widely held teaching that some one cut off from the Church as a heretic would need to come back a layman, if he repented and wished to re-unite to the true Church.  I can get you the complete citation if you need it.

    Offline Lighthouse

    • Full Member
    • ***
    • Posts: 872
    • Reputation: +580/-27
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Crux of the Pope Problem
    « Reply #64 on: May 07, 2018, 11:01:36 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • DeTheo:

    "I have the Latin as well as multiple translations in English."

    The only English translation I am aware of is the recent Ryan Grant translation (2016).  Identify these "multiple translations" in English, if you please.


    Online Pax Vobis

    • Supporter
    • *****
    • Posts: 12399
    • Reputation: +7892/-2448
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Crux of the Pope Problem
    « Reply #65 on: May 08, 2018, 07:21:42 AM »
  • Thanks!2
  • No Thanks!0
  • Thr pope has not been declared nor charged with heresy so all of your arguments, which presume he has, are moot.  No one can charge or assume heresy against the pope except the Church.  This has not happened yet.  Therefore his office is fully intact, whether we like it or not.  

    Offline Ladislaus

    • Supporter
    • *****
    • Posts: 46902
    • Reputation: +27765/-5163
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Crux of the Pope Problem
    « Reply #66 on: May 08, 2018, 08:05:45 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!1
  • Thr pope has not been declared nor charged with heresy so all of your arguments, which presume he has, are moot.

    No, what's moot is the entire discussion about whether or not he's a heretic.  We know, however, that Vatican II and the New Mass did not proceed from free acts of a legitimate pope.  Whether you care to speculate that he had an illegitimate election, is a heretic, was being blackmailed, drugged, replaced by a double ... it doesn't matter.  All that matters is that if we believe that Vatican II and the New Mass displease God and seriously harm the Church, then we cannot, without heresy, say that they proceeded from the free acts of a legitimate pope.  THAT IS THE POINT OF THIS THREAD.

    Offline JPaul

    • Sr. Member
    • ****
    • Posts: 3832
    • Reputation: +3723/-293
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Crux of the Pope Problem
    « Reply #67 on: May 08, 2018, 10:27:03 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Thr pope has not been declared nor charged with heresy so all of your arguments, which presume he has, are moot.  No one can charge or assume heresy against the pope except the Church.  This has not happened yet.  Therefore his office is fully intact, whether we like it or not.  
    The question is why not? And whether his office remains intact is only because most men have not the courage to examine if it has been compromised, of course fearing the conclusion of an honest inquiry.


    Offline JPaul

    • Sr. Member
    • ****
    • Posts: 3832
    • Reputation: +3723/-293
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Crux of the Pope Problem
    « Reply #68 on: May 08, 2018, 10:31:05 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • No, what's moot is the entire discussion about whether or not he's a heretic.  We know, however, that Vatican II and the New Mass did not proceed from free acts of a legitimate pope.  Whether you care to speculate that he had an illegitimate election, is a heretic, was being blackmailed, drugged, replaced by a double ... it doesn't matter.  All that matters is that if we believe that Vatican II and the New Mass displease God and seriously harm the Church, then we cannot, without heresy, say that they proceeded from the free acts of a legitimate pope.  THAT IS THE POINT OF THIS THREAD.
    Vatican II is not a work of the Catholic Church, the Novus Ordo is not a work of the Catholic Church.  Those who deny it, lack a proper sense of the Catholic Faith.  You are right.

    Offline JPaul

    • Sr. Member
    • ****
    • Posts: 3832
    • Reputation: +3723/-293
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Crux of the Pope Problem
    « Reply #69 on: May 08, 2018, 10:35:19 AM »
  • Thanks!1
  • No Thanks!3
  • Once again, through all the endlessly repetitive arguments, we see that the entire debate boils down to one issue:

    The R&Rers do not believe that faith is necessary for a pope to be head of the Church just as they don’t believe faith is necessary to be “in” the Church for salvation, and FOR THE SAME UNDERLYING REASON.

    If the tribesman in the remote Amazon jungle or the good Muslim   can get to Heaven without the Catholic faith, then a man can be Pope without the Catholic faith: they fundamentally misunderstand the nature of the Ark of Salvation and the essential role that faith plays in her.
    This is really the point.!  Therfore they do not hold the Catholic Faith whole and unaltered.   Bottom line!

    Offline RomanTheo

    • Jr. Member
    • **
    • Posts: 327
    • Reputation: +164/-148
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Crux of the Pope Problem
    « Reply #70 on: May 08, 2018, 04:26:41 PM »
  • Thanks!2
  • No Thanks!0
  • Once again, through all the endlessly repetitive arguments, we see that the entire debate boils down to one issue: 

    The R&Rers do not believe that faith is necessary for a pope to be head of the Church just as they don’t believe faith is necessary to be “in” the Church for salvation, and FOR THE SAME UNDERLYING REASON.

    If the tribesman in the remote Amazon jungle or the good Muslim  can get to Heaven without the Catholic faith, then a man can be Pope without the Catholic faith: they fundamentally misunderstand the nature of the Ark of Salvation and the essential role that faith plays in her.

    The fundamental misunderstanding is on your part.

    Supernatural faith is necessary for salvation, as is supernatural hope and charity, but neither faith, hope or charity are necessary for a pope to be head of the Church.
     
    What is necessary to obtain salvation in the Church is not the same as what is necessary to validly hold office in the Church and to possess spiritual jurisdiction. The Church Militant is a visible, juridical society.  To validly acquire an ecclesiastical office, it suffices that the person be united to the Church by an external union.  This explains why Bellarmine wrote the following:
     
    “It is certain, whatever one or another might think, a secret heretic, if he might be a Bishop, or even the Supreme Pontiff, does not lose jurisdiction, nor dignity, or the name of the head in the Church, until either he separates himself publicly from the Church, or being convicted of heresy, is separated against his will." (Bellarmine, De Ecclesia Militante, ch. 10)
     
    A secret heretic lacks all supernatural faith, yet Bellarmine says it is "certain" that a pope or bishop who is a secret heretic retains his office and jurisdiction, until he either publicly separates himself from the Church, or is separated against his will.  Why is this so? Because these are the only two ways external union with the Church is severed.

    If you disagree with Bellarmine, please explain why he is wrong.


    Offline Ladislaus

    • Supporter
    • *****
    • Posts: 46902
    • Reputation: +27765/-5163
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Crux of the Pope Problem
    « Reply #71 on: May 08, 2018, 05:03:36 PM »
  • Thanks!1
  • No Thanks!1
  • The fundamental misunderstanding is on your part.

    Agreed.  There was a conflation in that post between the supernatural virtue of faith and the external profession of faith.

    Offline RomanTheo

    • Jr. Member
    • **
    • Posts: 327
    • Reputation: +164/-148
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Crux of the Pope Problem
    « Reply #72 on: May 08, 2018, 07:56:18 PM »
  • Thanks!1
  • No Thanks!0
  • Aah, you quote the three factions that Bellarmine disagrees with. What is Bellarmine's opinion?

    He disagreed with two of the three opinions.  And his refutation of the two opinion with which he disagreed just so happens to be a refutation of what virtually all sedevacatitsts believe.

    What is Bellarmine's opinion?   There are two ways to seek to understand his opinion concerning how a heretic pope loses his office. One ways is to focus on a portion of what he wrote in one chapter of a book, such as his commentary on the 4th and 5th opinions in chapter 30 of De Romano Pontifice.  The other way is to read everything he wrote that relates to the question (or at least everything you can find).  If you take the first approach, chances are you will misunderstand his position.  If you take the second approach, this is what you will find.
     
    1       Bellarmine believed it was certain that heresy, and the consequent loss of faith, does not cause a pope to lose his office or jurisdiction.
     
    2        He believed if a pope is suspected of heresy (i.e., not already known to be a “manifest heretic”)  the bishops can call at a council to consider the matter.
     
    3       He believed Cajetan was correct in saying an imperfect council could be legitimately called to consider the case of a pope who was suspected of heresy (as well as several other reasons he mentions.
     
    4        He taught that if the bishops at the council are able to “clearly prove” the pope is a heretic, they can depose him.  Even if he is not truly a heretic, as long as he is considered to be a heretic by their judgment, they can strip him of his pontifical dignity, or “abrogate his pontificate.” 
     
    5     He believed a council is permitted to determine the fact heresy, because heresy is the one case in which it is permitted for inferiors to judge superiors.  Yet even in the case of heresy, the Church does not possess any coercive power over the pope, and therefore cannot truly judge or punish him.
     
    6        Concerning the question of deposing a pope.  Bellarmine rightly teaches the Church cannot depose a pope authoritatively, since the pope has not superior on earth. Nor, he says, does the Church possess authority over the bond that unites the person of the pope to the pontificate.  In deposing a pope, the Church merely determines the fact that the pope has separated himself from the Church, and then it legitimately" deposes" him by declaring him deposed.
     
    7        Bellarmine did not believe that a public act of apostasy necessarily separates a pope from the Church.  Nor did he believe bishops who were deceived by a heretic, and as a result subscribed to a heretical proposition, are, by that fact alone, a “manifest heretics”.  He believed bishops can embrace heresy and then decree that an orthodox term, which had just been defined by a general council to refute the heresy they embraced, “must be abolished” without being considered “manifest heretics”.   
     
    8        Bellarmine believed that unless a pope is legitimately deposed, or declared not to be pope, the faithful are not free from the obedience owed to him, and therefore must obey all his licit commands. 
     
    9    Bellarmine believed that subjection to the pope is necessary for salvation.

    Offline Mithrandylan

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 4619
    • Reputation: +5366/-479
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Crux of the Pope Problem
    « Reply #73 on: May 08, 2018, 08:50:37 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • RomanTheo,

    Bellarmine's argument for why an "heretical pope" can be deposed is that he isn't pope.

    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 creases 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 omanifest heretics lose all jurisdiction... the foudnation 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" (trans. Grant, pp. 316-17).
    .
    I'm not sure if I understand you correctly in your first point.  Not only does Bellarmine support the deposition of an heretical anti-pope, the proofs that he offers for him having lost the papacy are all intimately consequent from the rest of "his" doctrine of membership (internal and external union, the union of secret heretics and catechumens, etc), as established late in The Controversies.  He's not just summarizing what others think here, he's making his case using proofs that he himself crystallized.
    .
    ETA: perhaps by your first point you simply meant that Bellarmine did not think that a loss of supernatural faith due to an internal or secret heresy severed a pope from the Church.  In that case, you would of course be correct.  But I took your use of the word "heresy" to be referring to the relevant sense (manifest).
    "Be kind; do not seek the malicious satisfaction of having discovered an additional enemy to the Church... And, above all, be scrupulously truthful. To all, friends and foes alike, give that serious attention which does not misrepresent any opinion, does not distort any statement, does not mutilate any quotation. We need not fear to serve the cause of Christ less efficiently by putting on His spirit". (Vermeersch, 1913).

    Offline Cantarella

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 7782
    • Reputation: +4579/-579
    • Gender: Female
    Re: Crux of the Pope Problem
    « Reply #74 on: May 08, 2018, 10:31:48 PM »
  • Thanks!1
  • No Thanks!2

  • 8        Bellarmine believed that unless a pope is legitimately deposed, or declared not to be pope, the faithful are not free from the obedience owed to him, and therefore must obey all his licit commands.  

    There is a very interesting quote of Bellarmine:

    Quote
    “It is true that the people should discern the true prophet from the false, but not by any other rule than the following: Observe carefully if what he teaches is contrary to what his predecessors have said, or that which is said by other pastors, ordinaries, and above all the Apostolic See and the principal Church; for it is commanded that the people should listen to their pastors: Luke X: He who listens to you listens to me; and Matt. XXIII, do that which they tell you to do. The people ought not to judge their pastors except when they introduce innovations or doctrines which are in disagreement with those of the other pastors.”

     “Moreover, it is necessary to observe that the people can clearly discriminate, by the rule that we have given, between true and false prophets. But for all that they cannot depose of a false pastor if he is a bishop and substitute another in his place. For the Lord and Apostle only commanded that false prophets not be listened to by the people; but not that the people should depose them. It has always been the practice of the Church to depose heretical bishops by councils of bishops or by an act of the sovereign pontiffs.”

    Granted, this quote does not refer explicitly to the Pope; but Bellarmine clearly distinguishes here between an act of Authority (considered formally) and a mere material occupation of office, which is what Sedeprivationism proposes. The pastor who teaches something contrary to what has always been taught by the Church, has lost all Authority by this very fact and people should stop listening to him, even though they have not the actual power to depose him.

    Using the Principle of Non-Contradiction, Catholics are able to judge that a contradiction does exist, then they can refuse to continue listening to the false pastor. If the false pastor has not been deposed by competent authority, he still occupies his office materially in the meantime until such deposition occurs; however, he has lost all Authority on account of his heretical teaching. This is foundational in the Thesis of Cassisiacuм.

    If anyone says that true and natural water is not necessary for baptism and thus twists into some metaphor the words of our Lord Jesus Christ" Unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Spirit" (Jn 3:5) let him be anathema.