Author Topic: Definitive Refutation of Sede Use of "cuм Ex Apostolatus" (Read 4224 times)

Pyrrhos · « **Reply #30 on:** October 05, 2011, 10:36:37 AM »

Quote from: SJB

Who are these theologians?

Dear Sir,

I think I can help there with an excerpt of "De Membris Ecclesiae" by Fr. Fraghi OP, Rome 1937, pag. 90f

Caminus · « **Reply #31 on:** October 05, 2011, 10:52:52 PM »

Quote from: SJB

Quote from: Caminus
Quote
Law enforcement is NOT a court. They operate on entirely different planes. When a suspect is released, he's not found "not guilty," he's released because there are no actual charges brought against him.

Law enforcement is an integral part of the executive branch of civil authority. It is immaterial that it serves in a different capacity within the legal justice system. The point is that legal guilt in the external forum is presumed in civil law exactly as it is presumed in canon law. He may be found "not guilty" i.e. not factually guilty or the State simply could not carry its burden of proof, but the fact that he stands in court presupposes that he faces charges brought against him by the State. It would be both absurd and unjust to be arrested without the basis of a legal presumption of guilt regarding the external violation of a law. Otherwise, no one could be arrested and charged in the first place; no court could issue a warrant for the arrest of an individual based upon probable cause.

Yes, and you ignore the point of my previous post:

Yes, EXTERNALLY manifested. It is an important point because you continually say we don't know the internal disposition. If the sin (heresy) is externally manifested, it becomes a crime. If the pertinacity (obstinate will) is externally manifested, the man can be seen as a heretic. This in no way implies a call for rash judgment.

And you ignore the point of my post which was simply to show that the statement "guilt (or malice) is presumed in the external forum" is irrelevant to the question of membership in the Church or one's official status therein. As an aside, the question of pertinacity necessarily involves the idea of a conflict with some authority -- this is what gives heresy its formality, it is found in the will, a will that refuses to obey the proximate rule of faith as taught concretely by the magisterium. Thus if authority does not check the heretic, he remains a member of the Church, albeit a dead member, a mere legal fact.

SJB · « **Reply #32 on:** October 06, 2011, 08:23:34 AM »

Quote from: Caminus

Quote from: SJB
Quote from: Caminus
Quote
Law enforcement is NOT a court. They operate on entirely different planes. When a suspect is released, he's not found "not guilty," he's released because there are no actual charges brought against him.

Law enforcement is an integral part of the executive branch of civil authority. It is immaterial that it serves in a different capacity within the legal justice system. The point is that legal guilt in the external forum is presumed in civil law exactly as it is presumed in canon law. He may be found "not guilty" i.e. not factually guilty or the State simply could not carry its burden of proof, but the fact that he stands in court presupposes that he faces charges brought against him by the State. It would be both absurd and unjust to be arrested without the basis of a legal presumption of guilt regarding the external violation of a law. Otherwise, no one could be arrested and charged in the first place; no court could issue a warrant for the arrest of an individual based upon probable cause.

Yes, and you ignore the point of my previous post:

Yes, EXTERNALLY manifested. It is an important point because you continually say we don't know the internal disposition. If the sin (heresy) is externally manifested, it becomes a crime. If the pertinacity (obstinate will) is externally manifested, the man can be seen as a heretic. This in no way implies a call for rash judgment.

And you ignore the point of my post which was simply to show that the statement "guilt (or malice) is presumed in the external forum" is irrelevant to the question of membership in the Church or one's official status therein. As an aside, the question of pertinacity necessarily involves the idea of a conflict with some authority -- this is what gives heresy its formality, it is found in the will, a will that refuses to obey the proximate rule of faith as taught concretely by the magisterium. Thus if authority does not check the heretic, he remains a member of the Church, albeit a dead member, a mere legal fact.

Except this is at odds with the very definition of heresy and ipso facto excommunication.

Also, I only state the obvious because you continually say we don't know the internal disposition.

SJB · « **Reply #33 on:** October 06, 2011, 08:38:21 AM »

Quote from: Woywod, Commentary

TITLE IV.

Definition, Species, Interpretation and Application of Penalties.

1499. An ecclesiastical penalty is the privation of some good, inflicted by the legitimate authority on the delinquent for his correction and for punishment of the offence. (Canon 2215.)

1500. There are three kinds of penalties in the Church:

(1) The so-called corrective punishments or censures; (2) punitive penalties ; (3) penal remedies and penances. (Canon 2216.)

1501. A penalty is called:

1. Determined, when the precise nature of it is specified in a law or precept; undetermined, if the law, in either perceptive or facultative terms, leaves the determination of the penalty to the good judgment of judge or superior;

2. Latae sententiae, if a specified penalty is attached to a law or a precept in such a manner that it is incurred by the very commission of the crime; ferendae sententiae, if the judge or superior is instructed to inflict a certain penalty;

3. A jure, if the penalty is specified in the law itself, as either latae or ferendae sententiae; ab homine, if a penalty is inflicted by means of a special precept or condemnatory sentence of a judge, though the punishment is prescribed in law ; wherefore a penalty ferendae sententiae attached to a law is a jure tantum before the condemnatory sentence, after the sentence it is both a jure and ab homine but is considered as ab homine. A penalty is always understood to be ferendae sententiae, unless the law explicitly states that it is latae sententiae, or that it is incurred ipso facto, or ipso jure, or if other similar terms are employed. (Canon 2217.)

Caminus · « **Reply #34 on:** October 06, 2011, 09:31:34 AM »

SJB, these irrelevant posts are becoming tiresome. It's okay to admit that you've been defeated and move on.

SJB · « **Reply #35 on:** October 06, 2011, 11:47:58 AM »

Quote from: Caminus

SJB, these irrelevant posts are becoming tiresome. It's okay to admit that you've been defeated and move on.

This is what you need to do, admit you are wrong. :rolleyes:

LordPhan · « **Reply #36 on:** October 06, 2011, 12:38:59 PM »

3. A jure, if the penalty is specified in the law itself, as either latae or ferendae sententiae; ab homine, if a penalty is inflicted by means of a special precept or condemnatory sentence of a judge, though the punishment is prescribed in law ; wherefore a penalty ferendae sententiae attached to a law is a jure tantum before the condemnatory sentence, after the sentence it is both a jure and ab homine but is considered as ab homine. A penalty is always understood to be ferendae sententiae, unless the law explicitly states that it is latae sententiae, or that it is incurred ipso facto, or ipso jure, or if other similar terms are employed. (Canon 2217.)

You just proved Caminus correct, ferendae means you need a judge to determine.

SJB · « **Reply #37 on:** October 06, 2011, 01:11:21 PM »

Quote from: LordPhan

3. A jure, if the penalty is specified in the law itself, as either latae or ferendae sententiae; ab homine, if a penalty is inflicted by means of a special precept or condemnatory sentence of a judge, though the punishment is prescribed in law ; wherefore a penalty ferendae sententiae attached to a law is a jure tantum before the condemnatory sentence, after the sentence it is both a jure and ab homine but is considered as ab homine. A penalty is always understood to be ferendae sententiae, unless the law explicitly states that it is latae sententiae, or that it is incurred ipso facto, or ipso jure, or if other similar terms are employed. (Canon 2217.)

You just proved Caminus correct, ferendae means you need a judge to determine.

Heresy is a latae sententiae excommunication.

Caminus · « **Reply #38 on:** October 06, 2011, 01:17:47 PM »

And who determines that legal fact? And how is pertinacity manifested in the external forum?

trad123 · « **Reply #39 on:** October 06, 2011, 01:20:46 PM »

Quote

A penalty is always understood to be ferendae sententiae, unless the law explicitly states that it is latae sententiae, or that it is incurred ipso facto, or ipso jure, or if other similar terms are employed.

Latae sententiae, ipso facto, or ipso jure are different ways of stating the same thing, right?

A public heretic, by the very fact of public heresy, is cut off from membership to the Church, like a branch cut off from a tree.

trad123 · « **Reply #40 on:** October 06, 2011, 02:50:00 PM »

Quote from: Caminus

And who determines that legal fact?

Any Catholic can, but it binds only their conscience, and not that of other Catholics, in the absence of a judgement from ecclesiastical authority.

Quote from: Caminus

And how is pertinacity manifested in the external forum?

When a man certainly knows the faith, but opposes it anyway.

trad123 · « **Reply #41 on:** October 06, 2011, 02:57:40 PM »

It's not required that a person join a heretical sect for pertinacity to be publicly manifested, a denial of a de fide teaching, knowingly, is sufficient.

SJB · « **Reply #42 on:** October 07, 2011, 08:40:06 AM »

Quote from: SJB

Quote from: LordPhan
3. A jure, if the penalty is specified in the law itself, as either latae or ferendae sententiae; ab homine, if a penalty is inflicted by means of a special precept or condemnatory sentence of a judge, though the punishment is prescribed in law ; wherefore a penalty ferendae sententiae attached to a law is a jure tantum before the condemnatory sentence, after the sentence it is both a jure and ab homine but is considered as ab homine. A penalty is always understood to be ferendae sententiae, unless the law explicitly states that it is latae sententiae, or that it is incurred ipso facto, or ipso jure, or if other similar terms are employed. (Canon 2217.)

You just proved Caminus correct, ferendae means you need a judge to determine.

Heresy is a latae sententiae excommunication.

LordPhan, you misunderstand Caminus' argument.

His argument, wrongly I think, says that the ipso facto excommunication does not take place with the commission of the crime, but only after a competent authority declares it. This is contrary to the very definition of heresy and ipso facto excommunication.

Quote from: Woywod

2. Latae sententiae, if a specified penalty is attached to a law or a precept in such a manner that it is incurred by the very commission of the crime; ferendae sententiae, if the judge or superior is instructed to inflict a certain penalty;

Caminus · « **Reply #43 on:** October 07, 2011, 10:54:00 AM »

No, SJB, you misunderstand my point completely. I'm aware of what "ipso facto" means.

LordPhan · « **Reply #44 on:** October 07, 2011, 02:04:20 PM »

I misunderstood nothing, The Ipso Facto takes place on an internal level which will prevent him from salvation, but the external cannot be declared without a superior to determine it. That is how the law of the church has always proceeded. You a layman cannot declare a Priest to be a heretic, you can report your suspicions to the Bishop who can try him according to the processes that have always been in determining and judging him to be so.

Now you based on your suspicions may decide he is a threat to your salvation, or that he has doubtful sacrement, epikea can be invoked whenever there is a threat to your salvation or a threat to the faith as that is what all the laws are meant for. The spirit of the law takes precedent in the Catholic Church as opposed to the letter in the secular realm. Also a doubful sacrement is not to be taken. It can't be doubtful on a 'what if' scenario, it has to be doubtful based on facts you know. In that case you must refuse the doubtful sacrements and may seek them elsewhere where you know they are valid.