Catholic Info
Traditional Catholic Faith => Crisis in the Church => Topic started by: Ad Jesum per Mariam on October 06, 2013, 10:35:52 PM
-
1917 Code of Canon Law
Canon 2227.2:
Unless expressly named, Cardinals of the H.R.C. are not included under penal law, nor are Bishops [liable] to the penalty of automatic suspension and interdict.[/b]
Let's talk.
-
Suspension is entirely different than automatic excommunication. I don't see that there is much to talk about.
-
Suspension is entirely different than automatic excommunication. I don't see that there is much to talk about.
So a bishop is not subject to automatic suspension (unless expressly named) but a Pope can be subject to a much harsher penalty of automatic excommunication? Please explain.
Also please explain how a Cardinal is not under penal law (unless expressly named), but a Pope is.
-
Mabel, I am also assuming you mean "banned excommunicate" when you say automatic excommunication. Canon Law speaks also of "tolerated excommunicates." Tolerated excommunicates are not suspended from many of their duties.
-
Suspension is a mechanism which the authorities of Church might use for a disciplinary measure, same with interdict. If you are suspended or put under interdict, you may be permitted to do certain things, it isn't the same as excommunication and it doesn't mean you have severed yourself from membership in the Church.
Excommunication, formal and automatic break that bond. An excommunicate is not a member of the Church, nor is he a Catholic.
Have you read this? It is on the loss of offices, since I assume that is what you are getting at.
http://strobertbellarmine.net/offices.html
The second link is Bellarmine, from De Romano Pontifice
http://strobertbellarmine.net/bellarm.htm
I think both are worth brushing up on, if you've read them already.
-
I'm not sure in which context the quote defines penal law, I'd have to have a commentary handy to understand it better.
-
Suspension is a mechanism which the authorities of Church might use for a disciplinary measure, same with interdict. If you are suspended or put under interdict, you may be permitted to do certain things, it isn't the same as excommunication and it doesn't mean you have severed yourself from membership in the Church.
Excommunication, formal and automatic break that bond. An excommunicate is not a member of the Church, nor is he a Catholic.
Mabel, please read your Canon Law. It speaks of both tolerated and banned excommunicates. That is why I correctly assumed that you referred to a banned excommunicate in your reply. A tolerated excommunicate still performs certain functions in the Church, while one who is suspended can be suspended from all functions. You still have not addressed the heart of my questions.
How can a bishop not be subject to automatic suspension (which does not entail a loss of office), yet a Pope be subject to an automatic penalty such as banned excommunication?
Why is the Pope under penal law and not a Cardinal?
-
1917 Code of Canon Law
Canon 2227.2:
Unless expressly named, Cardinals of the H.R.C. are not included under penal law, nor are Bishops [liable] to the penalty of automatic suspension and interdict.[/b]
Let's talk.
The answer to the question on the thread is yes it does.
Canon 188:
Any office becomes vacant upon the fact and without any declaration by tacit resignation recognized by the law itself if a cleric:
4.° Publicly defects from the Catholic faith
But more importantly Divine Law supports it.
A non Catholic cannot be the unifying head of the Catholic Church. You either have to claim bergi does not teach heresy publically or that Popes can teach public heresy, and maintain a heretical council and canon law in existence, along with doubtful and invalid sacraments.
You can do that but not me.
Not those protect their souls by fleeing the heretic, not acknowledging him to be the head of their Church.
What purpose does a "Pope" serve if he can contradict the faith and destroy the Church? Did Christ build His Church upon a mere figure head who should be ignored and disobeyed in order to stay Catholic and avoid damnation?
I would tend to doubt it. And that is intended to be sarcastic. I believe the answer to these questions are obvious.
To accept the contrary means Christ built his Church upon a paper tiger. "There's our guy, see, he dresses like a Pope doesn't he? How nice."
-
1917 Code of Canon Law
Canon 2227.2:
Unless expressly named, Cardinals of the H.R.C. are not included under penal law, nor are Bishops [liable] to the penalty of automatic suspension and interdict.[/b]
Let's talk.
The answer to the question on the thread is yes it does.
Canon 188:
Any office becomes vacant upon the fact and without any declaration by tacit resignation recognized by the law itself if a cleric:
4.° Publicly defects from the Catholic faith
But more importantly Divine Law supports it.
A non Catholic cannot be the unifying head of the Catholic Church. You either have to claim bergi does not teach heresy publically or that Popes can teach public heresy, and maintain a heretical council and canon law in existence, along with doubtful and invalid sacraments.
You can do that but not me.
Not those protect their souls by fleeing the heretic, not acknowledging him to be the head of their Church.
What purpose does a "Pope" serve if he can contradict the faith and destroy the Church? Did Christ build His Church upon a mere figure head who should be ignored and disobeyed in order to stay Catholic and avoid damnation?
I would tend to doubt it. And that is intended to be sarcastic. I believe the answer to these questions are obvious.
To accept the contrary means Christ built his Church upon a paper tiger. "There's our guy, see, he dresses like a Pope doesn't he? How nice."
Canon 188.4 pertains to an automatic penalty. Bishops and Cardinals must be expressly named to fall under Canon 188.4, how much more a Pope. Individual laymen and clerics have no authority in this regard.
Canon 2220.1:
Whoever has the power of opposing laws or precepts can also attach penalties to a law or precept, but one who only [has] judicial [power] can only apply penalties legitimately established according to the norm of the law.
You and I nor your favorite sedevacantist priest and bishop has the judicial power to apply an automatic penalty to a Pope. The Pope must be judged with a formal judgment in order to apply an automatic penalty. The First See is judged by no one (Canon 1556). Canon Law can not be read in a box, like protestants read Scripture.
Also, whether it be Divine or Ecclesiastical Law, if it entails an automatic penalty, it must be applied by one with judicial power.
As far as teaching heresy publically, you are being mislead. Popes have taught or allowed heresy publically, yet remained Pope. Pope Liberius, Pope John XXII, Pope Honorius I come to mind immediately. The scribes and the Pharisees were blatanly heretical (teaching commandments of men) yet Jesus did not depose them. Unity is obtained by standing fast and holding the traditions, not by claiming judicial power for yourself. By standing fast and holding the traditions (in a crisis), the heretics create a schism. By applying penalties to superiors we have many schisms.
-
1917 Code of Canon Law
Canon 2227.2:
Unless expressly named, Cardinals of the H.R.C. are not included under penal law, nor are Bishops [liable] to the penalty of automatic suspension and interdict.[/b]
Let's talk.
The answer to the question on the thread is yes it does.
Canon 188:
Any office becomes vacant upon the fact and without any declaration by tacit resignation recognized by the law itself if a cleric:
4.° Publicly defects from the Catholic faith
But more importantly Divine Law supports it.
A non Catholic cannot be the unifying head of the Catholic Church. You either have to claim bergi does not teach heresy publically or that Popes can teach public heresy, and maintain a heretical council and canon law in existence, along with doubtful and invalid sacraments.
You can do that but not me.
Not those protect their souls by fleeing the heretic, not acknowledging him to be the head of their Church.
What purpose does a "Pope" serve if he can contradict the faith and destroy the Church? Did Christ build His Church upon a mere figure head who should be ignored and disobeyed in order to stay Catholic and avoid damnation?
I would tend to doubt it. And that is intended to be sarcastic. I believe the answer to these questions are obvious.
To accept the contrary means Christ built his Church upon a paper tiger. "There's our guy, see, he dresses like a Pope doesn't he? How nice."
Canon 188.4 pertains to an automatic penalty. Bishops and Cardinals must be expressly named to fall under Canon 188.4, how much more a Pope. Individual laymen and clerics have no authority in this regard.
Canon 2220.1:
Whoever has the power of opposing laws or precepts can also attach penalties to a law or precept, but one who only [has] judicial [power] can only apply penalties legitimately established according to the norm of the law.
You and I nor your favorite sedevacantist priest and bishop has the judicial power to apply an automatic penalty to a Pope. The Pope must be judged with a formal judgment in order to apply an automatic penalty. The First See is judged by no one (Canon 1556). Canon Law can not be read in a box, like protestants read Scripture.
Also, whether it be Divine or Ecclesiastical Law, if it entails an automatic penalty, it must be applied by one with judicial power.
As far as teaching heresy publically, you are being mislead. Popes have taught or allowed heresy publically, yet remained Pope. Pope Liberius, Pope John XXII, Pope Honorius I come to mind immediately. The scribes and the Pharisees were blatanly heretical (teaching commandments of men) yet Jesus did not depose them. Unity is obtained by standing fast and holding the traditions, not by claiming judicial power for yourself. By standing fast and holding the traditions (in a crisis), the heretics create a schism. By applying penalties to superiors we have many schisms.
This is your misinterpretation, have you read Bellarmine? When pope becomes a heretic he automatically loses his office and can do so prior to a formal judgement. He deposes himself by adopting heresy.
-
Objection 1.
Canon 2314 states:
All apostates from the Christian Faith and each and every heretic or schismatic:
i. Incur ipso facto excommunication;
ii. Unless they come to their senses when warned, are to be deprived of any benefice, dignity, pension, office or other function they may have in the Church, are to be declared infamous, and in the case of clerics, after a second warning, are to be deposed;
iii. If they have joined or publicly adhered to a non-Catholic sect they are ipso facto infamous and, canon 188 §4 remaining firm, if clerics, after a previous warning has proved fruitless, are to be degraded.
Absolution from the excommunication referred to in §1, to be imparted in the forum of conscience, is reserved speciali modo to the Apostolic See.
If, however, the delict of apostasy, heresy or schism shall be in any way brought before the external forum of the local Ordinary, even by voluntary confession, the said Ordinary - but not the Vicar General without a special mandate - can absolve the penitent by his own authority in the exterior forum after previous abjuration juridically made and the observance of whatever else the law requires; and the one thus absolved can thereupon be absolved of the sin by any confessor in the forum of conscience. Abjuration is considered to have been juridically made when it takes place in the presence of the local Ordinary or his delegate and at least two witnesses.
This canon would appear to directly contradict Canon 188 §4, which states: "By tacit resignation, accepted by the law itself, all offices become vacant ipso facto and without any declaration if a cleric... publicly defects from the Catholic Faith." (Emphasis added). In other words, it is objected that Canon 2314 implies that offices are retained until after a public judgement.
Answer to Objection 1.
This assertion is evidently absurd. What is immediately obvious is that Canon 188 is in the section of the Code dealing with offices, and it defines the ways in which a cleric resigns an office automatically. Canon 2314, however, is in the section of the code dealing with penalties, which are of course punishments. Canon 188 merely recognises a fact which already exists - that an office has been resigned by its incuмbent and is therefore now vacant. Therefore there is no contradiction at all between the two canons.
In addition, notice carefully the respective wording of the two canons. Canon 188 states that if a cleric publicly defects from the Catholic faith he loses any offices he may possess. Canon 2314 relates to "all apostates from the Christian Faith and each and every heretic or schismatic." Hence it can be seen that even heretics whose crime is not public are to be warned and then deposed if their heresy is discovered. This is because while heresy that is not public does not destroy the bond of faith joining the person to Holy Church, it is evidently not to be tolerated on account of its gravely sinful nature and the danger that heretics pose to others. So, while heresy remains private it does not produce the automatic loss of offices, but when it is made public it does. As Charles Augustine has commented: "Defection from the Catholic faith, if public, deprives one of all ecclesiastical offices he may hold…"27 (Emphasis added).
Canon 2314, §1, n.3 explicitly states that public adherence to, or membership in, a sect produces the effects prescribed by Canon 188, §4. Other public heresy does likewise, but it would not automatically result in the censure of infamy, since this is only prescribed for the particular crime of adhering to or joining a non-Catholic sect.
http://strobertbellarmine.net/offices.html
-
1917 Code of Canon Law
Canon 2227.2:
Unless expressly named, Cardinals of the H.R.C. are not included under penal law, nor are Bishops [liable] to the penalty of automatic suspension and interdict.[/b]
Let's talk.
The answer to the question on the thread is yes it does.
Canon 188:
Any office becomes vacant upon the fact and without any declaration by tacit resignation recognized by the law itself if a cleric:
4.° Publicly defects from the Catholic faith
But more importantly Divine Law supports it.
A non Catholic cannot be the unifying head of the Catholic Church. You either have to claim bergi does not teach heresy publically or that Popes can teach public heresy, and maintain a heretical council and canon law in existence, along with doubtful and invalid sacraments.
You can do that but not me.
Not those protect their souls by fleeing the heretic, not acknowledging him to be the head of their Church.
What purpose does a "Pope" serve if he can contradict the faith and destroy the Church? Did Christ build His Church upon a mere figure head who should be ignored and disobeyed in order to stay Catholic and avoid damnation?
I would tend to doubt it. And that is intended to be sarcastic. I believe the answer to these questions are obvious.
To accept the contrary means Christ built his Church upon a paper tiger. "There's our guy, see, he dresses like a Pope doesn't he? How nice."
Canon 188.4 pertains to an automatic penalty. Bishops and Cardinals must be expressly named to fall under Canon 188.4, how much more a Pope. Individual laymen and clerics have no authority in this regard.
Canon 2220.1:
Whoever has the power of opposing laws or precepts can also attach penalties to a law or precept, but one who only [has] judicial [power] can only apply penalties legitimately established according to the norm of the law.
You and I nor your favorite sedevacantist priest and bishop has the judicial power to apply an automatic penalty to a Pope. The Pope must be judged with a formal judgment in order to apply an automatic penalty. The First See is judged by no one (Canon 1556). Canon Law can not be read in a box, like protestants read Scripture.
Also, whether it be Divine or Ecclesiastical Law, if it entails an automatic penalty, it must be applied by one with judicial power.
As far as teaching heresy publically, you are being mislead. Popes have taught or allowed heresy publically, yet remained Pope. Pope Liberius, Pope John XXII, Pope Honorius I come to mind immediately. The scribes and the Pharisees were blatanly heretical (teaching commandments of men) yet Jesus did not depose them. Unity is obtained by standing fast and holding the traditions, not by claiming judicial power for yourself. By standing fast and holding the traditions (in a crisis), the heretics create a schism. By applying penalties to superiors we have many schisms.
This is your misinterpretation, have you read Bellarmine? When pope becomes a heretic he automatically loses his office and can do so prior to a formal judgement. He deposes himself by adopting heresy.
This is not a misinterpretation. It is not that automatic penalties do not exist, and heretics do not depose themselves. The penalties are just not applied in real time by individual laypersons and clergy etc. who lack the proper authority to do so. This is unheard of in the Church[/u]. The penalty must be applied by proper authority, at which time it is decided when the heretical activity began. The heretical prelate is then deposed retroactively from the time of the first offense. Any promulgations, decrees etc. that he made from that time would have no force. As for us, we are under no obligation to follow a wayward Pope who commands us to abandon our Catholic faith, just as St. Athanasius refused to abandon the faith and was excommunicated by Pope Liberius for it. Pope Liberius after initially resisting the Arian heresy, eventually "made peace" with the Arians. By the way, only one Pope out of the first 49 Catholic Popes was not made a saint. Pope Liberius was that Pope. By usrping authority unlawfully, Sedevacantists and others who unlawfully apply penalties (such as Conclavists) make a bad problem worse, and create more schism.
-
I think a more basic question is, does canon law even envision sedevacantism?
-
I think a more basic question is, does canon law even envision sedevacantism?
Canon law does not envision Sedevacantism, because it is a false doctrine. The Church does not feed her children poison. Individual laypeople and clergy have no authority to apply penalties to a Bishop, Cardinal or Pope.
-
1917 Code of Canon Law
Canon 2227.2:
Unless expressly named, Cardinals of the H.R.C. are not included under penal law, nor are Bishops [liable] to the penalty of automatic suspension and interdict.[/b]
Let's talk.
Okay. Let's talk.
You are mistaken here.
The Supreme Pontiff is above the Sacred Canons, as he has the plenitude of jurisdiction over the entire Church, reigning supremely and unquestionably upon individuals singly as well as groups (be it Religious Orders or Institutes, Confraternities, Dioceses, &c.). It is not logical, therefore, to use Canon Law to address the matter of sedevacantism.
The more cogent of the sedevacantists do not base their views on Canon Law alone, but rather on the principles of divine and positive law that animate the Sacred Canons.
-
One argument advanced against the sedevacantists that is pertinent to this thread is that the Apostolic Constitution of Pope Paul IV cuм ex apostolatus (15 February 1559) was abrogated by the new Code of Canon Law promulgated by Pope Benedict XV. This argument is fallacious.
Before we move on, note that it is precisely because we all are bereft of any authority or competence in these matters that we cannot but present our notes and observations as private individuals, and the merit of what we present is contingent on the weight of the sources from whence we derive and wherewith we substantiate our notions and perspectives.
The principles of divine positive law whereby the Apostolic Constitution of Pope Paul IV cuм ex apostolatus (15 February 1559; Codicis Iuris Canonic Fontes, Vol. I Concilia Generalia - Romani Pontifices usque ad annum 1745, (Romae: Typis Polyglottis Vaticanis, 1947), Pt. II, no. 94) declared that heretics cannot be not fit subjects for the office of Supreme Pontiff have nothing to do with the abrogation of the ecclesiastical censures found therein by the Code of Canon of Law, promulgated by Pope Benedict XV in the Apostolic Constitution Providentissima Mater (27 May 1917; A.A.S., vol. IX, pars II).
The factual notion of the excommunication of heretics pertains to the ordinances of positive divine law as revealed in Holy Scripture and in sacred Tradition, whilst the censures consequent upon the canonical delict of heresy are contingent upon the norms of ecclesiastical discipline. While the latter can be amended and reformed, and the former cannot, for positive divine law is constituted by the immutable nature of God Himself. Moreover, the Apostolic Constitution of Paul IV in question was one of the sources for the provision of the Code of Canon Law that says that a cleric can lose office without any declaration by public apostasy ("Ob tacitam renuntiationem ab ipso iure admissam quaelibet officia vacant ipso facto et sine ulla declaratione, si clericus: [...] A fide catholica publice defecerit," Can. 188, no. 4).
Whilst some readers and authors may focus on certain dated disciplinary prescriptions found in the above-mentioned Apostolic Constitution of Pope Paul IV, the principles of divine positive law that substantiate the text thereof that served as the source for the above-cited Canon cannot be said to be abrogated; the pertinent text of the the Apostolic Constitution cuм ex apostolatus being the following:
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.
Can. 188, no. 4, and the pertinent text of the the Apostolic Constitution of Paul IV share the same principles. As the commentary upon the Code of Canon Law written by Rev. Fathers T. Lincoln Bouscaren and Adam C. Ellis says, “there are certain causes which effect the tacit resignation of an office, which resignation is accepted in advance by operation of law, and hence is effective without any declaration” (Canon Law: A Text and Commentary, p. 129; Milwaukee, WI: The Bruce Publishing Company, 1953). Canon Law makes it clear that by means of tacit renunciation, accepted by the law itself, any office whatsoever is rendered vacant in the very fact and without any declaration, if, among other things, a cleric publicly defects from the Catholic faith ("A fide catholica publice defecerit"). The various disciplinary and ecclesiastical measures that Pope Paul IV enumerates are simply legitimate and necessary consequences of this principle, and it is these that have been abrogated by the Code of Canon Law.
This principle is based on positive divine law. A heretic cannot be a member of the Mystical Body of Christ, just as much as a circle cannot consist of no more than 360 degrees. A man cannot be at once a heretic and a Catholic, just as much as a man cannot be simultaneously in the state of grace and in the state of mortal sin.
The Code itself (Can. 6, no. 6) has specified that "All former disciplinary laws which were in force until now, and are neither explicitly nor implicitly contained in the Code, shall be regarded as having lost all force, unless they are found in the approved liturgical books, or they are laws derived from the natural and the positive divine law" (aut lex sit iuris divini sive positivi sive naturalis).
The text of Paul IV's Bull pertinent to this discussion ultimately rests on divine positive law, that no heretic can be a member of the Mystical Body of Christ, which can never be rescinded, not even by God Himself, Who is immutable and cannot change. Change is proper to finite, created beings (possible or actual), not to God.
An example of a theologian who apparently thought that the above-mentioned principle of the Apostolic Constitution of Paul IV had not been revoked by the promulgation of the Code of Canon Law is to be found in the tome A Compendium of Theology: Comprising of the Essential Doctrinal Points of both Dogmatic and Moral Theology, together with the more Important Notions of Canon Law, Liturgy, Pastoral and Mystical Theology, and Christian Philosophy by the Very Rev. Fr. J. Berthier (trans. Rev. Fr. Sidney A. Raemers; St. Louis, MO: B. Herder Book Co., 1931 <--- Note: this was published after the promulgation of the Code of Canon Law), where the author discusses the conditions requisite for a Council to be truly Œcuмenical and makes a curious tangential remark regarding the question of an "heretical" Roman Pontiff (Vol. 1, Dogmatic Theology, Pt. I, Third Treatise " True Christianity or, The Church of Jesus Christ," Ch. II. "What the True Church of Christ Is," art. ii. "The Constitution of the Church," no. 150, p. 86): see first attachment.
Another example can be found in A Handbook of Fundamental Theology by Rev. Father John Brunsmann, S.V.D., Vol. IV (trans. Arthur Preuss; St. Louis, MO: B. Herder Book Co., 1932 <--- Again, this was published after the promulgation of the Code of Canon Law): see second attachment
Canon Law can only furnish us with principles whereby to guide us in these discussions, but we cannot apply them categorically in this instance because the prescripts of the Sacred Canons cannot apply to the Supreme Pontiff, as he holds absolute and sovereign primacy over the entire Church as a whole and over every Catholic as individuals. He is subject to no ecclesiastical law. However, he is subject to the divine positive law, such as the Commandments of the sacred Decalogue.
So, those were my two cents.
In the midst of polemical exchange we tend to forget that it is the cultivation of the interior life that matters. Whatever position any individual Catholic adopts will be of no avail for him if he does not give himself over to works of piety, charity and penance; perseveringly practice interior and exterior mortification; and frequent the holy Sacraments and seek the spiritual direction of a trustworthy, devout and learned Priest; and abandon himself with filial confidence unto the designs of Divine Providence, whilst consecrating himself to Mary Most Holy as her unworthy servant, so that she may jealously preserve him by her benign tutelage and patronage as Mediatress of All Graces.
-
Hobbledehoy wrote:
So, those were my two cents.
Your "two cents" were a great answer.
I have seen this rehashed junk argument put forth ad nauseam. I hope that the sources that you scanned can at least put this old canard to rest.
-
One argument advanced against the sedevacantists that is pertinent to this thread is that the Apostolic Constitution of Pope Paul IV cuм ex apostolatus (15 February 1559) was abrogated by the new Code of Canon Law promulgated by Pope Benedict XV. This argument is fallacious.
Before we move on, note that it is precisely because we all are bereft of any authority or competence in these matters that we cannot but present our notes and observations as private individuals, and the merit of what we present is contingent on the weight of the sources from whence we derive and wherewith we substantiate our notions and perspectives.
The principles of divine positive law whereby the Apostolic Constitution of Pope Paul IV cuм ex apostolatus (15 February 1559; Codicis Iuris Canonic Fontes, Vol. I Concilia Generalia - Romani Pontifices usque ad annum 1745, (Romae: Typis Polyglottis Vaticanis, 1947), Pt. II, no. 94) declared that heretics cannot be not fit subjects for the office of Supreme Pontiff have nothing to do with the abrogation of the ecclesiastical censures found therein by the Code of Canon of Law, promulgated by Pope Benedict XV in the Apostolic Constitution Providentissima Mater (27 May 1917; A.A.S., vol. IX, pars II).
The factual notion of the excommunication of heretics pertains to the ordinances of positive divine law as revealed in Holy Scripture and in sacred Tradition, whilst the censures consequent upon the canonical delict of heresy are contingent upon the norms of ecclesiastical discipline. While the latter can be amended and reformed, and the former cannot, for positive divine law is constituted by the immutable nature of God Himself. Moreover, the Apostolic Constitution of Paul IV in question was one of the sources for the provision of the Code of Canon Law that says that a cleric can lose office without any declaration by public apostasy ("Ob tacitam renuntiationem ab ipso iure admissam quaelibet officia vacant ipso facto et sine ulla declaratione, si clericus: [...] A fide catholica publice defecerit," Can. 188, no. 4).
Whilst some readers and authors may focus on certain dated disciplinary prescriptions found in the above-mentioned Apostolic Constitution of Pope Paul IV, the principles of divine positive law that substantiate the text thereof that served as the source for the above-cited Canon cannot be said to be abrogated; the pertinent text of the the Apostolic Constitution cuм ex apostolatus being the following:
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.
Can. 188, no. 4, and the pertinent text of the the Apostolic Constitution of Paul IV share the same principles. As the commentary upon the Code of Canon Law written by Rev. Fathers T. Lincoln Bouscaren and Adam C. Ellis says, “there are certain causes which effect the tacit resignation of an office, which resignation is accepted in advance by operation of law, and hence is effective without any declaration” (Canon Law: A Text and Commentary, p. 129; Milwaukee, WI: The Bruce Publishing Company, 1953). Canon Law makes it clear that by means of tacit renunciation, accepted by the law itself, any office whatsoever is rendered vacant in the very fact and without any declaration, if, among other things, a cleric publicly defects from the Catholic faith ("A fide catholica publice defecerit"). The various disciplinary and ecclesiastical measures that Pope Paul IV enumerates are simply legitimate and necessary consequences of this principle, and it is these that have been abrogated by the Code of Canon Law.
This principle is based on positive divine law. A heretic cannot be a member of the Mystical Body of Christ, just as much as a circle cannot consist of no more than 360 degrees. A man cannot be at once a heretic and a Catholic, just as much as a man cannot be simultaneously in the state of grace and in the state of mortal sin.
The Code itself (Can. 6, no. 6) has specified that "All former disciplinary laws which were in force until now, and are neither explicitly nor implicitly contained in the Code, shall be regarded as having lost all force, unless they are found in the approved liturgical books, or they are laws derived from the natural and the positive divine law" (aut lex sit iuris divini sive positivi sive naturalis).
The text of Paul IV's Bull pertinent to this discussion ultimately rests on divine positive law, that no heretic can be a member of the Mystical Body of Christ, which can never be rescinded, not even by God Himself, Who is immutable and cannot change. Change is proper to finite, created beings (possible or actual), not to God.
An example of a theologian who apparently thought that the above-mentioned principle of the Apostolic Constitution of Paul IV had not been revoked by the promulgation of the Code of Canon Law is to be found in the tome A Compendium of Theology: Comprising of the Essential Doctrinal Points of both Dogmatic and Moral Theology, together with the more Important Notions of Canon Law, Liturgy, Pastoral and Mystical Theology, and Christian Philosophy by the Very Rev. Fr. J. Berthier (trans. Rev. Fr. Sidney A. Raemers; St. Louis, MO: B. Herder Book Co., 1931 <--- Note: this was published after the promulgation of the Code of Canon Law), where the author discusses the conditions requisite for a Council to be truly Œcuмenical and makes a curious tangential remark regarding the question of an "heretical" Roman Pontiff (Vol. 1, Dogmatic Theology, Pt. I, Third Treatise " True Christianity or, The Church of Jesus Christ," Ch. II. "What the True Church of Christ Is," art. ii. "The Constitution of the Church," no. 150, p. 86): see first attachment.
Another example can be found in A Handbook of Fundamental Theology by Rev. Father John Brunsmann, S.V.D., Vol. IV (trans. Arthur Preuss; St. Louis, MO: B. Herder Book Co., 1932 <--- Again, this was published after the promulgation of the Code of Canon Law): see second attachment
Canon Law can only furnish us with principles whereby to guide us in these discussions, but we cannot apply them categorically in this instance because the prescripts of the Sacred Canons cannot apply to the Supreme Pontiff, as he holds absolute and sovereign primacy over the entire Church as a whole and over every Catholic as individuals. He is subject to no ecclesiastical law. However, he is subject to the divine positive law, such as the Commandments of the sacred Decalogue.
So, those were my two cents.
In the midst of polemical exchange we tend to forget that it is the cultivation of the interior life that matters. Whatever position any individual Catholic adopts will be of no avail for him if he does not give himself over to works of piety, charity and penance; perseveringly practice interior and exterior mortification; and frequent the holy Sacraments and seek the spiritual direction of a trustworthy, devout and learned Priest; and abandon himself with filial confidence unto the designs of Divine Providence, whilst consecrating himself to Mary Most Holy as her unworthy servant, so that she may jealously preserve him by her benign tutelage and patronage as Mediatress of All Graces.
My two cents regarding cuм ex Apostulus...
Therefore whoever succeeds to the chair of Peter obtains by the institution of Christ himself, the primacy of Peter over the whole church. So what the truth has ordained stands firm, and blessed Peter perseveres in the rock-like strength he was granted, and does not abandon that guidance of the church which he once received.
Therefore, if anyone says that it is not by the institution of Christ the lord himself (that is to say, by divine law) that blessed Peter should have perpetual successors in the primacy over the whole church; or that the Roman pontiff is not the successor of blessed Peter in this primacy:let him be anathema.
Commentary (Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma-Ott, Pg.283)
The dogma merely states that the Pontiff of Rome at any time is, in fact, the holder of the Primacy...If the connection of the Primacy with the See of Rome were of Church Law only, then a separation of the Primacy from the Roman Bishop's Chair by the Pope, or by a General Council would be possible: but since it is of Divine Law, a separation is impossible.
[/u]
cuм Ex must be interpreted in accordance with Catholic dogma and not against it.
-
1917 Code of Canon Law
Canon 2227.2:
Unless expressly named, Cardinals of the H.R.C. are not included under penal law, nor are Bishops [liable] to the penalty of automatic suspension and interdict.[/b]
Let's talk.
Non sequitur...
I have yet to have ever read an argument for Sedevacantism that is based on canon law... The whole premise is false, the pope is not subject to canon law. Maybe you can point out to me which author made such an argument, I believe I have read pretty much everyone and I don't recall (I can be wrong please correct me).
He loses his office based on Divine law, since no one can declare him to be excommunicated. Even posthumously, it would only be confirming that which is certain through reason. For example whether or not Pope Honorius for example was a heretic who lost office at x point matters little, because the Pope after that ratified all of his decisions. The day in the future where this apostates will be recognized for the revolutionaries they were, things will be resolved without making it bitter either for SV'ist or Novus Ordites. The Church always finds the middle way of being able to resolve things, and it will be made known clear once the over Schismatic Conciliar Church makes itself more fully known. We are reaching close to the point where the debate has run its course, it was something understandable before, but the position is reaching its end (that is sedeplenism). Mark my words...
-
Can. 188, no. 4, and the pertinent text of the the Apostolic Constitution of Paul IV share the same principles. As the commentary upon the Code of Canon Law written by Rev. Fathers T. Lincoln Bouscaren and Adam C. Ellis says, “there are certain causes which effect the tacit resignation of an office, which resignation is accepted in advance by operation of law, and hence is effective without any declaration” (Canon Law: A Text and Commentary, p. 129; Milwaukee, WI: The Bruce Publishing Company, 1953). Canon Law makes it clear that by means of tacit renunciation, accepted by the law itself, any office whatsoever is rendered vacant in the very fact and without any declaration, if, among other things, a cleric publicly defects from the Catholic faith ("A fide catholica publice defecerit"). The various disciplinary and ecclesiastical measures that Pope Paul IV enumerates are simply legitimate and necessary consequences of this principle, and it is these that have been abrogated by the Code of Canon Law.
To properly understand all of this I think it is imperative to note that canon 188.4 deals with tacit renunciation of an office and Canon 2314 deals with penalties or punishments.
Objection 1.
Canon 2314 states:
All apostates from the Christian Faith and each and every heretic or schismatic:
i. Incur ipso facto excommunication;
ii. Unless they come to their senses when warned, are to be deprived of any benefice, dignity, pension, office or other function they may have in the Church, are to be declared infamous, and in the case of clerics, after a second warning, are to be deposed;
iii. If they have joined or publicly adhered to a non-Catholic sect they are ipso facto infamous and, canon 188 §4 remaining firm, if clerics, after a previous warning has proved fruitless, are to be degraded.
Absolution from the excommunication referred to in §1, to be imparted in the forum of conscience, is reserved speciali modo to the Apostolic See.
If, however, the delict of apostasy, heresy or schism shall be in any way brought before the external forum of the local Ordinary, even by voluntary confession, the said Ordinary - but not the Vicar General without a special mandate - can absolve the penitent by his own authority in the exterior forum after previous abjuration juridically made and the observance of whatever else the law requires; and the one thus absolved can thereupon be absolved of the sin by any confessor in the forum of conscience. Abjuration is considered to have been juridically made when it takes place in the presence of the local Ordinary or his delegate and at least two witnesses.
This canon would appear to directly contradict Canon 188 §4, which states: "By tacit resignation, accepted by the law itself, all offices become vacant ipso facto and without any declaration if a cleric... publicly defects from the Catholic Faith." (Emphasis added). In other words, it is objected that Canon 2314 implies that offices are retained until after a public judgement.
Answer to Objection 1.
This assertion is evidently absurd. What is immediately obvious is that Canon 188 is in the section of the Code dealing with offices, and it defines the ways in which a cleric resigns an office automatically. Canon 2314, however, is in the section of the code dealing with penalties, which are of course punishments. Canon 188 merely recognises a fact which already exists - that an office has been resigned by its incuмbent and is therefore now vacant. Therefore there is no contradiction at all between the two canons.
In addition, notice carefully the respective wording of the two canons. Canon 188 states that if a cleric publicly defects from the Catholic faith he loses any offices he may possess. Canon 2314 relates to "all apostates from the Christian Faith and each and every heretic or schismatic." Hence it can be seen that even heretics whose crime is not public are to be warned and then deposed if their heresy is discovered. This is because while heresy that is not public does not destroy the bond of faith joining the person to Holy Church, it is evidently not to be tolerated on account of its gravely sinful nature and the danger that heretics pose to others. So, while heresy remains private it does not produce the automatic loss of offices, but when it is made public it does. As Charles Augustine has commented: "Defection from the Catholic faith, if public, deprives one of all ecclesiastical offices he may hold…"27 (Emphasis added).
Canon 2314, §1, n.3 explicitly states that public adherence to, or membership in, a sect produces the effects prescribed by Canon 188, §4. Other public heresy does likewise, but it would not automatically result in the censure of infamy, since this is only prescribed for the particular crime of adhering to or joining a non-Catholic sect.
http://strobertbellarmine.net/offices.html
-
1917 Code of Canon Law
Canon 2227.2:
Unless expressly named, Cardinals of the H.R.C. are not included under penal law, nor are Bishops [liable] to the penalty of automatic suspension and interdict.[/b]
Let's talk.
Non sequitur...
I have yet to have ever read an argument for Sedevacantism that is based on canon law... The whole premise is false, the pope is not subject to canon law. Maybe you can point out to me which author made such an argument, I believe I have read pretty much everyone and I don't recall (I can be wrong please correct me).
He loses his office based on Divine law, since no one can declare him to be excommunicated. Even posthumously, it would only be confirming that which is certain through reason. For example whether or not Pope Honorius for example was a heretic who lost office at x point matters little, because the Pope after that ratified all of his decisions. The day in the future where this apostates will be recognized for the revolutionaries they were, things will be resolved without making it bitter either for SV'ist or Novus Ordites. The Church always finds the middle way of being able to resolve things, and it will be made known clear once the over Schismatic Conciliar Church makes itself more fully known. We are reaching close to the point where the debate has run its course, it was something understandable before, but the position is reaching its end (that is sedeplenism). Mark my words...
How much weight Sedevacantists give to Canon Law may vary. Many, however, appeal to Canon 188.4 (1917 Code) to support their argument. My point was that Canon Law does not support Sedevacantism, and if anything, can be used to show its falsity. Penal law (laws pertaining to penalties) applies both to Divine and Ecclesiastical Law. Before penalties can be effective they have to be applied (obviously). To apply a penalty one needs authority according to the Church. A formal judgment must be made of the cleric do determine if the automatic penalty was triggered. All factors that could have conrtibuted to his culpabilty or inculpability are generally weighed (although this is not absolutely necessary). If an automatic penalty is determined to have been triggered then it is applied retroactively by proper authority (not in real time by laypersons etc.). So, not only must the triggering of the penalty be determined, but exactly at what point it was triggered. For in the case of loss of office, the decrees and promulgations of that prelate will have no force from that time onward. Therefore the potential for schism exists even in the case where there is an agreement that the prelate in question has incurred loss of office. For the decision regarding which of his works have force and which do not can also cause schism in the Church. Even in the case of Martin Luther (who was extremely manifest in his heresy) it took nearly four years for the Church to officially ban him. Unlike the current Popes who proclaim that they are not departing from tradition "because it is a living tradition", Martin Luther explicitly opposed the teaching of the Catholic Church during the four years (saying the Catholic Church had erred).
-
Which sedevacantists make their arguement based on or largely appealing to Canon Law? Are you referring to a specific article or something you could link?
-
1917 Code of Canon Law
Canon 2227.2:
Unless expressly named, Cardinals of the H.R.C. are not included under penal law, nor are Bishops [liable] to the penalty of automatic suspension and interdict.[/b]
Let's talk.
Okay. Let's talk.
You are mistaken here.
The Supreme Pontiff is above the Sacred Canons, as he has the plenitude of jurisdiction over the entire Church, reigning supremely and unquestionably upon individuals singly as well as groups (be it Religious Orders or Institutes, Confraternities, Dioceses, &c.). It is not logical, therefore, to use Canon Law to address the matter of sedevacantism.
The more cogent of the sedevacantists do not base their views on Canon Law alone, but rather on the principles of divine and positive law that animate the Sacred Canons.
I never said Sedevacantists base their argument on Canon Law alone. Just read the title of the thread. The word I used was support. As far as using Canon Law to address Sedevacantism, it certainly can and should be used. Besides showing that the Supreme Pontiff is above the Sacred Canons and above judgment, it shows clearly that laypersons and priests etc. cannot apply automatic penalties to Cardinals and Popes. This is only common sense as well.
Sedevacantists do no differently than the protestants, when the protestants say in reference to their false doctrine, "Scripture alone is my authority." In other words, they excuse themselves from any judgment in the matter, when of course we know they made a private judgment regarding the Scriptures in opposition to the judgment of the Church. Sedevacantists of course claim that Divine Law has fallen from the sky and caused the Pope to lose his office. Obviously, this is absurd. The Sedevacantist certainly judges (in a formal way) the words and actions of a Pope, determines in his heart that Divine Law has been violated and applies the penalty. Of course we also know that some claim that Divine Law has caused certain Popes to lose their office and not others (some even excommunicating the likes of Pope Pius IX). Divine Law has also caused some to lose all of their authority, but not their office. Divine Law has also caused some non-Sedevacantists who use this principle to believe they can elect their own Pope. Of course Divine Law causes none of these things. People do. Penalties in regards to Divine Law have to be properly applied. The Church does not sanction a free for all in this regard. We are to stand fast, hold the traditions, and prudently wait for the judgment of the Church when she is restored (if we are fortunate enough to be around when this happens). If it were possible that a certain Pope was not an actual Pope she will tell us formally.
-
I never said Sedevacantists base their argument on Canon Law alone. Just read the title of the thread. The word I used was support. As far as using Canon Law to address Sedevacantism, it certainly can and should be used. Besides showing that the Supreme Pontiff is above the Sacred Canons and above judgment, it shows clearly that laypersons and priests etc. cannot apply automatic penalties to Cardinals and Popes. This is only common sense as well.
Sedevacantists do no differently than the protestants, when the protestants say in reference to their false doctrine, "Scripture alone is my authority." In other words, they excuse themselves from any judgment in the matter, when of course we know they made a private judgment regarding the Scriptures in opposition to the judgment of the Church. Sedevacantists of course claim that Divine Law has fallen from the sky and caused the Pope to lose his office. Obviously, this is absurd. The Sedevacantist certainly judges (in a formal way) the words and actions of a Pope, determines in his heart that Divine Law has been violated and applies the penalty. Of course we also know that some claim that Divine Law has caused certain Popes to lose their office and not others (some even excommunicating the likes of Pope Pius IX). Divine Law has also caused some to lose all of their authority, but not their office. Divine Law has also caused some non-Sedevacantists who use this principle to believe they can elect their own Pope. Of course Divine Law causes none of these things. People do. Penalties in regards to Divine Law have to be properly applied. The Church does not sanction a free for all in this regard. We are to stand fast, hold the traditions, and prudently wait for the judgment of the Church when she is restored (if we are fortunate enough to be around when this happens). If it were possible that a certain Pope was not an actual Pope she will tell us formally.
Well said!
-
Which sedevacantists make their arguement based on or largely appealing to Canon Law? Are you referring to a specific article or something you could link?
I did not say largely. I said support. Virtually all Sedevacantist apologists mention it (most especially Canon 188.4) as a support for their position. Go to just about any Sedevacantist website that has some apologetics and you will find Canon 188.4 (1917 code) mentioned nearly every time.
-
How much weight Sedevacantists give to Canon Law may vary. Many, however, appeal to Canon 188.4 (1917 Code) to support their argument. My point was that Canon Law does not support Sedevacantism, and if anything, can be used to show its falsity. Penal law (laws pertaining to penalties) applies both to Divine and Ecclesiastical Law. Before penalties can be effective they have to be applied (obviously).
Canon 188.4 isn't penal law, it deals with tacit resignation and loss of offices.
-
Which sedevacantists make their arguement based on or largely appealing to Canon Law? Are you referring to a specific article or something you could link?
I did not say largely. I said support. Virtually all Sedevacantist apologists mention it (most especially Canon 188.4) as a support for their position. Go to just about any Sedevacantist website that has some apologetics and you will find Canon 188.4 (1917 code) mentioned nearly every time.
And I said based on or largely appealing to, so?
I want to know where you got your ideas from. Yes, I've seen the canon, but not frequently and never more than a quick reference.
There is no such thing as a sedevacantist apologist, if you are taking a theological position, you should be prepared to explain and defend it, if necessary.
Do you even consider yourself under the 1917 code? If so, how do you explain casting off a Code supposedly given by the alleged Catholic Church --the 1983 code. Secondly, do you have access to the English translation of the 1917 code or are you merely copying and pasting from a Novus Ordo career apologist? You must have some reason for thinking you have a strong argument.
Lastly, if you accept the 1983 code how do you reconcile it to Catholic teaching? Communion to non-Catholics?!
-
I never said Sedevacantists base their argument on Canon Law alone. Just read the title of the thread. The word I used was support. As far as using Canon Law to address Sedevacantism, it certainly can and should be used. Besides showing that the Supreme Pontiff is above the Sacred Canons and above judgment, it shows clearly that laypersons and priests etc. cannot apply automatic penalties to Cardinals and Popes. This is only common sense as well.
Sedevacantists do no differently than the protestants, when the protestants say in reference to their false doctrine, "Scripture alone is my authority." In other words, they excuse themselves from any judgment in the matter, when of course we know they made a private judgment regarding the Scriptures in opposition to the judgment of the Church. Sedevacantists of course claim that Divine Law has fallen from the sky and caused the Pope to lose his office. Obviously, this is absurd. The Sedevacantist certainly judges (in a formal way) the words and actions of a Pope, determines in his heart that Divine Law has been violated and applies the penalty. Of course we also know that some claim that Divine Law has caused certain Popes to lose their office and not others (some even excommunicating the likes of Pope Pius IX). Divine Law has also caused some to lose all of their authority, but not their office. Divine Law has also caused some non-Sedevacantists who use this principle to believe they can elect their own Pope. Of course Divine Law causes none of these things. People do. Penalties in regards to Divine Law have to be properly applied. The Church does not sanction a free for all in this regard. We are to stand fast, hold the traditions, and prudently wait for the judgment of the Church when she is restored (if we are fortunate enough to be around when this happens). If it were possible that a certain Pope was not an actual Pope she will tell us formally.
Well said!
------------------------
With respect to AJPM, he doesn't know what he is talking about, so it was not well said.
SJB brought up the crux of this point, and it as passed over. Canon 184 deals with the tacit resignation of office. This is different than a penalty. This is why Canon 184 falls under resignation rather than penalties.
If one publicly defects from the Faith, he loses his membership in the Church and by that tacitly resigns from his office. No one said anything about a penalty here, only resignation.
Canon law is relevant here, because it reflects Divine Law, in that public heretics cannot have offices in the Church. When any office holder in the Church publicly defects from the Faith, he loses his membership in the Church, and by that immediately tacitly resigns his office.
AJPM wrote:
" Sedevacantists of course claim that Divine Law has fallen from the sky and caused the Pope to lose his office. Obviously, this is absurd. The Sedevacantist certainly judges (in a formal way) the words and actions of a Pope, determines in his heart that Divine Law has been violated and applies the penalty."
First off, I am not conceding that any of the Vatican II claimants lost his office of Pope. That may or may not be the case, but I am not conceding it. It is just as likely that these men never assumed the office in the first place. In my opinion, that is the more likely scenario.
Secondly, we are not judging these men guilty in a juridical way, meaning that we make no declaration. Our judgments are a judgment of facts that we have observed and give us moral certainty that the men have defected from the Faith. Our judgments do not usurp those of the Church, as we are waiting for the Church to give us Her Judgment, which has yet to come.
According to your theory, the sheep must continue to graze under the watchful eye of the wolf who is dressed as a shepherd even if the sheep see his disguise, and know with certainty that he is not the shepherd, but a wolf who will devour them and the entire flock.
Such a position is absurd, it means that Catholics cannot defend themselves against the wolf, as they must remain subject to him, even though they clearly know that he is not the shepherd.
Heretics are enemies of the Faith, and they must be denounced and avoided. As Catholic cannot avoid the pope. I know that some on our time state this, but it is absurd. The Pope is our supreme teacher, we are duty bound to learn from him and believe him. Where Peter is, there is the Church. When Rome has spoken the matter is closed.
It is the height of absurdity for a Catholic to say, "I know better than the pope, I have to personally review his encyclicals, Motu Proprios, bulls, writings and speeches to determine their orthodoxy." Further it is outrageous to say that the Mass approved and used by the pope could be either invalid or impious.
When this crisis is over, Catholics of our times will be deeply embarrassed and ashamed for saying such things. They will be humiliated, that they did not see the obvious truth right before their eyes.
-
I reformatted my last post to make it more clear.
AJPM wrote:
I never said Sedevacantists base their argument on Canon Law alone. Just read the title of the thread. The word I used was support. As far as using Canon Law to address Sedevacantism, it certainly can and should be used. Besides showing that the Supreme Pontiff is above the Sacred Canons and above judgment, it shows clearly that laypersons and priests etc. cannot apply automatic penalties to Cardinals and Popes. This is only common sense as well.
Sedevacantists do no differently than the protestants, when the protestants say in reference to their false doctrine, "Scripture alone is my authority." In other words, they excuse themselves from any judgment in the matter, when of course we know they made a private judgment regarding the Scriptures in opposition to the judgment of the Church. Sedevacantists of course claim that Divine Law has fallen from the sky and caused the Pope to lose his office. Obviously, this is absurd. The Sedevacantist certainly judges (in a formal way) the words and actions of a Pope, determines in his heart that Divine Law has been violated and applies the penalty. Of course we also know that some claim that Divine Law has caused certain Popes to lose their office and not others (some even excommunicating the likes of Pope Pius IX). Divine Law has also caused some to lose all of their authority, but not their office. Divine Law has also caused some non-Sedevacantists who use this principle to believe they can elect their own Pope. Of course Divine Law causes none of these things. People do. Penalties in regards to Divine Law have to be properly applied. The Church does not sanction a free for all in this regard. We are to stand fast, hold the traditions, and prudently wait for the judgment of the Church when she is restored (if we are fortunate enough to be around when this happens). If it were possible that a certain Pope was not an actual Pope she will tell us formally.
Cantarella wrote:
Well said!
With respect to AJPM, he doesn't know what he is talking about, so it was not well said.
SJB brought up the crux of this point, and it as passed over. Canon 184 deals with the tacit resignation of office. This is different than a penalty. This is why Canon 184 falls under resignation rather than penalties.
If one publicly defects from the Faith, he loses his membership in the Church and by that tacitly resigns from his office. No one said anything about a penalty here, only resignation.
Canon law is relevant here, because it reflects Divine Law, in that public heretics cannot have offices in the Church. When any office holder in the Church publicly defects from the Faith, he loses his membership in the Church, and by that immediately tacitly resigns his office.
AJPM wrote:
Sedevacatists of course claim that Divine Law has fallen from the sky and caused the Pope to lose his office. Obviously, this is absurd. The Sedevacantist certainly judges (in a formal way) the words and actions of a Pope, determines in his heart that Divine Law has been violated and applies the penalty.
First off, I am not conceding that any of the Vatican II claimants lost his office of Pope. That may or may not be the case, but I am not conceding it. It is just as likely that these men never assumed the office in the first place. In my opinion, that is the more likely scenario.
Secondly, we are not judging these men guilty in a juridical way, meaning that we make no declaration. Our judgments are a judgment of facts that we have observed and give us moral certainty that the men have defected from the Faith. Our judgments do not usurp those of the Church, as we are waiting for the Church to give us Her Judgment, which has yet to come.
According to your theory, the sheep must continue to graze under the watchful eye of the wolf who is dressed as a shepherd even if the sheep see his disguise, and know with certainty that he is not the shepherd, but a wolf who will devour them and the entire flock.
Such a position is absurd, it means that Catholics cannot defend themselves against the wolf, as they must remain subject to him, even though they clearly know that he is not the shepherd.
Heretics are enemies of the Faith, and they must be denounced and avoided. Catholics cannot avoid the pope. I know that some on our time state this, but it is absurd. The Pope is our supreme teacher, we are duty bound to learn from him and believe him. Where Peter is, there is the Church. When Rome has spoken the matter is closed.
It is the height of absurdity for a Catholic to say, "I know better than the pope, I have to personally review his encyclicals, Motu Proprios, bulls, writings and speeches to determine their orthodoxy." Further it is outrageous to say that the Mass approved and used by the pope could be either invalid or impious.
When this crisis is over, Catholics of our times will be deeply embarrassed and ashamed for saying such things. They will be humiliated, that they did not see the obvious truth right before their eyes.
-
The scribes and the Pharisees were blatanly heretical (teaching commandments of men) yet Jesus did not depose them.
They deposed themselves because their faith was not of Abraham's Faith, which Christ fulfilled. Christ even said their father is the Devil.
-
How much weight Sedevacantists give to Canon Law may vary. Many, however, appeal to Canon 188.4 (1917 Code) to support their argument. My point was that Canon Law does not support Sedevacantism, and if anything, can be used to show its falsity. Penal law (laws pertaining to penalties) applies both to Divine and Ecclesiastical Law. Before penalties can be effective they have to be applied (obviously).
Canon 188.4 isn't penal law, it deals with tacit resignation and loss of offices.
All laws which inflict penalties for a violation of the law are called penal. Canon 188.4 certainly qualifies in this regard, with the penalty being an involuntary loss of office. Tacit resignation does not equate to voluntary resignation...
"All laws which inflict penalties for violation of the law are called penal, whether they themselves directly define the manner and amount of penalty, or make it the duty of the judge to inflict according to his judgment a just punishment."
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/09053a.htm
-
Which sedevacantists make their arguement based on or largely appealing to Canon Law? Are you referring to a specific article or something you could link?
I did not say largely. I said support. Virtually all Sedevacantist apologists mention it (most especially Canon 188.4) as a support for their position. Go to just about any Sedevacantist website that has some apologetics and you will find Canon 188.4 (1917 code) mentioned nearly every time.
And I said based on or largely appealing to, so?
I want to know where you got your ideas from. Yes, I've seen the canon, but not frequently and never more than a quick reference.
There is no such thing as a sedevacantist apologist, if you are taking a theological position, you should be prepared to explain and defend it, if necessary.
Do you even consider yourself under the 1917 code? If so, how do you explain casting off a Code supposedly given by the alleged Catholic Church --the 1983 code. Secondly, do you have access to the English translation of the 1917 code or are you merely copying and pasting from a Novus Ordo career apologist? You must have some reason for thinking you have a strong argument.
Lastly, if you accept the 1983 code how do you reconcile it to Catholic teaching? Communion to non-Catholics?!
Mabel, I do not consider myself under the Novus Ordo mass, catechism, man made bibles or 1983 Code Canon Law. By the grace of God through Our Lady, I am holding the traditions (to the best of my knowledge) during the revolt as St. Paul (inspired by the Holy Ghost) said to do. And just as you acknowledge Novus Ordo apologists, there are also Sedevacantist apologists, neo-SSPX apologists, Resistance apologists etc. who defend their position. As far as where I got my idea from, I have also seen quick references to Canon 188.4, some eleborate on it more than others. The point is that it is used. You admit to that. I am refuting its use to support Sedevacantism. If you would like to support the use of Canon 188.4 (or other Canons) then please discuss in this regard. If you do not believe Canon Law is relevant to Sedevacantism then this particular thread is not for you.
-
How much weight Sedevacantists give to Canon Law may vary. Many, however, appeal to Canon 188.4 (1917 Code) to support their argument. My point was that Canon Law does not support Sedevacantism, and if anything, can be used to show its falsity. Penal law (laws pertaining to penalties) applies both to Divine and Ecclesiastical Law. Before penalties can be effective they have to be applied (obviously).
Canon 188.4 isn't penal law, it deals with tacit resignation and loss of offices.
All laws which inflict penalties for a violation of the law are called penal. Canon 188.4 certainly qualifies in this regard, with the penalty being an involuntary loss of office. Tacit resignation does not equate to voluntary resignation...
"All laws which inflict penalties for violation of the law are called penal, whether they themselves directly define the manner and amount of penalty, or make it the duty of the judge to inflict according to his judgment a just punishment."
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/09053a.htm
Nobody said that tacit resignation equals a voluntary resignation.
The loss of office is immediate, not due to a judgment.
16. But as should be clear by now, there are two ways by which a man can be excluded from Holy Church (and therefore lose any offices he may hold) - by authority or by his own act. This fact of divine law is reflected, as we would expect, in canon law. The first of these ways (the process by which an incuмbent is deprived of his office by authority) is dealt with in various parts of the Code, especially in the section on penalties. The second way (automatic loss of office for faithlessness) is covered by Canon 188 §4, in the section of the Code dealing with ecclesiastical offices. It states: "By tacit resignation, accepted by the law itself, all offices become vacant ipso facto and without any declaration if a cleric... publicly defects from the Catholic Faith." (Emphasis added).
The canonist Charles Augustine introduces Canon 188 as follows: "Besides express or explicit resignation [which generally must be accepted by a superior], both the old and the new law admit also a TACIT RESIGNATION, which is brought about and signified by a fact, especially one upon which the law itself has decreed the loss of an ecclesiastical office."20 (Emphasis in the original). On Canon 188 §4, Augustine comments: "Defection from the Catholic faith, if public, deprives one of all ecclesiastical offices he may hold…"21 (Emphasis in the original).
http://strobertbellarmine.net/offices.html
"Therefore, the true opinion is the fifth, according to which the Pope who is manifestly a heretic ceases by himself to be Pope and head, in the same way as he ceases to be a Christian and a member of the body of the Church; and for this reason he can be judged and punished by the Church. This is the opinion of all the ancient Fathers, who teach that manifest heretics immediately lose all jurisdiction, and outstandingly that of St. Cyprian (lib. 4, epist. 2) who speaks as follows of Novatian, who was Pope [i.e. antipope] in the schism which occurred during the pontificate of St. Cornelius: 'He would not be able to retain the episcopate [i.e. of Rome], and, if he was made bishop before, he separated himself from the body of those who were, like him, bishops, and from the unity of the Church.'
-
How much weight Sedevacantists give to Canon Law may vary. Many, however, appeal to Canon 188.4 (1917 Code) to support their argument. My point was that Canon Law does not support Sedevacantism, and if anything, can be used to show its falsity. Penal law (laws pertaining to penalties) applies both to Divine and Ecclesiastical Law. Before penalties can be effective they have to be applied (obviously).
Canon 188.4 isn't penal law, it deals with tacit resignation and loss of offices.
All laws which inflict penalties for a violation of the law are called penal. Canon 188.4 certainly qualifies in this regard, with the penalty being an involuntary loss of office. Tacit resignation does not equate to voluntary resignation...
"All laws which inflict penalties for violation of the law are called penal, whether they themselves directly define the manner and amount of penalty, or make it the duty of the judge to inflict according to his judgment a just punishment."
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/09053a.htm
Nobody said that tacit resignation equals a voluntary resignation.
The loss of office is immediate, not due to a judgment.
Whether immediate or due to a judgment, an involuntary loss of office occurs. An involuntary loss of office is a penalty, and hence falls under penal law.
-
Whether immediate or due to a judgment, an involuntary loss of office occurs. An involuntary loss of office is a penalty, and hence falls under penal law.
The loss of office is immediate, not due to a judgment.
16. But as should be clear by now, there are two ways by which a man can be excluded from Holy Church (and therefore lose any offices he may hold) - by authority or by his own act. This fact of divine law is reflected, as we would expect, in canon law. The first of these ways (the process by which an incuмbent is deprived of his office by authority) is dealt with in various parts of the Code, especially in the section on penalties. The second way (automatic loss of office for faithlessness) is covered by Canon 188 §4, in the section of the Code dealing with ecclesiastical offices. It states: "By tacit resignation, accepted by the law itself, all offices become vacant ipso facto and without any declaration if a cleric... publicly defects from the Catholic Faith." (Emphasis added).
The canonist Charles Augustine introduces Canon 188 as follows: "Besides express or explicit resignation [which generally must be accepted by a superior], both the old and the new law admit also a TACIT RESIGNATION, which is brought about and signified by a fact, especially one upon which the law itself has decreed the loss of an ecclesiastical office."20 (Emphasis in the original). On Canon 188 §4, Augustine comments: "Defection from the Catholic faith, if public, deprives one of all ecclesiastical offices he may hold…"21 (Emphasis in the original).
http://strobertbellarmine.net/offices.html
"Therefore, the true opinion is the fifth, according to which the Pope who is manifestly a heretic ceases by himself to be Pope and head, in the same way as he ceases to be a Christian and a member of the body of the Church; and for this reason he can be judged and punished by the Church. This is the opinion of all the ancient Fathers, who teach that manifest heretics immediately lose all jurisdiction, and outstandingly that of St. Cyprian (lib. 4, epist. 2) who speaks as follows of Novatian, who was Pope [i.e. antipope] in the schism which occurred during the pontificate of St. Cornelius: 'He would not be able to retain the episcopate [i.e. of Rome], and, if he was made bishop before, he separated himself from the body of those who were, like him, bishops, and from the unity of the Church.'
-
Mabel, I do not consider myself under the Novus Ordo mass, catechism, man made bibles or 1983 Code Canon Law.
If that's the case, you have a cardboard Pope. You say Francis is the Pope, yes? Then you have no right at all to question any of the things you listed. The NOM was promulgated (sophistries against its proper promulgation notwithstanding) by a putative Pope, Paul VI. On the very first page of the CCC is a quote from another putative Pope, JPII, in which he calls it, "A sure norm for teaching the Faith," heresies and all. Your manmade (New American) Bible? First published in 1970 with the approval of Paul VI. The 1983 Code of Canon Law? Approved by JPII, of course. Since you've joined CI, nearly all you've done is attack sedevacantism. My question to you is, who is your Pope?
-
Which sedevacantists make their arguement based on or largely appealing to Canon Law? Are you referring to a specific article or something you could link?
I did not say largely. I said support. Virtually all Sedevacantist apologists mention it (most especially Canon 188.4) as a support for their position. Go to just about any Sedevacantist website that has some apologetics and you will find Canon 188.4 (1917 code) mentioned nearly every time.
And I said based on or largely appealing to, so?
I want to know where you got your ideas from. Yes, I've seen the canon, but not frequently and never more than a quick reference.
There is no such thing as a sedevacantist apologist, if you are taking a theological position, you should be prepared to explain and defend it, if necessary.
Do you even consider yourself under the 1917 code? If so, how do you explain casting off a Code supposedly given by the alleged Catholic Church --the 1983 code. Secondly, do you have access to the English translation of the 1917 code or are you merely copying and pasting from a Novus Ordo career apologist? You must have some reason for thinking you have a strong argument.
Lastly, if you accept the 1983 code how do you reconcile it to Catholic teaching? Communion to non-Catholics?!
Mabel, I do not consider myself under the Novus Ordo mass, catechism, man made bibles or 1983 Code Canon Law. By the grace of God through Our Lady, I am holding the traditions (to the best of my knowledge) during the revolt as St. Paul (inspired by the Holy Ghost) said to do. And just as you acknowledge Novus Ordo apologists, there are also Sedevacantist apologists, neo-SSPX apologists, Resistance apologists etc. who defend their position. As far as where I got my idea from, I have also seen quick references to Canon 188.4, some eleborate on it more than others. The point is that it is used. You admit to that. I am refuting its use to support Sedevacantism. If you would like to support the use of Canon 188.4 (or other Canons) then please discuss in this regard. If you do not believe Canon Law is relevant to Sedevacantism then this particular thread is not for you.
I don't think Canon Law and Sedevacantism are opposed but I don't think Canon Law is the basis for proving or disproving it.
How do you reconcile yourself to ignoring the 1983 code when it is protected from error by infallibility? (Assuming you accept the Vatican 2 claimants) When a the code is changed, the old is abrogated.
-
Mabel, I do not consider myself under the Novus Ordo mass, catechism, man made bibles or 1983 Code Canon Law.
If that's the case, you have a cardboard Pope. You say Francis is the Pope, yes? Then you have no right at all to question any of the things you listed. The NOM was promulgated (sophistries against its proper promulgation notwithstanding) by a putative Pope, Paul VI. On the very first page of the CCC is a quote from another putative Pope, JPII, in which he calls it, "A sure norm for teaching the Faith," heresies and all. Your manmade (New American) Bible? First published in 1970 with the approval of Paul VI. The 1983 Code of Canon Law? Approved by JPII, of course. Since you've joined CI, nearly all you've done is attack sedevacantism. My question to you is, who is your Pope?
Even if the Pope truly promulgated these things (which is doubtful), we would still be able to lawfully resist a Pope as suspect of heresy. Not as guilty of formal heresy.
Canon 2316: Whoever in any manner willingly and knowingly helps in the promulgation of heresy, or who communicates in things divine with heretics against the prescription of Canon 1258 is suspected of heresy.
Also, The Vatican I Council said that we must be subject to the Pope in true obedience. Please note the word true. True obedience has two opposites (disobedience and false or servile obedience). No one is obliged to false obedience (even if the superior is the Pope). This just reaffirmed what the Church has always taught and believed. That a superior can be resisted if he is endangering the faith. Even the Pope. Just as our Lord resisted the scribes and Pharisees who sat on the Chair of Peter.
Blessed Pius XI, Letter to Bishop Brizen:
“If a future pope teaches anything contrary to the Catholic Faith, do not follow him.”
St. Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologiae, IIa IIae, Q. 104, A. 5:
“It is written: ‘We ought to obey God rather than men.’ Now sometimes the things commanded by a superior are against God. Therefore, superiors are not to be obeyed in all things.”
Francisco Suarez, De Fide, Disp. X, Sec. VI, N. 16:
If [the Pope]… gives an order contrary to right customs, he should not be obeyed; if he attempts to do something manifestly opposed to justice and the common good, it will be lawful to resist him; if he attacks by force, by force he can be repelled, with a moderation appropriate to a just defense.” —
[/u]
-
Which sedevacantists make their arguement based on or largely appealing to Canon Law? Are you referring to a specific article or something you could link?
I did not say largely. I said support. Virtually all Sedevacantist apologists mention it (most especially Canon 188.4) as a support for their position. Go to just about any Sedevacantist website that has some apologetics and you will find Canon 188.4 (1917 code) mentioned nearly every time.
And I said based on or largely appealing to, so?
I want to know where you got your ideas from. Yes, I've seen the canon, but not frequently and never more than a quick reference.
There is no such thing as a sedevacantist apologist, if you are taking a theological position, you should be prepared to explain and defend it, if necessary.
Do you even consider yourself under the 1917 code? If so, how do you explain casting off a Code supposedly given by the alleged Catholic Church --the 1983 code. Secondly, do you have access to the English translation of the 1917 code or are you merely copying and pasting from a Novus Ordo career apologist? You must have some reason for thinking you have a strong argument.
Lastly, if you accept the 1983 code how do you reconcile it to Catholic teaching? Communion to non-Catholics?!
Mabel, I do not consider myself under the Novus Ordo mass, catechism, man made bibles or 1983 Code Canon Law. By the grace of God through Our Lady, I am holding the traditions (to the best of my knowledge) during the revolt as St. Paul (inspired by the Holy Ghost) said to do. And just as you acknowledge Novus Ordo apologists, there are also Sedevacantist apologists, neo-SSPX apologists, Resistance apologists etc. who defend their position. As far as where I got my idea from, I have also seen quick references to Canon 188.4, some eleborate on it more than others. The point is that it is used. You admit to that. I am refuting its use to support Sedevacantism. If you would like to support the use of Canon 188.4 (or other Canons) then please discuss in this regard. If you do not believe Canon Law is relevant to Sedevacantism then this particular thread is not for you.
I don't think Canon Law and Sedevacantism are opposed but I don't think Canon Law is the basis for proving or disproving it.
How do you reconcile yourself to ignoring the 1983 code when it is protected from error by infallibility? (Assuming you accept the Vatican 2 claimants) When a the code is changed, the old is abrogated.
Whatever the Pope promulgates is not necessarily infallible. He must use his infallibility specifically in this regard in accordance to the definition of Vatican I. There are serious doubts whether the conciliar Popes officially promulgated much anyway. Let's just assume he did. If he promulgates heresy he is not automatically a formal heretic. He is merely suspected of heresy. One suspected of heresy does not automatically lose his office.
Canon 2316: Whoever in any manner willingly and knowingly helps in the promulgation of heresy, or who communicates in things divine with heretics against the prescription of Canon 1258 is suspected of heresy.
-
Mabel, I do not consider myself under the Novus Ordo mass, catechism, man made bibles or 1983 Code Canon Law.
If that's the case, you have a cardboard Pope. You say Francis is the Pope, yes? Then you have no right at all to question any of the things you listed. The NOM was promulgated (sophistries against its proper promulgation notwithstanding) by a putative Pope, Paul VI. On the very first page of the CCC is a quote from another putative Pope, JPII, in which he calls it, "A sure norm for teaching the Faith," heresies and all. Your manmade (New American) Bible? First published in 1970 with the approval of Paul VI. The 1983 Code of Canon Law? Approved by JPII, of course. Since you've joined CI, nearly all you've done is attack sedevacantism. My question to you is, who is your Pope?
Even if the Pope truly promulgated these things (which is doubtful), we would still be able to lawfully resist a Pope as suspect of heresy. Not as guilty of formal heresy.
Canon 2316: Whoever in any manner willingly and knowingly helps in the promulgation of heresy, or who communicates in things divine with heretics against the prescription of Canon 1258 is suspected of heresy.
Also, The Vatican I Council said that we must be subject to the Pope in true obedience. Please note the word true. True obedience has two opposites (disobedience and false or servile obedience). No one is obliged to false obedience (even if the superior is the Pope). This just reaffirmed what the Church has always taught and believed. That a superior can be resisted if he is endangering the faith. Even the Pope. Just as our Lord resisted the scribes and Pharisees who sat on the Chair of Peter.
Blessed Pius XI, Letter to Bishop Brizen:
“If a future pope teaches anything contrary to the Catholic Faith, do not follow him.”
St. Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologiae, IIa IIae, Q. 104, A. 5:
“It is written: ‘We ought to obey God rather than men.’ Now sometimes the things commanded by a superior are against God. Therefore, superiors are not to be obeyed in all things.”
Francisco Suarez, De Fide, Disp. X, Sec. VI, N. 16:
If [the Pope]… gives an order contrary to right customs, he should not be obeyed; if he attempts to do something manifestly opposed to justice and the common good, it will be lawful to resist him; if he attacks by force, by force he can be repelled, with a moderation appropriate to a just defense.” —
[/u]
That is stale and refuted long ago and in many places. Nobody has said you shouldn't resist heresy, but you also need to avoid the promulgators of heresy.
-
Even if the Pope truly promulgated these things (which is doubtful)...
What authority do you have to even suggest such a thing? Are you judging the Pope, which is what you implicity accuse sedes of?
-
Even if the Pope truly promulgated these things (which is doubtful)...
What authority do you have to even suggest such a thing? Are you judging the Pope, which is what you implicity accuse sedes of?
Authority is not needed to resist superiors who endanger the faith. Resisting does not equate to application of an automatic penalty and deposition...
St. Robert Bellarmine, De Romano Pontifice, Book II, Chap. 29:
“Just as it is licit to resist the Pontiff who attacks the body, so also is it licit to resist him who attacks souls or destroys the civil order or above all, tries to destroy the Church. I say that it is licit to resist him by not doing what he orders and by impeding the execution of his will. It is not licit, however, to judge him, to punish him, or to depose him, for these are acts proper to a superior.”
[/u][/i]
-
Mabel, I do not consider myself under the Novus Ordo mass, catechism, man made bibles or 1983 Code Canon Law.
If that's the case, you have a cardboard Pope. You say Francis is the Pope, yes? Then you have no right at all to question any of the things you listed. The NOM was promulgated (sophistries against its proper promulgation notwithstanding) by a putative Pope, Paul VI. On the very first page of the CCC is a quote from another putative Pope, JPII, in which he calls it, "A sure norm for teaching the Faith," heresies and all. Your manmade (New American) Bible? First published in 1970 with the approval of Paul VI. The 1983 Code of Canon Law? Approved by JPII, of course. Since you've joined CI, nearly all you've done is attack sedevacantism. My question to you is, who is your Pope?
Even if the Pope truly promulgated these things (which is doubtful), we would still be able to lawfully resist a Pope as suspect of heresy. Not as guilty of formal heresy.
Canon 2316: Whoever in any manner willingly and knowingly helps in the promulgation of heresy, or who communicates in things divine with heretics against the prescription of Canon 1258 is suspected of heresy.
Also, The Vatican I Council said that we must be subject to the Pope in true obedience. Please note the word true. True obedience has two opposites (disobedience and false or servile obedience). No one is obliged to false obedience (even if the superior is the Pope). This just reaffirmed what the Church has always taught and believed. That a superior can be resisted if he is endangering the faith. Even the Pope. Just as our Lord resisted the scribes and Pharisees who sat on the Chair of Peter.
Blessed Pius XI, Letter to Bishop Brizen:
“If a future pope teaches anything contrary to the Catholic Faith, do not follow him.”
St. Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologiae, IIa IIae, Q. 104, A. 5:
“It is written: ‘We ought to obey God rather than men.’ Now sometimes the things commanded by a superior are against God. Therefore, superiors are not to be obeyed in all things.”
Francisco Suarez, De Fide, Disp. X, Sec. VI, N. 16:
If [the Pope]… gives an order contrary to right customs, he should not be obeyed; if he attempts to do something manifestly opposed to justice and the common good, it will be lawful to resist him; if he attacks by force, by force he can be repelled, with a moderation appropriate to a just defense.” —
[/u]
That is stale and refuted long ago and in many places. Nobody has said you shouldn't resist heresy, but you also need to avoid the promulgators of heresy.
Sedevacantists do more than just avoid. They apply penalties and depose.
-
Even if the Pope truly promulgated these things (which is doubtful)...
What authority do you have to even suggest such a thing? Are you judging the Pope, which is what you implicity accuse sedes of?
Authority is not needed to resist superiors who endanger the faith. Resisting does not equate to application of an automatic penalty and deposition...
St. Robert Bellarmine, De Romano Pontifice, Book II, Chap. 29:
“Just as it is licit to resist the Pontiff who attacks the body, so also is it licit to resist him who attacks souls or destroys the civil order or above all, tries to destroy the Church. I say that it is licit to resist him by not doing what he orders and by impeding the execution of his will. It is not licit, however, to judge him, to punish him, or to depose him, for these are acts proper to a superior.”
[/u][/i]
This refers to the civil order. A pope who is a heretic can be judged by the Church precisely because he has lost all authority. Read the excerpts from De Romano Pontifice I quoted.
Sedevacantists do more than just avoid. They apply penalties and depose.
The recognition of a fact isn't "applying penalties and deposing."
-
Even if the Pope truly promulgated these things (which is doubtful)...
What authority do you have to even suggest such a thing? Are you judging the Pope, which is what you implicity accuse sedes of?
Authority is not needed to resist superiors who endanger the faith. Resisting does not equate to application of an automatic penalty and deposition...
St. Robert Bellarmine, De Romano Pontifice, Book II, Chap. 29:
“Just as it is licit to resist the Pontiff who attacks the body, so also is it licit to resist him who attacks souls or destroys the civil order or above all, tries to destroy the Church. I say that it is licit to resist him by not doing what he orders and by impeding the execution of his will. It is not licit, however, to judge him, to punish him, or to depose him, for these are acts proper to a superior.”
[/u][/i]
This refers to the civil order. A pope who is a heretic can be judged by the Church precisely because he has lost all authority. Read the excerpts from De Romano Pontifice I quoted.
By the Church. Not by various laypersons and priests. St. Francis de Sales says likewise. In order to be manifest, however, according to St. Francis de Sales, the Pope must declare explicit heresy "ex Cathedra" (in accordance to the definition of Vatican I). This would prove without a doubt that the Pope did not possess "the keys." Then a council minus a Roman Pontiff could deprive him of his office. This is just mere speculation, however. Vatican I declares to us that this will not happen. Vatican I also declares as a dogma (Divine Law), that whoever succeeds to the Chair is in fact the holder of the Primacy.
Sedevacantists do more than just avoid. They apply penalties and depose.
The recognition of a fact isn't "applying penalties and deposing."
This is the same argument that protestants use with Scripture. You must make a judgment to determine a fact. The words "upon the fact" does not mean that I can depose your priest and you can depose mine etc. If the Church had ever sanctioned that we would have had chaos in the Church for nearly 2000 years. The Church recognizes and determines the fact, and applies the appropriate penalty. Do you think that Our Lord did not foreknow the crisis which has befallen us, and in His providence did not provide in advance for His faithful, so that they could hold the traditions properly? Please read the following. If there was any discussion among theologians etc. regarding "Sedevacantism", Vatican I put them to rest. Once the Church pronounces dogma, there can be no more doubting it. Please note the word "whoever."
1. Whoever succeeds to the Chair of Peter obtains the Primacy and is indeed the Roman Pontiff of the Catholic Church. Vatican I made no exceptions to "whoever." This is because the Council fathers knew that there would be some people who would say that the person in the Chair did not possess the primacy (I wonder who that would be?)
2. ...If anyone says that the Roman Pontiff is not the successor of Peter in the primacy, let him be anathema.
Chapter 2. On the permanence of the primacy of blessed Peter in the Roman pontiffs
That which our lord Jesus Christ, the prince of shepherds and great shepherd of the sheep, established in the blessed apostle Peter, for the continual salvation and permanent benefit of the church, must of necessity remain for ever, by Christ's authority, in the church which, founded as it is upon a rock, will stand firm until the end of time [45] .
For no one can be in doubt, indeed it was known in every age that the holy and most blessed Peter, prince and head of the apostles, the pillar of faith and the foundation of the catholic church, received the keys of the kingdom from our lord Jesus Christ, the saviour and redeemer of the human race, and that to this day and for ever he lives and presides and exercises judgment in his successors the bishops of the holy Roman see, which he founded and consecrated with his blood [46] .
Therefore whoever succeeds to the chair of Peter obtains by the institution of Christ himself, the primacy of Peter over the whole church. So what the truth has ordained stands firm, and blessed Peter perseveres in the rock-like strength he was granted, and does not abandon that guidance of the church which he once received [47] .
For this reason it has always been necessary for every church--that is to say the faithful throughout the world--to be in agreement with the Roman church because of its more effective leadership. In consequence of being joined, as members to head, with that see, from which the rights of sacred communion flow to all, they will grow together into the structure of a single body [48] .
Therefore,
if anyone says that
it is not by the institution of Christ the lord himself (that is to say, by divine law) that blessed Peter should have perpetual successors in the primacy over the whole church; or that
the Roman pontiff is not the successor of blessed Peter in this primacy:
let him be anathema.
[/b]
-
Pope St. Pius X would punch you for your amateurish babbling!!! AJPM!
Objection I: Pope Pius XII lifted all ecclesiastical penalties during the conclave to elect the pope. So even if the Vatican II popes were heretics before their elections, they would still be validly elected.
Answer: Heretics and schismatics are barred by DIVINE LAW from the election to the Papal Office. Pope Pius XII lifted ecclesiastical penalties; he did not, would not, could not dispense from Divine Law. Proof: A. Institutiones Iuris Canonici [1950], Coronata — “Appointment to the Office of the Primacy — 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...” B. Institutiones luris Canonici [1921], Marato — “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. C. Bull cuм Ex Apostolatus [16 Feb. 1559], Pope Paul IV — “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 time in the foregoing situation, be considered even partially legitimate in any way.... — “Each and all of their words, 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.” D. Institutiones luris Canonici [1921], C. Baldii — “The law now in force for the election of the Roman Pontiff is reduced to these points:... — “Barred as incapable of being validly elected are the following: women, children who have not reached the age of reason, those suffering from habitual insanity, the unbaptized, heretics and schismatics....”
Objection II: Vatican Council I taught that St. Peter has perpetual successors; therefore, long vacancies in the See of Peter are not possible.
Answer: Nowhere does the Church determine how long a vacancy may exist in the See of Peter. Between the death of Pope Clement IV (November 29, 1268) and the election of Pope Gregory X (September 1, 1271), there was an interregnum of nearly three years. During the Western Schism, there were three claimants to the See of Peter; theologians teach that even if none of them were pope, that would not be against the promise of Christ or the teaching of perpetual successors. Proof: A. Institutiones Theologiae Fundamentalis [1929], Rev. A. Dorsch — “The Church therefore is a society that is essentially monarchical. But this does not prevent the Church, for a short time after the death of a pope, or even for many years, from remaining deprived of her head [vel etiam per plures annos capite suo destituta manet].” B. The Relations of the Church to Society [1882], Fr. Edward J. O’Reilly, S.J. — “In the first place, there was all throughout from the death of Gregory XI in 1378, a Pope—with the exception, of course, of the intervals between deaths and elections to fill up the vacancies thereby created. There was, I say, at every given time a Pope, really invested with the dignity of Vicar of Christ and Head of the Church, whatever opinions might exist among many as to his genuineness; not that an interregnum covering the whole period would have been impossible or inconsistent with the promises of Christ, for this is by no means manifest, but that, as a matter of fact, there was not such an interregnum.” C. The Catholic’s Ready Answer [1915], Rev. M. P. Hill, S.J. — “If during the entire schism (nearly 40 years) there had been no Pope at all—that would not prove that the office and authority of Peter was not transmitted to the next Pope duly elected.” D. The Defense of the Catholic Church [1927] Fr. Francis X. Doyle, S.J. — “The Church is a visible society with a visible Ruler. If there can be any doubt about who that visible Ruler is, he is not visible, and hence, where there is any doubt about whether a person has been legitimately elected Pope, that doubt must be removed before he can become the visible head of Christ’s Church. Blessed Bellarmine, S.J., says: 'A doubtful Pope must be considered as not Pope’; and Suarez, S.J., says: 'At the time of the Council of Constance there were three men claiming to be Pope.... Hence, it could have been that not one of them was the true Pope, and in that case, there was no Pope at all....’”
Objection III: If all the Vatican II popes were invalid, then there would be no cardinals to elect a future pope. Thus the Papacy would come to an end which is impossible.
Answer: During the Western Schism, three men claimed to be pope (the true pope in Rome, one in Avignon, one in Pisa) In order to heal the nearly forty-year schism, the Council of Constance determined that with all the cardinals, delegates from each country would participate in the papal election (Pope Martin V was elected). Theologians teach that in doubt of or in absence of cardinals, the Church has the right to choose its Head. Proof: A. De Potestate Ecclesiae, Vitoria — “Even if St. Peter would have not determined anything, once he was dead, the Church had the power to substitute him and appoint a successor to him ... If by any calamity, war or plague, all Cardinals would be lacking, we cannot doubt that the Church could provide for herself a Holy Father. — “Hence such an election should be carried out by all the Church and not by any particular Church. And this is because that power is common and it concerns the whole Church. So it must be the duty of the whole Church.” B. De Comparatione Auctoritatis Papae et Concilii, Cajetan, OP — “.. . by exception and by supplementary manner this power (that of electing a pope), corresponds to the Church and to the Council, either by the absence of Cardinal Electors, or because they are doubtful, or the election itself is uncertain, as it happened at the time of the schism.” C. De Ecclesia Christi, Billot — “When it would be necessary to proceed with the election, if it is impossible to follow the regulations of papal law, as was the case during the Great Western Schism, one can accept, without difficulty, that the power of election could be transferred to a General Council.” — “Because natural law prescribes that, in such cases, the power of a superior is passed to the immediate inferior because this is absolutely necessary for the survival of the society and to avoid the tribulations of extreme need.” D. The Church of the Incarnate Word [1954], Msgr. Charles Journet The Church During a Vacancy of the Holy See — “We must not think of the Church, when the Pope is dead, as possessing the papal power in act, in a state of diffusion, so that she herself can delegate it to the next Pope in whom it will be re-condensed and made definite. When the Pope dies the Church is widowed, and, in respect of the visible universal jurisdiction, she is truly acephalous. But she is not acephalous as are the schismatic churches, nor like a body on the way to decomposition. Christ directs her from heaven ... But, though slowed down, the pulse of life has not left the Church; she possesses the power of the Papacy in potency, in the sense that Christ, who has willed her always to depend on a visible pastor, has given her power to designate the man to whom He will Himself commit the keys of the Kingdom of Heaven, as once He committed them to Peter. — “During a vacancy of the Apostolic See, neither the Church nor the Council can contravene the provisions already laid down to determine the valid mode of election (Cardinal Cajetan, O.P., in De Comparata, cap.xiii, no. 202). However, in case of permission (for example if the Pope has provided nothing against it), or in case of ambiguity (for example, if it is unknown who the true Cardinals are or who the true Pope is, as was the case at the time of the Great Schism), the power 'of applying the Papacy to such and such a person’ devolves on the universal Church, the Church of God.”
Objection IV: Even if a pope fell into heresy, he would remain pope until the Church declared him a heretic and no longer pope.
Answer: Pope Paul IV, in cuм Ex Apostolatus, Pope Innocent III in Si Papa, and theologians teach that a heretical pope is deposed by God. Proof: A. Bull: cuм Ex Apostolatus [16 Feb. 1559], Pope Paul IV — “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... 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.” B. Si Papa [1198], Pope Innocent III — “The Pope should not flatter himself about his power nor should he rashly glory in his honor and high estate, because the less he is judged by man, the more he is judged by God. Still the less can the Roman Pontiff glory because he can be judged by men, or rather, can be shown to be already judged, if for example he should wither away into heresy; because he who does not believe is already judged. In such a case it should be said of him: 'If salt should lose its savor, it is good for nothing but to be cast out and trampled under foot by men.’” C. Institutiones Juris Canonici [1950] - Coronata — “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.” D. St. Robert Bellarmine [1610] — “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.” E. St. Antoninus [1459] — “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.” F. St. Francis de Sales [1622] — “Now when the Pope is explicitly a heretic, he falls ipso facto from his dignity and out of the Church ...” G. Canon Law - [1943] - Wernz-Vidal — “Through notorious and openly divulged heresy, the Roman Pontiff, should he fall into heresy, by that very fact (ipso facto) is deemed to be deprived of the power of jurisdiction even before any declaratory judgment by the Church ... A Pope who falls into public heresy would cease ipso facto to be a member of the Church; therefore, he would also cease to be head of the Church. H. Introductio in Codicem [1946] - Udalricus Beste — “Not a few canonists teach that, outside of death and abdication, the pontifical dignity can also be lost by falling into certain insanity, which is legally equivalent to death, as well as through manifest and notorious heresy. In the latter case, a pope would automatically fall from his power, and this indeed without the issuance of any sentence, for the first See (i.e., the See of Peter) is judged by no one ... The reason is that, by falling into heresy, the pope ceases to be a member of the Church. He who is not a member of a society, obviously, cannot be its head.” I. Epitome Juris Canonici [1949] - A. Vermeersch — “At least according to the more common teaching the Roman Pontiff as a private teacher can fall into manifest heresy. Then, without any declaratory sentence (for the supreme See is judged by no one), he would automatically (ipso facto) fall from power which he who is no longer a member of the Church is unable to possess.” - See more at: http://www.cmri.org/02-answering-objections-sede.html#sthash.xKwoei5y.dpuf
-
Even if the Pope truly promulgated these things (which is doubtful)...
What authority do you have to even suggest such a thing? Are you judging the Pope, which is what you implicity accuse sedes of?
Authority is not needed to resist superiors who endanger the faith. Resisting does not equate to application of an automatic penalty and deposition...
St. Robert Bellarmine, De Romano Pontifice, Book II, Chap. 29:
“Just as it is licit to resist the Pontiff who attacks the body, so also is it licit to resist him who attacks souls or destroys the civil order or above all, tries to destroy the Church. I say that it is licit to resist him by not doing what he orders and by impeding the execution of his will. It is not licit, however, to judge him, to punish him, or to depose him, for these are acts proper to a superior.”
[/u][/i]
This falls under resisting his evil commands... This has been answered by St. Thomas and everyone else follows along the same lines.
Let's say a true Pope wanted to go to War with france just for the heck of it. He tells his Cardinals to get him some more nice blondie 11 year old's...
Of course it is not licit to depose him! You guys are the ones suggesting that some sort of Council of Bishop's needs to get together and depose a true pope. Only a superior (such as Almighty God by Divine law) can do such a thing, please remember this!
You are the ones that consistently paint a true pope in a bad light, bad mouth him, refuse to defend his honor etc... You have 0 devotion to the Pope, it would be customary for Catholics to kiss the feet of the Holy Father. To not only kneel but love the man in every single possible way. It was the greatest joy for a Catholic to receive an Apostolic blessing from the Pope, yes a sort of joy that can't be described only something that a Roman Catholic could know all of these things without falling into papalotry (what we respect is the office and not the particular man sitting, so what about his failings/faults). The Catholic feels nothing but revulsion with this perverse wicked heretic... I feel nothing but disgust, thinking that he has my same name, honestly thinking of changing my name... My only consolation is that St. George (April 23rd) is a Saint and that heretics will never actually stain the sacred names of our dear Saints.
Let me ask you a question is it licit to resist the teaching of the Pontiff... I am not talking here as a private theologian here, I am talking official docuмents to the Church. The sort of stuff that is in the AAS... Yes or no. Whatever answer you give please justify it. As far as I am concerned none of the Conciliar Popes have asked us to go murder someone as far as I am aware and I have never heard such an argument. Or they have not asked any of us personally to harm anyone quite the opposite! They have only asked us to greater reverence and respect for EVERY single human creature and sentient being. Heck they even changed the moral theology manuals to include social evils as mortally sinful... Like using too much carbon emissions, not being ecologically friendly, social justice (not doing enough is sinful), women equality, it seems like stuff that would come out of the Soviet Politburo!
-
Pope St. Pius X would punch you for your amateurish babbling!!! AJPM!
Objection I: Pope Pius XII lifted all ecclesiastical penalties during the conclave to elect the pope. So even if the Vatican II popes were heretics before their elections, they would still be validly elected.
Answer: Heretics and schismatics are barred by DIVINE LAW from the election to the Papal Office. Pope Pius XII lifted ecclesiastical penalties; he did not, would not, could not dispense from Divine Law. Proof: A. Institutiones Iuris Canonici [1950], Coronata — “Appointment to the Office of the Primacy — 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...” B. Institutiones luris Canonici [1921], Marato — “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. C. Bull cuм Ex Apostolatus [16 Feb. 1559], Pope Paul IV — “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 time in the foregoing situation, be considered even partially legitimate in any way.... — “Each and all of their words, 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.” D. Institutiones luris Canonici [1921], C. Baldii — “The law now in force for the election of the Roman Pontiff is reduced to these points:... — “Barred as incapable of being validly elected are the following: women, children who have not reached the age of reason, those suffering from habitual insanity, the unbaptized, heretics and schismatics....”
Objection II: Vatican Council I taught that St. Peter has perpetual successors; therefore, long vacancies in the See of Peter are not possible.
Answer: Nowhere does the Church determine how long a vacancy may exist in the See of Peter. Between the death of Pope Clement IV (November 29, 1268) and the election of Pope Gregory X (September 1, 1271), there was an interregnum of nearly three years. During the Western Schism, there were three claimants to the See of Peter; theologians teach that even if none of them were pope, that would not be against the promise of Christ or the teaching of perpetual successors. Proof: A. Institutiones Theologiae Fundamentalis [1929], Rev. A. Dorsch — “The Church therefore is a society that is essentially monarchical. But this does not prevent the Church, for a short time after the death of a pope, or even for many years, from remaining deprived of her head [vel etiam per plures annos capite suo destituta manet].” B. The Relations of the Church to Society [1882], Fr. Edward J. O’Reilly, S.J. — “In the first place, there was all throughout from the death of Gregory XI in 1378, a Pope—with the exception, of course, of the intervals between deaths and elections to fill up the vacancies thereby created. There was, I say, at every given time a Pope, really invested with the dignity of Vicar of Christ and Head of the Church, whatever opinions might exist among many as to his genuineness; not that an interregnum covering the whole period would have been impossible or inconsistent with the promises of Christ, for this is by no means manifest, but that, as a matter of fact, there was not such an interregnum.” C. The Catholic’s Ready Answer [1915], Rev. M. P. Hill, S.J. — “If during the entire schism (nearly 40 years) there had been no Pope at all—that would not prove that the office and authority of Peter was not transmitted to the next Pope duly elected.” D. The Defense of the Catholic Church [1927] Fr. Francis X. Doyle, S.J. — “The Church is a visible society with a visible Ruler. If there can be any doubt about who that visible Ruler is, he is not visible, and hence, where there is any doubt about whether a person has been legitimately elected Pope, that doubt must be removed before he can become the visible head of Christ’s Church. Blessed Bellarmine, S.J., says: 'A doubtful Pope must be considered as not Pope’; and Suarez, S.J., says: 'At the time of the Council of Constance there were three men claiming to be Pope.... Hence, it could have been that not one of them was the true Pope, and in that case, there was no Pope at all....’”
Objection III: If all the Vatican II popes were invalid, then there would be no cardinals to elect a future pope. Thus the Papacy would come to an end which is impossible.
Answer: During the Western Schism, three men claimed to be pope (the true pope in Rome, one in Avignon, one in Pisa) In order to heal the nearly forty-year schism, the Council of Constance determined that with all the cardinals, delegates from each country would participate in the papal election (Pope Martin V was elected). Theologians teach that in doubt of or in absence of cardinals, the Church has the right to choose its Head. Proof: A. De Potestate Ecclesiae, Vitoria — “Even if St. Peter would have not determined anything, once he was dead, the Church had the power to substitute him and appoint a successor to him ... If by any calamity, war or plague, all Cardinals would be lacking, we cannot doubt that the Church could provide for herself a Holy Father. — “Hence such an election should be carried out by all the Church and not by any particular Church. And this is because that power is common and it concerns the whole Church. So it must be the duty of the whole Church.” B. De Comparatione Auctoritatis Papae et Concilii, Cajetan, OP — “.. . by exception and by supplementary manner this power (that of electing a pope), corresponds to the Church and to the Council, either by the absence of Cardinal Electors, or because they are doubtful, or the election itself is uncertain, as it happened at the time of the schism.” C. De Ecclesia Christi, Billot — “When it would be necessary to proceed with the election, if it is impossible to follow the regulations of papal law, as was the case during the Great Western Schism, one can accept, without difficulty, that the power of election could be transferred to a General Council.” — “Because natural law prescribes that, in such cases, the power of a superior is passed to the immediate inferior because this is absolutely necessary for the survival of the society and to avoid the tribulations of extreme need.” D. The Church of the Incarnate Word [1954], Msgr. Charles Journet The Church During a Vacancy of the Holy See — “We must not think of the Church, when the Pope is dead, as possessing the papal power in act, in a state of diffusion, so that she herself can delegate it to the next Pope in whom it will be re-condensed and made definite. When the Pope dies the Church is widowed, and, in respect of the visible universal jurisdiction, she is truly acephalous. But she is not acephalous as are the schismatic churches, nor like a body on the way to decomposition. Christ directs her from heaven ... But, though slowed down, the pulse of life has not left the Church; she possesses the power of the Papacy in potency, in the sense that Christ, who has willed her always to depend on a visible pastor, has given her power to designate the man to whom He will Himself commit the keys of the Kingdom of Heaven, as once He committed them to Peter. — “During a vacancy of the Apostolic See, neither the Church nor the Council can contravene the provisions already laid down to determine the valid mode of election (Cardinal Cajetan, O.P., in De Comparata, cap.xiii, no. 202). However, in case of permission (for example if the Pope has provided nothing against it), or in case of ambiguity (for example, if it is unknown who the true Cardinals are or who the true Pope is, as was the case at the time of the Great Schism), the power 'of applying the Papacy to such and such a person’ devolves on the universal Church, the Church of God.”
Objection IV: Even if a pope fell into heresy, he would remain pope until the Church declared him a heretic and no longer pope.
Answer: Pope Paul IV, in cuм Ex Apostolatus, Pope Innocent III in Si Papa, and theologians teach that a heretical pope is deposed by God. Proof: A. Bull: cuм Ex Apostolatus [16 Feb. 1559], Pope Paul IV — “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... 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.” B. Si Papa [1198], Pope Innocent III — “The Pope should not flatter himself about his power nor should he rashly glory in his honor and high estate, because the less he is judged by man, the more he is judged by God. Still the less can the Roman Pontiff glory because he can be judged by men, or rather, can be shown to be already judged, if for example he should wither away into heresy; because he who does not believe is already judged. In such a case it should be said of him: 'If salt should lose its savor, it is good for nothing but to be cast out and trampled under foot by men.’” C. Institutiones Juris Canonici [1950] - Coronata — “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.” D. St. Robert Bellarmine [1610] — “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.” E. St. Antoninus [1459] — “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.” F. St. Francis de Sales [1622] — “Now when the Pope is explicitly a heretic, he falls ipso facto from his dignity and out of the Church ...” G. Canon Law - [1943] - Wernz-Vidal — “Through notorious and openly divulged heresy, the Roman Pontiff, should he fall into heresy, by that very fact (ipso facto) is deemed to be deprived of the power of jurisdiction even before any declaratory judgment by the Church ... A Pope who falls into public heresy would cease ipso facto to be a member of the Church; therefore, he would also cease to be head of the Church. H. Introductio in Codicem [1946] - Udalricus Beste — “Not a few canonists teach that, outside of death and abdication, the pontifical dignity can also be lost by falling into certain insanity, which is legally equivalent to death, as well as through manifest and notorious heresy. In the latter case, a pope would automatically fall from his power, and this indeed without the issuance of any sentence, for the first See (i.e., the See of Peter) is judged by no one ... The reason is that, by falling into heresy, the pope ceases to be a member of the Church. He who is not a member of a society, obviously, cannot be its head.” I. Epitome Juris Canonici [1949] - A. Vermeersch — “At least according to the more common teaching the Roman Pontiff as a private teacher can fall into manifest heresy. Then, without any declaratory sentence (for the supreme See is judged by no one), he would automatically (ipso facto) fall from power which he who is no longer a member of the Church is unable to possess.” - See more at: http://www.cmri.org/02-answering-objections-sede.html#sthash.xKwoei5y.dpuf
Interesting and they use Suarez as one of their main authorities to defend the pope-heretic thesis, yet he accepts the major premise necessary for our current situation.
"Suarez, S.J., says: 'At the time of the Council of Constance there were three men claiming to be Pope.... Hence, it could have been that not one of them was the true Pope, and in that case, there was no Pope at all....’” "
Also please note that all the author's that are listed as proving that a perpetual Roman successor is not a Dogma (as history amply proves). All the ones that were quoted were post Vatican I, something interesting. It is incredible how certain personages are actually so clever as to be the only ones to see "what no one else see's." Thus even the main authorities that are usually quoted in favor of a pope not losing office through heresy contradict themselves... How is it possible to believe that there was no true Pope at all at one specific time, and yet believe at the same time that even a heretic would retain his office.
Lets go over Suarez's case:
If you have a Pope, then he cannot lose office through heresy.
You had visible Pope's (of which we grant either one was a true pope or none at all) which all of Christendom universally recognizes.
But you also have the possibility of never having had a Pope through the Council of Constance...
This would be because neither of the candidates were validly canonically elected in the eyes of Suarez (since he does not believe that heretics could lose their office, it means that the only possibility would be a canonical argument since the start of an invalid Pontificate since the start)... Maybe with enough gymnastics that might be true. Well if we grant the possibility of this argument, we now have the possibility of an extended interregnum being much longer as the most serious theologians who are dealing specifically with this topic say that it could be longer. Now lets remember how the Great Western Schism ended in practice. Saint Vincent deposed the schismatic Benedict XIII, who could be judged by the Church because a schismatic is not member of the Church (gasp a sedevacantist Saint, ohh the horror), and thus as a result Martin V (Brother Vincent's Pope as is coined by certain Catholic historians) was elected. See how that works? Not that difficult... If there were no true Popes at that time, then it would have been 40 years of interregnum, the next validly elected Pope would have then ratified the work of the Church by accepting x or y appointments and everything else is back to normal. Now with the Conciliar Church, the problem is that it is a totally new religion with invalid order's. The only way to resolve the problem would have to be through re-doing ordinations/consecrations of the clergy that would remain in the Church after the great sweeping of heretics from official positions in the Church.
All of the principles are laid down already in the History of the Church, the theology, the praxis, the theory everything will be fine. The fact that people refuse to see something because "it causes more problems then it solves" are a bunch of liberals (like I was). You end up developing schizophrenic theology, because in your mind you need to be able to defend the modern claimants. Either that or just simply refuse to accept that no matter how formal the heresy of a claimant, he would retain his office... Just imagine the absurdity of such a claim.
If your theological conclusion would be true it would mean that if "Francis" would formally give communion to protestants (just wait), orthodox (just wait), pagans and even atheists if he so desired. Deny the trinity (as he has already), et al... There would be no problem, what if he also lifted the excommunication of Luther? Would that be a problem? Nope, what about canonizing Luther... Nope, because no matter how bad or formally heretical a claimant might do something. He would still retain his office. Canon Law used against the man? Nope sorry, he is a Pope Canon law does not apply to him as you need a superior in order to apply ecclesiastical Law. The only permissible resistance would be to evil commands, not doctrine. That means we have no business in picking and choosing who is a Saint other than the authorities which we accept.
In essence NOTHING the man can do, would constitute public and manifest heresy because you believe in the contradictory statement of Suarez or John of St. Thomas. Brian hαɾɾιson particularly is an interesting "clergyman" that falls under this absurd position. I have to say he receives an A+ for effort.
-
You must make a judgment to determine a fact.
Yes, but what kind of judgment? Do you admit to judgments other than that of eccleciastical authority?
Your argument is that we laymen "cannot judge." But a heretic is one who is self-judged, and who has left the Church by his own action. It is a visible fact that he is not a member. To observe and state this fact is not to "judge" in a legal sense, any more than to observe that someone is dead. In Scripture and in the law of the Church, we are gravely obliged to avoid heretics. This would largely be impossible if it were restricted only to individuals formally condemned by name by the Holy See, and there is no basis in the tradition of the Church for this view.
-
You must make a judgment to determine a fact.
Yes, but what kind of judgment? Do you admit to judgments other than that of eccleciastical authority?
Your argument is that we laymen "cannot judge." But a heretic is one who is self-judged, and who has left the Church by his own action. It is a visible fact that he is not a member. To observe and state this fact is not to "judge" in a legal sense, any more than to observe that someone is dead. In Scripture and in the law of the Church, we are gravely obliged to avoid heretics. This would largely be impossible if it were restricted only to individuals formally condemned by name by the Holy See, and there is no basis in the tradition of the Church for this view.
:rolleyes: So is your judging my judgement, judgemental? :reading:
I think we have reached the climax point of making Rabbi's cross their eyes with theological conundrums :jester:.
The pharisaical legalism that you read in the forum, makes one wonder which books are they reading more, the тαℓмυd or the Sacred scriptures with the same sense as the Church understands it.
Is someone participating in the wrong forum (http://messiahtruth.yuku.com/forums/8/General-Judaism-Forum#.Ul8AeXjCOa4)?
-
You must make a judgment to determine a fact.
Yes, but what kind of judgment? Do you admit to judgments other than that of eccleciastical authority?
Your argument is that we laymen "cannot judge." But a heretic is one who is self-judged, and who has left the Church by his own action. It is a visible fact that he is not a member. To observe and state this fact is not to "judge" in a legal sense, any more than to observe that someone is dead. In Scripture and in the law of the Church, we are gravely obliged to avoid heretics. This would largely be impossible if it were restricted only to individuals formally condemned by name by the Holy See, and there is no basis in the tradition of the Church for this view.
In the Gospels were the scribes and the Pharisees self judged?
-
You must make a judgment to determine a fact.
Yes, but what kind of judgment? Do you admit to judgments other than that of eccleciastical authority?
Your argument is that we laymen "cannot judge." But a heretic is one who is self-judged, and who has left the Church by his own action. It is a visible fact that he is not a member. To observe and state this fact is not to "judge" in a legal sense, any more than to observe that someone is dead. In Scripture and in the law of the Church, we are gravely obliged to avoid heretics. This would largely be impossible if it were restricted only to individuals formally condemned by name by the Holy See, and there is no basis in the tradition of the Church for this view.
In the Gospels were the scribes and the Pharisees self judged?
I simply fail to see how you can historically talk about the Pharisees which we know for certain had 0 authority over Christians after the resurrection of Christ, it was precisely after Pentecost that the laws of the Catholic Church and the New covenant were binding. I fail to see how this applies, because there were two standards of measurement used after the first soul of the New covenant went to Hell. Let me put it this way, a whole new level of Hell was created after (possibly Judas was the first one to go to the new level of Hell?) and everything is judged differently in the Old Law and the New law. The New law is more perfect, and anything good in the Old law was retained in the New law. So that there are certain customs in the Church that trace back their origin to the people of Israel, when they were still the True Church.
John 15: [22] If I had not come, and spoken to them, they would not have sin; but now they have no excuse for their sin.
So the answer is yes, the main reason is because they refused to recognize truth itself, they stood self condemned. Like I noted above, you are stretching at straws here, because we are talking about Canon Law (which is disciplinary for the most part) and the Mosaic law...
-
Even if the Pope truly promulgated these things (which is doubtful)...
What authority do you have to even suggest such a thing? Are you judging the Pope, which is what you implicity accuse sedes of?
Authority is not needed to resist superiors who endanger the faith. Resisting does not equate to application of an automatic penalty and deposition...
St. Robert Bellarmine, De Romano Pontifice, Book II, Chap. 29:
“Just as it is licit to resist the Pontiff who attacks the body, so also is it licit to resist him who attacks souls or destroys the civil order or above all, tries to destroy the Church. I say that it is licit to resist him by not doing what he orders and by impeding the execution of his will. It is not licit, however, to judge him, to punish him, or to depose him, for these are acts proper to a superior.” [/i]
This falls under resisting his evil commands... This has been answered by St. Thomas and everyone else follows along the same lines.
Let's say a true Pope wanted to go to War with france just for the heck of it. He tells his Cardinals to get him some more nice blondie 11 year old's...
Of course it is not licit to depose him! You guys are the ones suggesting that some sort of Council of Bishop's needs to get together and depose a true pope. Only a superior (such as Almighty God by Divine law) can do such a thing, please remember this!
You are the ones that consistently paint a true pope in a bad light, bad mouth him, refuse to defend his honor etc... You have 0 devotion to the Pope, it would be customary for Catholics to kiss the feet of the Holy Father. To not only kneel but love the man in every single possible way. It was the greatest joy for a Catholic to receive an Apostolic blessing from the Pope, yes a sort of joy that can't be described only something that a Roman Catholic could know all of these things without falling into papalotry (what we respect is the office and not the particular man sitting, so what about his failings/faults). The Catholic feels nothing but revulsion with this perverse wicked heretic... I feel nothing but disgust, thinking that he has my same name, honestly thinking of changing my name... My only consolation is that St. George (April 23rd) is a Saint and that heretics will never actually stain the sacred names of our dear Saints.
Let me ask you a question is it licit to resist the teaching of the Pontiff... I am not talking here as a private theologian here, I am talking official docuмents to the Church. The sort of stuff that is in the AAS... Yes or no. Whatever answer you give please justify it. As far as I am concerned none of the Conciliar Popes have asked us to go murder someone as far as I am aware and I have never heard such an argument. Or they have not asked any of us personally to harm anyone quite the opposite! They have only asked us to greater reverence and respect for EVERY single human creature and sentient being. Heck they even changed the moral theology manuals to include social evils as mortally sinful... Like using too much carbon emissions, not being ecologically friendly, social justice (not doing enough is sinful), women equality, it seems like stuff that would come out of the Soviet Politburo!
It is not licit, however, to judge him, to punish him, or to depose him, for these are acts proper to a superior.
This sentence stands on its own and needs no context. It clearly states that the acts "in themselves" are proper to a superior, regardless of the offense.
Also, "divine law"deposes a Pope in the same way Scripture teaches Protestants their doctrines. As for your question, regarding resisting the erroneous teaching of a Pope. The answer is yes, absolutely. We are to submit to the Pope in true obedience. The word "true" was used to qualify "obedience" in the First Vatican Council docuмents to remind us that indiscreet (false) obedience was not acceptable.
First Vatican Council: Chapter 3. On the power and character of the primacy of the Roman pontiff
..."Wherefore we teach and declare that, by divine ordinance, the Roman church possesses a pre-eminence of ordinary power over every other church, and that this jurisdictional power of the Roman pontiff is both episcopal and immediate. Both clergy and faithful, of whatever rite and dignity, both singly and collectively, are bound to submit to this power by the duty of hierarchical subordination and true obedience, and this not only in matters concerning faith and morals, but also in those which regard the discipline and government of the church throughout the world."
Summa Theologica > Second Part of the Second Part > Question 104
Article 5. Whether subjects are bound to obey their superiors in all things?
Reply to Objection 3. "Religious profess obedience as to the regular mode of life, in respect of which they are subject to their superiors: wherefore they are bound to obey in those matters only which may belong to the regular mode of life, and this obedience suffices for salvation. If they be willing to obey even in other matters, this will belong to the superabundance of perfection; provided, however, such things be not contrary to God or to the rule they profess, for obedience in this case would be unlawful. Accordingly we may distinguish a threefold obedience; one, sufficient for salvation, and consisting in obeying when one is bound to obey: secondly, perfect obedience, which obeys in all things lawful:thirdly, indiscreet obedience, which obeys even in matters unlawful".
It applies to any command given by the Pope. We are never obliged to abandon our traditions, regardless of the type of docuмent that is approved or promulgated. Our Creed and Scripture itself tell us it is our duty to hold the traditions...
"I most steadfastly admit and embrace Apostolical and ecclesiastical traditions, and all other observances and constitutions of the Church."(Tridentine Creed)
Therefore, brethren, stand fast; and hold the traditions which you have learned, whether by word, or by our epistle. (2 Thes 2:14)
Whoever in any manner willingly and knowingly helps in the promulgation of heresy, or who communicates in things divine with heretics against the prescription of Canon 1258, is suspected of heresy. (1917 Code-Canon 2316)
-
You must make a judgment to determine a fact.
Yes, but what kind of judgment? Do you admit to judgments other than that of eccleciastical authority?
Your argument is that we laymen "cannot judge." But a heretic is one who is self-judged, and who has left the Church by his own action. It is a visible fact that he is not a member. To observe and state this fact is not to "judge" in a legal sense, any more than to observe that someone is dead. In Scripture and in the law of the Church, we are gravely obliged to avoid heretics. This would largely be impossible if it were restricted only to individuals formally condemned by name by the Holy See, and there is no basis in the tradition of the Church for this view.
In the Gospels were the scribes and the Pharisees self judged?
I simply fail to see how you can historically talk about the Pharisees which we know for certain had 0 authority over Christians after the resurrection of Christ, it was precisely after Pentecost that the laws of the Catholic Church and the New covenant were binding. I fail to see how this applies, because there were two standards of measurement used after the first soul of the New covenant went to Hell. Let me put it this way, a whole new level of Hell was created after (possibly Judas was the first one to go to the new level of Hell?) and everything is judged differently in the Old Law and the New law. The New law is more perfect, and anything good in the Old law was retained in the New law. So that there are certain customs in the Church that trace back their origin to the people of Israel, when they were still the True Church.
John 15: [22] If I had not come, and spoken to them, they would not have sin; but now they have no excuse for their sin.
So the answer is yes, the main reason is because they refused to recognize truth itself, they stood self condemned. Like I noted above, you are stretching at straws here, because we are talking about Canon Law (which is disciplinary for the most part) and the Mosaic law...
O.K. so you admit that the scribes and the Pharisees stood self condemned. My next question to you would be, "Then why did Jesus tell His listners to "recognize and resist" and not declare a vacant seat?"
Then Jesus spoke to the multitudes and to his disciples, Saying: The scribes and the Pharisees have sitten on the chair of Moses. All things therefore whatsoever they shall say to you, observe and do: but according to their works do ye not; for they say, and do not. Matt 23:1-3
-
Then Jesus spoke to the multitudes and to his disciples, Saying: The scribes and the Pharisees have sitten on the chair of Moses. All things therefore whatsoever they shall say to you, observe and do: but according to their works do ye not; for they say, and do not. Matt 23:1-3
Can you honestly say that Jesus would say this about the conciliar church? Observe and do? Whatsoever they shall say? Bergolio promotes the Jєωιѕн religion!! And says there is no Catholic God!!
THINK!!!
-
You must make a judgment to determine a fact.
Yes, but what kind of judgment? Do you admit to judgments other than that of eccleciastical authority?
Your argument is that we laymen "cannot judge." But a heretic is one who is self-judged, and who has left the Church by his own action. It is a visible fact that he is not a member. To observe and state this fact is not to "judge" in a legal sense, any more than to observe that someone is dead. In Scripture and in the law of the Church, we are gravely obliged to avoid heretics. This would largely be impossible if it were restricted only to individuals formally condemned by name by the Holy See, and there is no basis in the tradition of the Church for this view.
In the Gospels were the scribes and the Pharisees self judged?
It is not a valid comparison to compare the Old Covenant with the New. In the New law, a special and unique office was established by our Lord to govern His newly established Church. A new relationship was formed, that of shepherds and sheep.
In the Old Law there were teachers and priests to offer bloody sacrifices, but it was only a shadow of what was to come. In the Old Law extraordinary missions were given to prophets and kings to fulfill God's Plan. In the New Law the mission would be passed down through a succession, so that God would send all who fell into that succession.
Due to having a commission from God to govern, feed and teach his flock, our relationship with our shepherds is one of trust and submission. Their power to rule over us has been given to them by God. This power to rule has been most especially given to the Petrine office.
It is impossible for St. Peter's successors to lead us astray. It is impossible for them to teach heresy or and grave error to the flock. It is impossible for them to give us sacramental rites that could lead to impiety. It is impossible for them bind the flock to evil laws. It is impossible for the Pope to canonize anyone who is not saved.
Catholics once knew and understood these truths as plainly as they knew they must breath air to live. Catholics must seek to regain their identity, to once again learn to be trusting sheep, always submissive to their Holy Father, in a relationship of docility, as young child would treat his father.
-
Then Jesus spoke to the multitudes and to his disciples, Saying: The scribes and the Pharisees have sitten on the chair of Moses. All things therefore whatsoever they shall say to you, observe and do: but according to their works do ye not; for they say, and do not. Matt 23:1-3
Can you honestly say that Jesus would say this about the conciliar church? Observe and do? Whatsoever they shall say? Bergolio promotes the Jєωιѕн religion!! And says there is no Catholic God!!
THINK!!!
"Whatsoever they shall say" that is not contrary to the law of Moses. So, even if the conciliar Popes say very little in favor of tradition, then of course we should observe and do it. For example when Pope John XXIII said Latin should be kept in the Liturgy, the seminaries, and the schools, he should have been obeyed (which he wasn't). If Pope Paul VI speaks out against artificial contraception, he should have been obeyed (which he wasn't) etc. Pope Francis never commanded anyone to observe and practice the Jєωιѕн religion (so this is false). Nor did he command me to believe there is no Catholic God. Yet these would certainly qualify as his works, which we "should do not." Therefore you have proven my point perfectly.
Think.
:idea:
-
You must make a judgment to determine a fact.
Yes, but what kind of judgment? Do you admit to judgments other than that of eccleciastical authority?
Your argument is that we laymen "cannot judge." But a heretic is one who is self-judged, and who has left the Church by his own action. It is a visible fact that he is not a member. To observe and state this fact is not to "judge" in a legal sense, any more than to observe that someone is dead. In Scripture and in the law of the Church, we are gravely obliged to avoid heretics. This would largely be impossible if it were restricted only to individuals formally condemned by name by the Holy See, and there is no basis in the tradition of the Church for this view.
In the Gospels were the scribes and the Pharisees self judged?
Do you think Bellarmine was unaware of the Gospels? Yes, he probably didn't have the brilliant mind that you have and simply missed it.
-
Then Jesus spoke to the multitudes and to his disciples, Saying: The scribes and the Pharisees have sitten on the chair of Moses. All things therefore whatsoever they shall say to you, observe and do: but according to their works do ye not; for they say, and do not. Matt 23:1-3
Can you honestly say that Jesus would say this about the conciliar church? Observe and do? Whatsoever they shall say? Bergolio promotes the Jєωιѕн religion!! And says there is no Catholic God!!
THINK!!!
"Whatsoever they shall say" that is not contrary to the law of Moses. So, even if the conciliar Popes say very little in favor of tradition, then of course we should observe and do it. For example when Pope John XXIII said Latin should be kept in the Liturgy, the seminaries, and the schools, he should have been obeyed (which he wasn't). If Pope Paul VI speaks out against artificial contraception, he should have been obeyed (which he wasn't) etc. Pope Francis never commanded anyone to observe and practice the Jєωιѕн religion (so this is false). Nor did he command me to believe there is no Catholic God. Yet these would certainly qualify as his works, which we "should do not." Therefore you have proven my point perfectly.
Think.
:idea:
Might I add, that it is from the chair of Moses (and things said not contrary to), that the scribes and the Pharisees had to be obeyed in what they said. Here is what St. Augustine said...
St. Augustine, in his defence of the Apostolic See, thus argues, contra lit. Petil.
"Why dost thou call the apostolic chair the chair of pestilence? If, for the men that sit therein, I ask: did our Lord Jesus Christ, on account of the Pharisees, reflect upon the chair, wherein they sat? Did he not commend that chair of Moses, and, preserving the honour of the chair, reprove them? For he sayeth: they have sat on the chair of Moses. All therefore whatsoever they shall say to you, observe and do. These points if you did well consider, you would not, for the men whom you defame, blaspheme the Apostolic See, wherewith you do not hold communion." (lib. ii. chap. 51) And again, chap. 61 Ibid. Neither on account of the Pharisees, to whom you maliciously compare us, did our Lord command the chair of Moses to be forsaken; (in which chair he verily figured his own) for he warned the people to do what they say, and not what they do, and that the holiness of the chair be in no case forsaken, nor the unity of the flock divided, on account of the wicked lives of the pastors."--- Christ does not tell them to observe every thing, without exception, that the Pharisees should say to them; for, (as it was observed in a previous chapter) many superstitions and false ordinances had obtained amongst them, corrupting the Scriptures by their traditions; but only such as were not contrary to the law of Moses. We are taught to obey bad no less than good ministers, in those things that are not expressly contrary to the law of God. [/b]
-
You must make a judgment to determine a fact.
Yes, but what kind of judgment? Do you admit to judgments other than that of eccleciastical authority?
Your argument is that we laymen "cannot judge." But a heretic is one who is self-judged, and who has left the Church by his own action. It is a visible fact that he is not a member. To observe and state this fact is not to "judge" in a legal sense, any more than to observe that someone is dead. In Scripture and in the law of the Church, we are gravely obliged to avoid heretics. This would largely be impossible if it were restricted only to individuals formally condemned by name by the Holy See, and there is no basis in the tradition of the Church for this view.
In the Gospels were the scribes and the Pharisees self judged?
Do you think Bellarmine was unaware of the Gospels? Yes, he probably didn't have the brilliant mind that you have and simply missed it.
Is Bellarmine infallible? Did any doctors disagree with him? Did St. Thomas Aquinas not have a brilliant mind because he taught against the Immaculate Conception of Mary? "Brilliant minds such as yours" may wish to consider these things before the mouth spouts off.
-
You must make a judgment to determine a fact.
Yes, but what kind of judgment? Do you admit to judgments other than that of eccleciastical authority?
Your argument is that we laymen "cannot judge." But a heretic is one who is self-judged, and who has left the Church by his own action. It is a visible fact that he is not a member. To observe and state this fact is not to "judge" in a legal sense, any more than to observe that someone is dead. In Scripture and in the law of the Church, we are gravely obliged to avoid heretics. This would largely be impossible if it were restricted only to individuals formally condemned by name by the Holy See, and there is no basis in the tradition of the Church for this view.
In the Gospels were the scribes and the Pharisees self judged?
Do you think Bellarmine was unaware of the Gospels? Yes, he probably didn't have the brilliant mind that you have and simply missed it.
Is Bellarmine infallible? Did any doctors disagree with him? Did St. Thomas Aquinas not have a brilliant mind because he taught against the Immaculate Conception of Mary? "Brilliant minds such as yours" may wish to consider these things before the mouth spouts off.
Bellarmine was made a Doctor of the Universal Church and is the foremost authority on the papacy. I suppose you intend to dismiss these facts with a simple "that's not infallible."
You are just a simpleton "spouting off" with his ignorant little mouth.
-
Did St. Thomas Aquinas not have a brilliant mind because he taught against the Immaculate Conception of Mary?
http://strobertbellarmine.net/stthomas/StThomas&IC.htm
St Thomas Aquinas's position on the Immaculate Conception
Contrary to the claims of the Modernists, St Thomas is not held universally to have rejected the Immaculate Conception. In fact, the principles of St Thomas provided the basis for the definition of the dogma, when it finally came. It is indescribably frustrating when otherwise-pious Catholics point to St Thomas's supposed error on this point as a way of reducing his credibility. No doubt they are unaware of his absolutely unique position as a theologian and Doctor of the Universal Church. No doubt they are unaware that Canon Law prescribes that all professors of theology are to hold and teach the "arguments, doctrine, and principles" of St. Thomas. Canon 1366, Section 2 : "The study of philosophy and theology and the teaching of these sciences to their students must be accurately carried out by Professors (in seminaries etc.) according to the arguments, doctrine, and principles of St. Thomas which they are inviolately to hold." Canon 589 prescribes that religious are to do likewise. No other doctor holds this place in Catholic theology.
But ignorance of these facts does not explain the astonishing ease with which many today will throw out the one-liner; "Oh, St Thomas was wrong on the Immaculate Conception." Really? And I suppose they've studied the question well enough to have an opinion? Possibly the briefest way to deal with such nonsense is to ask the armchair expert if they could kindly explain what St Thomas DID teach on this doctrine. Embarrassing silence is the usual response. This short note is intended to answer that question, albeit not in great detail, but at least by presenting the scholarly views of those learned enough to hold an opinion on the matter.
Catholic Encyclopedia: "St. Thomas at first pronounced in favour of the doctrine in his treatise on the "Sentences" (inI. Sent. c. 44, q. I ad 3), yet in his "Summa Theologica" he concluded against it. Much discussion has arisen as to whether St. Thomas did or did not deny that the Blessed Virgin was immaculate at the instant of her animation, and learned books have been written to vindicate him from having actually drawn the negative conclusion. For this controversy see: Cornoldi, "Sententia S. Thomae etc.", (2nd ed., Naples, 1870); Ronard de Card, "L'ordre des Freres-precheurs et l'immaculee Conception" (Brussels, 1864), Pesch, "Prael. dogm." III (Freiburg, 1895), 170; Heinrich-Gutberlet, "Dogmat. Theol.", VII (Mainz, 1896), 436; Tobbe, "Die Stellung des hl. Thomas zu der unbefl. Empfangnis" (Munster, 1892); C. M. Schneider, "Die unbefl. Empfangnis und die Erbsunde" (Ratisbon, 1892); Pohle, "Lehrbuch d. Dogmatik", II (Paderborn, 1903), 254. Yet it is hard to say that St. Thomas did not require an instant at least, after the animation of Mary, before her sanctification. His great difficulty appears to have arisen from the doubt as to how she could have been redeemed if she had not sinned. This difficulty he raised in no fewer than ten passages in his writings (see, e.g., "Summa Theol.", III, Q. xxvii, a. 2, ad Sum). But while St. Thomas thus held back from the essential point of the doctrine, he himself laid down the principles which, after they had been drawn together and worked out, enabled other minds to furnish the true solution of this difficulty from his own premises."
In other words, the author of this article thinks that St. Thomas decided against the Immaculate Conception, at least early in his career, but admits that many others have held that St. Thomas did no such thing. The key isue to grasp is that St. Thomas was very concerned to ensure that a dogma was not denied by those seeking to emphasise Mary's sinlessness - and that dogma was the Redemption. Our Lord redeemed all men, without exception. St. Thomas's emphasis that Mary too was redeemed is what has led to the controversy.
Further proof that it is not a "given" that St Thomas Aquinas denied the Immaculate Conception, is found in the following survey of the opinions of theologians on this question, from Volume VI, "Mariology", of Pohle-Preuss, Dogmatic Theology (12 volumes) Herder 1953, page 67:
"5. The Teaching of St Thomas --- Theologians are divided in their opinion as to what was the mind of St Thomas in regard to the Immaculate Conception. Some frankly admit that he opposed what in his day was not yet a defined dogma, but insist that he virtually admitted what he formally denied. Others claim that the Angelic Doctor expressly defended the Immaculate Conception and that the (about fifteen) adverse passages quoted from his writings must be regarded as later interpolations. Between these two extremes stand two other groups of theologians, one of which holds that St Thomas was undecided in his attitude towards the Immaculate Conception, while the other merely maintains the impossibility of proving that he opposed it."
Pohle gives examples of each type of theologian - about four or five names for each group. So, we see from this that the 'worst case' we can assert is that St Thomas proved the Immaculate Conception with his principles, and yet failed to clearly formulate the conclusion, which of course later theologians did. Indeed the definition of 1854 was based entirely on his principles.
Any layman then, who says blankly that "St Thomas denied the Immaculate Conception," is not only rash, but demonstrates his ignorance of the opinions of theologians, the majority of whom cannot assert this but indeed at a minimum say that he was uncommitted.
Personally I'd like to see all of the arguments of those who insist that he defended it, for my love of St Thomas is such that I would easily fall in with these "extremists" and look forward in the hope of his gratitude in Heaven! One such argument is this : St Thomas cannot have denied that which was not yet formulated. What he denied was that the Blessed Virgin was not redeemed, which assertion is indeed a heresy which he was right to oppose.
An example of his teaching is the following : "Purity is constituted by a recession from impurity, and therefore it is possible to find some creature purer than all the rest, namely one not contaminated by any taint of sin; such was the purity of the Blessed Virgin, who was immune from original and actual sin, yet under God, inasmuch as there was in her the potentiality of sin." From the Commentary on the Book of Sentences.
I submit that the average layman, if presented with this, would assert that it was a perfect summation of the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception. If nothing else it proves that we should hold our unfounded opinions in check, knowing that far greater men have puzzled over this question and not succeeded it solving it. The very fact that theologians debate what the mind of St Thomas was on this question shows as well as anything his unique position in theology.
-
You must make a judgment to determine a fact.
Yes, but what kind of judgment? Do you admit to judgments other than that of eccleciastical authority?
Your argument is that we laymen "cannot judge." But a heretic is one who is self-judged, and who has left the Church by his own action. It is a visible fact that he is not a member. To observe and state this fact is not to "judge" in a legal sense, any more than to observe that someone is dead. In Scripture and in the law of the Church, we are gravely obliged to avoid heretics. This would largely be impossible if it were restricted only to individuals formally condemned by name by the Holy See, and there is no basis in the tradition of the Church for this view.
In the Gospels were the scribes and the Pharisees self judged?
Do you think Bellarmine was unaware of the Gospels? Yes, he probably didn't have the brilliant mind that you have and simply missed it.
Is Bellarmine infallible? Did any doctors disagree with him? Did St. Thomas Aquinas not have a brilliant mind because he taught against the Immaculate Conception of Mary? "Brilliant minds such as yours" may wish to consider these things before the mouth spouts off.
Bellarmine was made a Doctor of the Universal Church and is the foremost authority on the papacy. I suppose you intend to dismiss these facts with a simple "that's not infallible."
You are just a simpleton "spouting off" with his ignorant little mouth.
If you were as good with your arguments as you are with name calling I might give your thoughts some consideration.
-
Did St. Thomas Aquinas not have a brilliant mind because he taught against the Immaculate Conception of Mary?
St Thomas Aquinas's position on the Immaculate Conception
Contrary to the claims of the Modernists, St Thomas is not held universally to have rejected the Immaculate Conception. In fact, the principles of St Thomas provided the basis for the definition of the dogma, when it finally came. It is indescribably frustrating when otherwise-pious Catholics point to St Thomas's supposed error on this point as a way of reducing his credibility. No doubt they are unaware of his absolutely unique position as a theologian and Doctor of the Universal Church. No doubt they are unaware that Canon Law prescribes that all professors of theology are to hold and teach the "arguments, doctrine, and principles" of St. Thomas. Canon 1366, Section 2 : "The study of philosophy and theology and the teaching of these sciences to their students must be accurately carried out by Professors (in seminaries etc.) according to the arguments, doctrine, and principles of St. Thomas which they are inviolately to hold." Canon 589 prescribes that religious are to do likewise. No other doctor holds this place in Catholic theology.
But ignorance of these facts does not explain the astonishing ease with which many today will throw out the one-liner; "Oh, St Thomas was wrong on the Immaculate Conception." Really? And I suppose they've studied the question well enough to have an opinion? Possibly the briefest way to deal with such nonsense is to ask the armchair expert if they could kindly explain what St Thomas DID teach on this doctrine. Embarrassing silence is the usual response. This short note is intended to answer that question, albeit not in great detail, but at least by presenting the scholarly views of those learned enough to hold an opinion on the matter.
Catholic Encyclopedia: "St. Thomas at first pronounced in favour of the doctrine in his treatise on the "Sentences" (inI. Sent. c. 44, q. I ad 3), yet in his "Summa Theologica" he concluded against it. Much discussion has arisen as to whether St. Thomas did or did not deny that the Blessed Virgin was immaculate at the instant of her animation, and learned books have been written to vindicate him from having actually drawn the negative conclusion. For this controversy see: Cornoldi, "Sententia S. Thomae etc.", (2nd ed., Naples, 1870); Ronard de Card, "L'ordre des Freres-precheurs et l'immaculee Conception" (Brussels, 1864), Pesch, "Prael. dogm." III (Freiburg, 1895), 170; Heinrich-Gutberlet, "Dogmat. Theol.", VII (Mainz, 1896), 436; Tobbe, "Die Stellung des hl. Thomas zu der unbefl. Empfangnis" (Munster, 1892); C. M. Schneider, "Die unbefl. Empfangnis und die Erbsunde" (Ratisbon, 1892); Pohle, "Lehrbuch d. Dogmatik", II (Paderborn, 1903), 254. Yet it is hard to say that St. Thomas did not require an instant at least, after the animation of Mary, before her sanctification. His great difficulty appears to have arisen from the doubt as to how she could have been redeemed if she had not sinned. This difficulty he raised in no fewer than ten passages in his writings (see, e.g., "Summa Theol.", III, Q. xxvii, a. 2, ad Sum). But while St. Thomas thus held back from the essential point of the doctrine, he himself laid down the principles which, after they had been drawn together and worked out, enabled other minds to furnish the true solution of this difficulty from his own premises."
In other words, the author of this article thinks that St. Thomas decided against the Immaculate Conception, at least early in his career, but admits that many others have held that St. Thomas did no such thing. The key isue to grasp is that St. Thomas was very concerned to ensure that a dogma was not denied by those seeking to emphasise Mary's sinlessness - and that dogma was the Redemption. Our Lord redeemed all men, without exception. St. Thomas's emphasis that Mary too was redeemed is what has led to the controversy.
Further proof that it is not a "given" that St Thomas Aquinas denied the Immaculate Conception, is found in the following survey of the opinions of theologians on this question, from Volume VI, "Mariology", of Pohle-Preuss, Dogmatic Theology (12 volumes) Herder 1953, page 67:
"5. The Teaching of St Thomas --- Theologians are divided in their opinion as to what was the mind of St Thomas in regard to the Immaculate Conception. Some frankly admit that he opposed what in his day was not yet a defined dogma, but insist that he virtually admitted what he formally denied. Others claim that the Angelic Doctor expressly defended the Immaculate Conception and that the (about fifteen) adverse passages quoted from his writings must be regarded as later interpolations. Between these two extremes stand two other groups of theologians, one of which holds that St Thomas was undecided in his attitude towards the Immaculate Conception, while the other merely maintains the impossibility of proving that he opposed it."
Pohle gives examples of each type of theologian - about four or five names for each group. So, we see from this that the 'worst case' we can assert is that St Thomas proved the Immaculate Conception with his principles, and yet failed to clearly formulate the conclusion, which of course later theologians did. Indeed the definition of 1854 was based entirely on his principles.
Any layman then, who says blankly that "St Thomas denied the Immaculate Conception," is not only rash, but demonstrates his ignorance of the opinions of theologians, the majority of whom cannot assert this but indeed at a minimum say that he was uncommitted.
Personally I'd like to see all of the arguments of those who insist that he defended it, for my love of St Thomas is such that I would easily fall in with these "extremists" and look forward in the hope of his gratitude in Heaven! One such argument is this : St Thomas cannot have denied that which was not yet formulated. What he denied was that the Blessed Virgin was not redeemed, which assertion is indeed a heresy which he was right to oppose.
An example of his teaching is the following : "Purity is constituted by a recession from impurity, and therefore it is possible to find some creature purer than all the rest, namely one not contaminated by any taint of sin; such was the purity of the Blessed Virgin, who was immune from original and actual sin, yet under God, inasmuch as there was in her the potentiality of sin." From the Commentary on the Book of Sentences.
I submit that the average layman, if presented with this, would assert that it was a perfect summation of the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception. If nothing else it proves that we should hold our unfounded opinions in check, knowing that far greater men have puzzled over this question and not succeeded it solving it. The very fact that theologians debate what the mind of St Thomas was on this question shows as well as anything his unique position in theology.
The opinions of your fellow Sedevacantists do not impress. It does not surprise me, however, that he would twist the plain truth with fancy words. It also does not surprise me how you could twist my words and flat out lie regarding what I said in regards to St. Thomas. I said...
"Did St. Thomas Aquinas not have a brilliant mind because he taught against the Immaculate Conception of Mary?"
Now anyone of good will, with a sense of honesty can clearly see, that I am in fact stating that St. Thomas did have a brilliant mind. And I would add that he not only had a brilliant mind, but the most brilliant mind of all the doctors. In fact, that is why I used him as an example. To show that that even the greatest Church doctor can be mistaken (which in this particular case he was).
Summa Theologica > Third Part > Question 27
Article 2. Whether the Blessed Virgin was sanctified before animation?
Reply to Objection 2. If the soul of the Blessed Virgin had never incurred the stain of original sin, this would be derogatory to the dignity of Christ, by reason of His being the universal Saviour of all. Consequently after Christ, who, as the universal Saviour of all, needed not to be saved, the purity of the Blessed Virgin holds the highest place. For Christ did not contract original sin in any way whatever, but was holy in His very Conception, according to Luke 1:35: "The Holy which shall be born of thee, shall be called the Son of God." But the Blessed Virgin did indeed contract original sin, but was cleansed therefrom before her birth from the womb. This is what is signified (Job 3:9) where it is written of the night of original sin: "Let it expect light," i.e. Christ, "and not see it"--(because "no defiled thing cometh into her," as is written in Wisdom 7:25), "nor the rising of the dawning of the day," that is of the Blessed Virgin, who in her birth was immune from original sin.
I know , I know. He didn't really say that the Blessed Virgin contracted original sin. He really said "did not contract" original sin. I guess I just need a pair of your glasses. Then again, maybe not.
-
You must make a judgment to determine a fact.
Yes, but what kind of judgment? Do you admit to judgments other than that of eccleciastical authority?
Your argument is that we laymen "cannot judge." But a heretic is one who is self-judged, and who has left the Church by his own action. It is a visible fact that he is not a member. To observe and state this fact is not to "judge" in a legal sense, any more than to observe that someone is dead. In Scripture and in the law of the Church, we are gravely obliged to avoid heretics. This would largely be impossible if it were restricted only to individuals formally condemned by name by the Holy See, and there is no basis in the tradition of the Church for this view.
In the Gospels were the scribes and the Pharisees self judged?
Do you think Bellarmine was unaware of the Gospels? Yes, he probably didn't have the brilliant mind that you have and simply missed it.
Is Bellarmine infallible? Did any doctors disagree with him? Did St. Thomas Aquinas not have a brilliant mind because he taught against the Immaculate Conception of Mary? "Brilliant minds such as yours" may wish to consider these things before the mouth spouts off.
Bellarmine was made a Doctor of the Universal Church and is the foremost authority on the papacy. I suppose you intend to dismiss these facts with a simple "that's not infallible."
You are just a simpleton "spouting off" with his ignorant little mouth.
If you were as good with your arguments as you are with name calling I might give your thoughts some consideration.
On a forum, you deserve to be treated like the troll you are. That's the way I see it.
-
The opinions of your fellow Sedevacantists do not impress. It does not surprise me, however, that he would twist the plain truth with fancy words. It also does not surprise me how you could twist my words and flat out lie regarding what I said in regards to St. Thomas. I said...
"Did St. Thomas Aquinas not have a brilliant mind because he taught against the Immaculate Conception of Mary?"
Now anyone of good will, with a sense of honesty can clearly see, that I am in fact stating that St. Thomas did have a brilliant mind. And I would add that he not only had a brilliant mind, but the most brilliant mind of all the doctors. In fact, that is why I used him as an example. To show that that even the greatest Church doctor can be mistaken (which in this particular case he was).
Summa Theologica > Third Part > Question 27
Article 2. Whether the Blessed Virgin was sanctified before animation?
Reply to Objection 2. If the soul of the Blessed Virgin had never incurred the stain of original sin, this would be derogatory to the dignity of Christ, by reason of His being the universal Saviour of all. Consequently after Christ, who, as the universal Saviour of all, needed not to be saved, the purity of the Blessed Virgin holds the highest place. For Christ did not contract original sin in any way whatever, but was holy in His very Conception, according to Luke 1:35: "The Holy which shall be born of thee, shall be called the Son of God." But the Blessed Virgin did indeed contract original sin, but was cleansed therefrom before her birth from the womb. This is what is signified (Job 3:9) where it is written of the night of original sin: "Let it expect light," i.e. Christ, "and not see it"--(because "no defiled thing cometh into her," as is written in Wisdom 7:25), "nor the rising of the dawning of the day," that is of the Blessed Virgin, who in her birth was immune from original sin.
I know , I know. He didn't really say that the Blessed Virgin contracted original sin. He really said "did not contract" original sin. I guess I just need a pair of your glasses. Then again, maybe not.
I see references to theologians. Is that what you're arguing with?
The key isue to grasp is that St. Thomas was very concerned to ensure that a dogma was not denied by those seeking to emphasise Mary's sinlessness - and that dogma was the Redemption. Our Lord redeemed all men, without exception. St. Thomas's emphasis that Mary too was redeemed is what has led to the controversy.
Further proof that it is not a "given" that St Thomas Aquinas denied the Immaculate Conception, is found in the following survey of the opinions of theologians on this question, from Volume VI, "Mariology", of Pohle-Preuss, Dogmatic Theology (12 volumes) Herder 1953, page 67:
"5. The Teaching of St Thomas --- Theologians are divided in their opinion as to what was the mind of St Thomas in regard to the Immaculate Conception. Some frankly admit that he opposed what in his day was not yet a defined dogma, but insist that he virtually admitted what he formally denied. Others claim that the Angelic Doctor expressly defended the Immaculate Conception and that the (about fifteen) adverse passages quoted from his writings must be regarded as later interpolations. Between these two extremes stand two other groups of theologians, one of which holds that St Thomas was undecided in his attitude towards the Immaculate Conception, while the other merely maintains the impossibility of proving that he opposed it."
It's unclear what the teaching of St. Thomas has to do with Bellarmine's teaching. It seems you only mean to undermine St. Thomas to attack Bellarmine, who btw, says ALL of the ancient Fathers teach that heretics immediately lose jurisdiction.
-
You must make a judgment to determine a fact.
Yes, but what kind of judgment? Do you admit to judgments other than that of eccleciastical authority?
Your argument is that we laymen "cannot judge." But a heretic is one who is self-judged, and who has left the Church by his own action. It is a visible fact that he is not a member. To observe and state this fact is not to "judge" in a legal sense, any more than to observe that someone is dead. In Scripture and in the law of the Church, we are gravely obliged to avoid heretics. This would largely be impossible if it were restricted only to individuals formally condemned by name by the Holy See, and there is no basis in the tradition of the Church for this view.
In the Gospels were the scribes and the Pharisees self judged?
Do you think Bellarmine was unaware of the Gospels? Yes, he probably didn't have the brilliant mind that you have and simply missed it.
Is Bellarmine infallible? Did any doctors disagree with him? Did St. Thomas Aquinas not have a brilliant mind because he taught against the Immaculate Conception of Mary? "Brilliant minds such as yours" may wish to consider these things before the mouth spouts off.
Bellarmine was made a Doctor of the Universal Church and is the foremost authority on the papacy. I suppose you intend to dismiss these facts with a simple "that's not infallible."
You are just a simpleton "spouting off" with his ignorant little mouth.
If you were as good with your arguments as you are with name calling I might give your thoughts some consideration.
On a forum, you deserve to be treated like the troll you are. That's the way I see it.
Wow! You are a complete asshole! What a miserable creature you are!
:smile:
-
Wow! You are a complete asshole! What a miserable creature you are!
:smile:
A little "bait" here Laramie?
Now tell us what the teaching of St. Thomas has to do with Bellarmine's teaching. It seems you only mean to undermine St. Thomas to attack Bellarmine, who btw, says ALL of the ancient Fathers teach that heretics immediately lose jurisdiction.
-
Wow! You are a complete asshole! What a miserable creature you are!
:smile:
A little "bait" here Laramie?
Now tell us what the teaching of St. Thomas has to do with Bellarmine's teaching. It seems you only mean to undermine St. Thomas to attack Bellarmine, who btw, says ALL of the ancient Fathers teach that heretics immediately lose jurisdiction.
Bait? Heavens no. I'm merely attacking your personal character. You speak as a turd to other people.
:smirk:
-
Wow! You are a complete asshole! What a miserable creature you are!
:smile:
A little "bait" here Laramie?
Now tell us what the teaching of St. Thomas has to do with Bellarmine's teaching. It seems you only mean to undermine St. Thomas to attack Bellarmine, who btw, says ALL of the ancient Fathers teach that heretics immediately lose jurisdiction.
Bait? Heavens no. I'm merely attacking your personal character. You speak as a turd to other people.
:smirk:
You've got no substance Laramie.
Now tell us what the teaching of St. Thomas has to do with Bellarmine's teaching. It seems you only mean to undermine St. Thomas to attack Bellarmine, who btw, says ALL of the ancient Fathers teach that heretics immediately lose jurisdiction.
-
Wow! You are a complete asshole! What a miserable creature you are!
:smile:
A little "bait" here Laramie?
Now tell us what the teaching of St. Thomas has to do with Bellarmine's teaching. It seems you only mean to undermine St. Thomas to attack Bellarmine, who btw, says ALL of the ancient Fathers teach that heretics immediately lose jurisdiction.
Bait? Heavens no. I'm merely attacking your personal character. You speak as a turd to other people.
:smirk:
You've got no substance Laramie.
Now tell us what the teaching of St. Thomas has to do with Bellarmine's teaching. It seems you only mean to undermine St. Thomas to attack Bellarmine, who btw, says ALL of the ancient Fathers teach that heretics immediately lose jurisdiction.
Sure I do! You've been a jerk in the later parts of this thread. And here's my substance:
...he probably didn't have the brilliant mind that you have and simply missed it.
On a forum, you deserve to be treated like the troll you are.
You are just a simpleton "spouting off" with his ignorant little mouth.
Arrogant and snotty.
I have current interest in the content of the thread. Only the delivery. Your delivery.
-
Then read the entire "delivery" Laramie. You've proven yourself a bit smart-alecky, don't you think?
-
You've proven yourself a bit smart-alecky, don't you think?
Yes, but usually only towards offenders.
-
You've proven yourself a bit smart-alecky, don't you think?
Yes, but usually only towards offenders.
I see. "Offenders" of what?
-
Then read the entire "delivery" Laramie. You've proven yourself a bit smart-alecky, don't you think?
You just can't control your mouth, can you?
-
You've proven yourself a bit smart-alecky, don't you think?
Yes, but usually only towards offenders.
I see. "Offenders" of what?
Offenders of decency. You claim to be Catholic. Speak more charitably. Be nice. It is simple. I will be nice if you be nice.
-
You've proven yourself a bit smart-alecky, don't you think?
Yes, but usually only towards offenders.
I see. "Offenders" of what?
Offenders of decency. You claim to be Catholic. Speak more charitably. Be nice. It is simple. I will be nice if you be nice.
You've called me a schismatic and an a##hole and you think I will listen to your definition of charity and "nice?"
-
You've proven yourself a bit smart-alecky, don't you think?
Yes, but usually only towards offenders.
I see. "Offenders" of what?
Offenders of decency. You claim to be Catholic. Speak more charitably. Be nice. It is simple. I will be nice if you be nice.
You've called me a schismatic and an a##hole and you think I will listen to your definition of charity and "nice?"
Sure! Why not? Besides, calling you a schismatic was more of a technical designation, rather than an insult.
-
You've proven yourself a bit smart-alecky, don't you think?
Yes, but usually only towards offenders.
I see. "Offenders" of what?
Offenders of decency. You claim to be Catholic. Speak more charitably. Be nice. It is simple. I will be nice if you be nice.
You've called me a schismatic and an a##hole and you think I will listen to your definition of charity and "nice?"
Sure! Why not? Besides, calling you a schismatic was more of a technical designation, rather than an insult.
Schism is a mortal sin. Calling someone a schismatic isn't a "technical designation" but I suppose with your now obvious Vatican II mentality that isn't anything serious and merely "technical."
-
Then read the entire "delivery" Laramie. You've proven yourself a bit smart-alecky, don't you think?
You just can't control your mouth, can you?
I believe you are the one who has the issue with self-control. Go back and read what you wrote earlier.
-
You must make a judgment to determine a fact.
Yes, but what kind of judgment? Do you admit to judgments other than that of eccleciastical authority?
Your argument is that we laymen "cannot judge." But a heretic is one who is self-judged, and who has left the Church by his own action. It is a visible fact that he is not a member. To observe and state this fact is not to "judge" in a legal sense, any more than to observe that someone is dead. In Scripture and in the law of the Church, we are gravely obliged to avoid heretics. This would largely be impossible if it were restricted only to individuals formally condemned by name by the Holy See, and there is no basis in the tradition of the Church for this view.
In the Gospels were the scribes and the Pharisees self judged?
It is not a valid comparison to compare the Old Covenant with the New. In the New law, a special and unique office was established by our Lord to govern His newly established Church. A new relationship was formed, that of shepherds and sheep.
In the Old Law there were teachers and priests to offer bloody sacrifices, but it was only a shadow of what was to come. In the Old Law extraordinary missions were given to prophets and kings to fulfill God's Plan. In the New Law the mission would be passed down through a succession, so that God would send all who fell into that succession.
Due to having a commission from God to govern, feed and teach his flock, our relationship with our shepherds is one of trust and submission. Their power to rule over us has been given to them by God. This power to rule has been most especially given to the Petrine office.
It is impossible for St. Peter's successors to lead us astray. It is impossible for them to teach heresy or and grave error to the flock. It is impossible for them to give us sacramental rites that could lead to impiety. It is impossible for them bind the flock to evil laws. It is impossible for the Pope to canonize anyone who is not saved.
Catholics once knew and understood these truths as plainly as they knew they must breath air to live. Catholics must seek to regain their identity, to once again learn to be trusting sheep, always submissive to their Holy Father, in a relationship of docility, as young child would treat his father.
So all of a sudden "Divine Law" went out the window? Only relative to the New Covenant? New relationship? Unfortunately heresy still led souls to Hell even in the Old Covenant, and Divine Law cannot be contained in a little box, to be opened whenever you please. Whether or not the Ecclesiastical Laws changed, the principle stays the same. If a Pope due to "Divine Law" can supposedly lose his office for heresy, then how much more a scribe or a Pharisee! If a mere laymen can declare a vacant seat in regards to Christ's own Vicar, then how much more could Christ Himself have done so in regards to the scribes and Pharisees! The souls in the Old Covenant were no less important than those in the New Covenant. Why didn't Christ declare those heretical scribes and Pharisees to be "deposed" who were leading souls to Hell. Yet not only did He not declare them "deposed", He told His listners to obey them in all things lawful! In regards to Papal "impossibilities", it is not impossible for the Pope to do any of the things you stated above. The only thing that is impossible, is that a true Pope bind the faithful to an error in faith and morals teaching from the Chair of Peter with the fullness of his Apostolic Authority in accordance to the definition of the First Vatican Council.
Canon 2316: Whoever in any manner willingly and knowingly helps in the promulgation of heresy, or who communicates in things divine with heretics against the prescription of Canon 1258, is suspected of heresy.
-
So all of a sudden "Divine Law" went out the window? Only relative to the New Covenant? New relationship? Unfortunately heresy still led souls to Hell even in the Old Covenant, and Divine Law cannot be contained in a little box, to be opened whenever you please. Whether or not the Ecclesiastical Laws changed, the principle stays the same. If a Pope due to "Divine Law" can supposedly lose his office for heresy, then how much more a scribe or a Pharisee! If a mere laymen can declare a vacant seat in regards to Christ's own Vicar, then how much more could Christ Himself have done so in regards to the scribes and Pharisees! The souls in the Old Covenant were no less important than those in the New Covenant. Why didn't Christ declare those heretical scribes and Pharisees to be "deposed" who were leading souls to Hell. Yet not only did He not declare them "deposed", He told His listners to obey them in all things lawful! In regards to Papal "impossibilities", it is not impossible for the Pope to do any of the things you stated above. The only thing that is impossible, is that a true Pope bind the faithful to an error in faith and morals teaching from the Chair of Peter with the fullness of his Apostolic Authority in accordance to the definition of the First Vatican Council.
What heresy are you accusing them of? Please use sources that support your accusation.
-
If a Pope due to "Divine Law" can supposedly lose his office for heresy
Canon 188.4 says how an office can be lost. There's no "supposed" about it.
-
You must make a judgment to determine a fact.
Yes, but what kind of judgment? Do you admit to judgments other than that of eccleciastical authority?
Your argument is that we laymen "cannot judge." But a heretic is one who is self-judged, and who has left the Church by his own action. It is a visible fact that he is not a member. To observe and state this fact is not to "judge" in a legal sense, any more than to observe that someone is dead. In Scripture and in the law of the Church, we are gravely obliged to avoid heretics. This would largely be impossible if it were restricted only to individuals formally condemned by name by the Holy See, and there is no basis in the tradition of the Church for this view.
In the Gospels were the scribes and the Pharisees self judged?
I simply fail to see how you can historically talk about the Pharisees which we know for certain had 0 authority over Christians after the resurrection of Christ, it was precisely after Pentecost that the laws of the Catholic Church and the New covenant were binding. I fail to see how this applies, because there were two standards of measurement used after the first soul of the New covenant went to Hell. Let me put it this way, a whole new level of Hell was created after (possibly Judas was the first one to go to the new level of Hell?) and everything is judged differently in the Old Law and the New law. The New law is more perfect, and anything good in the Old law was retained in the New law. So that there are certain customs in the Church that trace back their origin to the people of Israel, when they were still the True Church.
John 15: [22] If I had not come, and spoken to them, they would not have sin; but now they have no excuse for their sin.
So the answer is yes, the main reason is because they refused to recognize truth itself, they stood self condemned. Like I noted above, you are stretching at straws here, because we are talking about Canon Law (which is disciplinary for the most part) and the Mosaic law...
O.K. so you admit that the scribes and the Pharisees stood self condemned. My next question to you would be, "Then why did Jesus tell His listners to "recognize and resist" and not declare a vacant seat?"
Then Jesus spoke to the multitudes and to his disciples, Saying: The scribes and the Pharisees have sitten on the chair of Moses. All things therefore whatsoever they shall say to you, observe and do: but according to their works do ye not; for they say, and do not. Matt 23:1-3
Answer my question, yes or no. Please justify your answer whatever it maybe.
Did the Scribes and Pharisees have any authority after the resurrection...
Why did Our Lord predict that the Jews would attack and persecute the Apostles... If they were so obedient to the Pharisees why is it that they say, "We would rather obey God, rather then men."
Please explain how your situation of R&R somehow compares to what Our Blessed Lord actually taught to his apostles. Which was Recognize and OBEY, not RESIST! "Do as they say and not as they do." How does that translate into, Recognize the Pharisees as your authorities, but disobey them... Not once did Our Lord ever break any Jєωιѕн Laws that were truly Mosaic, the only laws that he was breaking was the man made burdens of the Pharisees which became so ridiculous that it was quite simply intolerable to live. Just read the тαℓмυd and you will see that Judaism became legalized religion (nothing but a bunch of legal text). This is totally opposed to the Catholic understanding of law, which is that the letter kills and the spirit of the law (original intent of the law maker) is what we try to follow. So that whenever a man made law contradicts basic common sense, then you can ignore that law. Law was made to regulate man towards heavenly things, as soon as it becomes too burdensome it is bad law, period.
The Pharisees were preaching truth, their doctrine was sound it was their man made traditions that laid a heavy burden on the widows, and Jews in general that Our Lord condemned in the famous, "Woe to you..." Seven times he condemned them, not because they were preaching heresy... The Pharisees were very sinful and as such could still be listened to and obeyed doctrinally. However, their personal example was NOT TO BE EMULATED. See the difference?
Your stupid semi-protestant interpretations make a lie of Scripture, please show me ONE INSTANCE where the Jew's were preaching heresy on God. In fact the Jew's KNEW that he was the Son of God, they did not deny that, this is why they wanted him crucified...
I would love to see any Scripture commentator's on that verse, come up with the same interpretation that you do...
Lastly one question for you AJPM. Same as with Laramie, yes or no.
Are sedevacantist schismatic, no weaseling out of this one. Your failure to answer will be taken as an affirmation. Its really sad how dishonest some of you are... I have never once attempted to lie about any of my positions, if you ask me I will freely tell you why I believe what I do either in private or public. Let your yes be yes and your no be no. If I think someone is a hell bound heretic, I will tell him in his face in real life or online or whatever mode of communication I will use. I will not make this accusation lightly, but once a person self condemns themselves through pertinacity, this is of course assuming that they have been clearly shown what is the position of the Church on x or y teaching. You will stand self-condemned, it is sad that Matthew allows this behaviour to go unchecked. I really had a much higher opinion of the Resistance, but if this is the way things operate... The Neo-SSPX is probably right about the Resistance, especially now that +Fellay has said the talks have ended with Rome right now.
It might even be better to go to CAF, because at least over there they don't pretend to be traditionalists... They at least ban traditionalist consistently, but its no surprise after all they are attempting to "defend" Vatican II heretics, and claimants. At least they are consistent in banning the good guys and letting error spread from other heretics. They are following the principles of the Conciliarist Church, play nice in the ecuмenical box with heretics/schismatics, but be bad with SSPX/SV'ist. They are evil, ohh yes bunch of "schismatics." It is better to have fewer post that are higher quality, then to have people with secret agendas. What I really fail to see is how someone that knows so much better then these other pseudo-traditionalists who operate under ignorance... This is why sometimes people wonder, why "there is so much division" among trad's... Well I will tell you the reason why, it is precisely because people allow a bunch of schismatics to run amok, pretending to have the faith. If you notice none of the SV'ist on the forum break communion with one another or tolerate. Reading the different post throughout the forum, I am really starting to get an idea that a bunch of schismatics are given free reign here. If I keep reading things like this, honestly I don't want to have to do anything with this place. Anyone that breaks the principle form of unity among Catholics, should be IPSO FACTO called out on that issue. Once verified, they should be banned temporarily, and second time offenders banned for good. Error has no rights, most especially something that is at the core of our Catholicity in our day and age, without a head. "Love one another...", says the Apostle of Love. The act of Schism is the most grievous sin against charity, always have that deeply embedded to the marrow of your bones, inside of your cells of how wicked this sin is.
Of what USE is it to pretend to be "Catholic", when you care little about the sin of schism? Seriously... That is the whole point of our existence... We remain in communion with the Church by being faithful to the teachings of the Church, and keeping communion with fellow Catholics. This is what we call the faith in practice, not just theoretically... When in doubt keep communion, over time I really do see how the SSPX is "the Church" in the eyes of many. Now you see the resistance within the SSPX, give ridiculous advice of how "no one should go to the Neo-SSPX masses." I mean it is totally insane, they really do think that outside of their few little group of priest there are no masses one can attend. You NEVER see this attitude among SV'ist laity, quite the opposite. You see the attempt of certain Bishops to impose that (like SSPV), but even still they will go to other independent priest. Look at Fr. Cekada who attempts to deny communion to those who attend SSPX also, and what do the SV'ist do? The overwhelming majority of SV'ist attend what they have available, the overwhelming amount of SSPX attend only SSPX, now in certain cases only resistance. If this does not sound like SCHISM, then wake up and smell the flowers. Anyone who refuses to IN principle pray with fellow Catholics, is ipso facto a schismatic, MOST especially if they are aware of how wrong it is. If they suffer under ignorance because their clergy have spoon fed them schism, then they can be partially excused. SV'ist still attend regardless of whatever their ignorant dumb clergy (in this case) might tell them, just look how they have attempted to ban and enforce through denying communion etc... It still has not not worked, people find a way to find to receive the Sacred Manna from Heaven, a right which is theirs by their baptismal vow. Everyone outside of SSPX is non-Catholic... Or God forbid, "partially" Catholic... Novus Ordites are thus treated not as Catholic, but a bunch of lepers to be avoided. This is disgusting behaviour to say the least, it is shameful.
-
[
It might even be better to go to CAF, because at least over there they don't pretend to be traditionalists... They at least ban traditionalist consistently, but its no surprise after all they are attempting to "defend" Vatican II heretics, and claimants. At least they are consistent in banning the good guys and letting error spread from other heretics. They are following the principles of the Conciliarist Church, play nice in the ecuмenical box with heretics/schismatics, but be bad with SSPX/SV'ist. They are evil, ohh yes bunch of "schismatics." It is better to have fewer post that are higher quality, then to have people with secret agendas. What I really fail to see is how someone that knows so much better then these other pseudo-traditionalists who operate under ignorance... This is why sometimes people wonder, why "there is so much division" among trad's... Well I will tell you the reason why, it is precisely because people allow a bunch of schismatics to run amok, pretending to have the faith. If you notice none of the SV'ist on the forum break communion with one another or tolerate. Reading the different post throughout the forum, I am really starting to get an idea that a bunch of schismatics are given free reign here. If I keep reading things like this, honestly I don't want to have to do anything with this place. Anyone that breaks the principle form of unity among Catholics, should be IPSO FACTO called out on that issue. Once verified, they should be banned temporarily, and second time offenders banned for good. Error has no rights, most especially something that is at the core of our Catholicity in our day and age, without a head. "Love one another...", says the Apostle of Love. The act of Schism is the most grievous sin against charity, always have that deeply embedded to the marrow of your bones, inside of your cells of how wicked this sin is.
Of what USE is it to pretend to be "Catholic", when you care little about the sin of schism? Seriously... That is the whole point of our existence... We remain in communion with the Church by being faithful to the teachings of the Church, and keeping communion with fellow Catholics. This is what we call the faith in practice, not just theoretically... When in doubt keep communion, over time I really do see how the SSPX is "the Church" in the eyes of many. Now you see the resistance within the SSPX, give ridiculous advice of how "no one should go to the Neo-SSPX masses." I mean it is totally insane, they really do think that outside of their few little group of priest there are no masses one can attend. You NEVER see this attitude among SV'ist laity, quite the opposite. You see the attempt of certain Bishops to impose that (like SSPV), but even still they will go to other independent priest. Look at Fr. Cekada who attempts to deny communion to those who attend SSPX also, and what do the SV'ist do? The overwhelming majority of SV'ist attend what they have available, the overwhelming amount of SSPX attend only SSPX, now in certain cases only resistance. If this does not sound like SCHISM, then wake up and smell the flowers. Anyone who refuses to IN principle pray with fellow Catholics, is ipso facto a schismatic, MOST especially if they are aware of how wrong it is. If they suffer under ignorance because their clergy have spoon fed them schism, then they can be partially excused. SV'ist still attend regardless of whatever their ignorant dumb clergy (in this case) might tell them, just look how they have attempted to ban and enforce through denying communion etc... It still has not not worked, people find a way to find to receive the Sacred Manna from Heaven, a right which is theirs by their baptismal vow. Everyone outside of SSPX is non-Catholic... Or God forbid, "partially" Catholic... Novus Ordites are thus treated not as Catholic, but a bunch of lepers to be avoided. This is disgusting behaviour to say the least, it is shameful.
Brilliant answer from Thomistic Philosopher.
I should like to see a book written by you on this topic.
Well done to everyone who debated on this topic, I learned much from it.
(I back away now eagerly waiting to read more debate on this)
-
So all of a sudden "Divine Law" went out the window? Only relative to the New Covenant? New relationship? Unfortunately heresy still led souls to Hell even in the Old Covenant, and Divine Law cannot be contained in a little box, to be opened whenever you please. Whether or not the Ecclesiastical Laws changed, the principle stays the same. If a Pope due to "Divine Law" can supposedly lose his office for heresy, then how much more a scribe or a Pharisee! If a mere laymen can declare a vacant seat in regards to Christ's own Vicar, then how much more could Christ Himself have done so in regards to the scribes and Pharisees! The souls in the Old Covenant were no less important than those in the New Covenant. Why didn't Christ declare those heretical scribes and Pharisees to be "deposed" who were leading souls to Hell. Yet not only did He not declare them "deposed", He told His listners to obey them in all things lawful! In regards to Papal "impossibilities", it is not impossible for the Pope to do any of the things you stated above. The only thing that is impossible, is that a true Pope bind the faithful to an error in faith and morals teaching from the Chair of Peter with the fullness of his Apostolic Authority in accordance to the definition of the First Vatican Council.
What heresy are you accusing them of? Please use sources that support your accusation.
What did Jesus accuse them of Ambrose? Were they teaching the doctrines and commandments of God? If they were teaching something else then they were teaching heresy. It right in the Gospels (Matt 15:9). What they taught outside the chair of Moses was much different from what they read while sitting in the Chair of Moses.
-
So all of a sudden "Divine Law" went out the window? Only relative to the New Covenant? New relationship? Unfortunately heresy still led souls to Hell even in the Old Covenant, and Divine Law cannot be contained in a little box, to be opened whenever you please. Whether or not the Ecclesiastical Laws changed, the principle stays the same. If a Pope due to "Divine Law" can supposedly lose his office for heresy, then how much more a scribe or a Pharisee! If a mere laymen can declare a vacant seat in regards to Christ's own Vicar, then how much more could Christ Himself have done so in regards to the scribes and Pharisees! The souls in the Old Covenant were no less important than those in the New Covenant. Why didn't Christ declare those heretical scribes and Pharisees to be "deposed" who were leading souls to Hell. Yet not only did He not declare them "deposed", He told His listners to obey them in all things lawful! In regards to Papal "impossibilities", it is not impossible for the Pope to do any of the things you stated above. The only thing that is impossible, is that a true Pope bind the faithful to an error in faith and morals teaching from the Chair of Peter with the fullness of his Apostolic Authority in accordance to the definition of the First Vatican Council.
What heresy are you accusing them of? Please use sources that support your accusation.
What did Jesus accuse them of Ambrose? Were they teaching the doctrines and commandments of God? If they were teaching something else then they were teaching heresy. It right in the Gospels (Matt 15:9). What they taught outside the chair of Moses was much different from what they read while sitting in the Chair of Moses.
AJPM,
It's a simple question, what heresy are you accusing them of? What theologians have ever said the Pharisees were heretics?
-
So all of a sudden "Divine Law" went out the window? Only relative to the New Covenant? New relationship? Unfortunately heresy still led souls to Hell even in the Old Covenant, and Divine Law cannot be contained in a little box, to be opened whenever you please. Whether or not the Ecclesiastical Laws changed, the principle stays the same. If a Pope due to "Divine Law" can supposedly lose his office for heresy, then how much more a scribe or a Pharisee! If a mere laymen can declare a vacant seat in regards to Christ's own Vicar, then how much more could Christ Himself have done so in regards to the scribes and Pharisees! The souls in the Old Covenant were no less important than those in the New Covenant. Why didn't Christ declare those heretical scribes and Pharisees to be "deposed" who were leading souls to Hell. Yet not only did He not declare them "deposed", He told His listners to obey them in all things lawful! In regards to Papal "impossibilities", it is not impossible for the Pope to do any of the things you stated above. The only thing that is impossible, is that a true Pope bind the faithful to an error in faith and morals teaching from the Chair of Peter with the fullness of his Apostolic Authority in accordance to the definition of the First Vatican Council.
What heresy are you accusing them of? Please use sources that support your accusation.
What did Jesus accuse them of Ambrose? Were they teaching the doctrines and commandments of God? If they were teaching something else then they were teaching heresy. It right in the Gospels (Matt 15:9). What they taught outside the chair of Moses was much different from what they read while sitting in the Chair of Moses.
AJPM,
It's a simple question, what heresy are you accusing them of? What theologians have ever said the Pharisees were heretics?
I gave you a simple answer. What did Jesus plainly say? You would prefer the words of a fallible theologian over the the words of Christ Himself?! Are doctrines and commandments of men not heresy?
-
AJPM,
Are you saying that Our Lord accused the Pharisses of heresy? Cite your evidence.
-
AJPM,
Are you saying that Our Lord accused the Pharisses of heresy? Cite your evidence.
I gave you the evidence from the Gospels! Even the book, chapter and verse! Do you think that the doctrines and commandments of men are not heresy? If not then cite your evidence as to your claim that the doctrines and commandments of men are not heresy.
-
AJPM,
I thought that when you actually read the text you would see your error. You really have no idea what you are talking about.
Our Lord never accused the Pharisees of heresy. He accused them of other grave offenses, but never heresy.
You are making this up, and you know it.
-
AJPM,
I thought that when you actually read the text you would see your error. You really have no idea what you are talking about.
Our Lord never accused the Pharisees of heresy. He accused them of other grave offenses, but never heresy.
You are making this up, and you know it.
One of these verses is made up and you know it. See if you can figure out which one.
And in vain do they worship me, teaching doctrines and commandments of men. (Matt 15:9)
And in vain do they worship me, committing grave offenses. (Matt 15:9)
-
AJPM,
I thought that when you actually read the text you would see your error. You really have no idea what you are talking about.
Our Lord never accused the Pharisees of heresy. He accused them of other grave offenses, but never heresy.
You are making this up, and you know it.
One of these verses is made up and you know it. See if you can figure out which one.
And in vain do they worship me, teaching doctrines and commandments of men. (Matt 15:9)
And in vain do they worship me, committing grave offenses. (Matt 15:9)
Do you now wish to play games with Scripture? You know and I know that Our Lord never accused the Pharisees of heresy. I know the chapter and verse very well, and I have read the commentaries on it.
Why can't you just admit that you are wrong? There is no shame in admitting you are wrong, but there is great shame in misrepresenting Scripture to support your agenda.
You really need to stop reading Scripture without an approved commentary handy, or at least have the humility to read it and realize that you may not be understanding it correctly.
This is a Catholic discussion, is it not?
-
AJPM,
I thought that when you actually read the text you would see your error. You really have no idea what you are talking about.
Our Lord never accused the Pharisees of heresy. He accused them of other grave offenses, but never heresy.
You are making this up, and you know it.
One of these verses is made up and you know it. See if you can figure out which one.
And in vain do they worship me, teaching doctrines and commandments of men. (Matt 15:9)
And in vain do they worship me, committing grave offenses. (Matt 15:9)
Do you now wish to play games with Scripture? You know and I know that Our Lord never accused the Pharisees of heresy. I know the chapter and verse very well, and I have read the commentaries on it.
Why can't you just admit that you are wrong? There is no shame in admitting you are wrong, but there is great shame in misrepresenting Scripture to support your agenda.
You really need to stop reading Scripture without an approved commentary handy, or at least have the humility to read it and realize that you may not be understanding it correctly.
This is a Catholic discussion, is it not?
I see you are stuck Ambrose. You would like to pretend that teaching doctrines and commandments of men as opposed to teaching the doctrines and commandments of God is not heresy. There is really no help for you until you come to your senses.
-
AJPM,
I thought that when you actually read the text you would see your error. You really have no idea what you are talking about.
Our Lord never accused the Pharisees of heresy. He accused them of other grave offenses, but never heresy.
You are making this up, and you know it.
One of these verses is made up and you know it. See if you can figure out which one.
And in vain do they worship me, teaching doctrines and commandments of men. (Matt 15:9)
And in vain do they worship me, committing grave offenses. (Matt 15:9)
And in vain do they worship me, teaching doctrines and commandments of men. [10] And having called together the multitudes unto him, he said to them: Hear ye and understand.
[9] Commandments of men: The doctrines and commandments here reprehended are such as are either contrary to the law of God, (as that of neglecting parents, under pretence of giving to God,) or at least are frivolous, unprofitable, and no ways conducing to true piety, as that of often washing hands, etc., without regard to the purity of the heart. But as to the rules and ordinances of the holy church, touching fasts, festivals, etc., these are no ways repugnant to, but highly agreeable to God's holy word, and all Christian piety: neither are they to be counted among the doctrines and commandments of men; because they proceed not from mere human authority; but from that which Christ has established in his church; whose pastors he has commanded us to hear and obey, even as himself. St. Luke 10. 16; St. Matt. 18. 17.
-
AJPM,
I thought that when you actually read the text you would see your error. You really have no idea what you are talking about.
Our Lord never accused the Pharisees of heresy. He accused them of other grave offenses, but never heresy.
You are making this up, and you know it.
One of these verses is made up and you know it. See if you can figure out which one.
And in vain do they worship me, teaching doctrines and commandments of men. (Matt 15:9)
And in vain do they worship me, committing grave offenses. (Matt 15:9)
And in vain do they worship me, teaching doctrines and commandments of men. [10] And having called together the multitudes unto him, he said to them: Hear ye and understand.
[9] Commandments of men: The doctrines and commandments here reprehended are such as are either contrary to the law of God, (as that of neglecting parents, under pretence of giving to God,) or at least are frivolous, unprofitable, and no ways conducing to true piety, as that of often washing hands, etc., without regard to the purity of the heart. But as to the rules and ordinances of the holy church, touching fasts, festivals, etc., these are no ways repugnant to, but highly agreeable to God's holy word, and all Christian piety: neither are they to be counted among the doctrines and commandments of men; because they proceed not from mere human authority; but from that which Christ has established in his church; whose pastors he has commanded us to hear and obey, even as himself. St. Luke 10. 16; St. Matt. 18. 17.
Doctrines and commandments contrary to Divine Law=Heresy.
-
AJPM,
I thought that when you actually read the text you would see your error. You really have no idea what you are talking about.
Our Lord never accused the Pharisees of heresy. He accused them of other grave offenses, but never heresy.
You are making this up, and you know it.
One of these verses is made up and you know it. See if you can figure out which one.
And in vain do they worship me, teaching doctrines and commandments of men. (Matt 15:9)
And in vain do they worship me, committing grave offenses. (Matt 15:9)
And in vain do they worship me, teaching doctrines and commandments of men. [10] And having called together the multitudes unto him, he said to them: Hear ye and understand.
[9] Commandments of men: The doctrines and commandments here reprehended are such as are either contrary to the law of God, (as that of neglecting parents, under pretence of giving to God,) or at least are frivolous, unprofitable, and no ways conducing to true piety, as that of often washing hands, etc., without regard to the purity of the heart. But as to the rules and ordinances of the holy church, touching fasts, festivals, etc., these are no ways repugnant to, but highly agreeable to God's holy word, and all Christian piety: neither are they to be counted among the doctrines and commandments of men; because they proceed not from mere human authority; but from that which Christ has established in his church; whose pastors he has commanded us to hear and obey, even as himself. St. Luke 10. 16; St. Matt. 18. 17.
Doctrines and commandments contrary to Divine Law=Heresy.
Neglecting parents under pretence of giving to God is heresy?
St. Thomas (II-II:11:1) defines heresy: "a species of infidelity in men who, having professed the faith of Christ, corrupt its dogmas".
Heresy differs from apostasy. The apostate a fide abandons wholly the faith of Christ either by embracing Judaism, Islamism, Paganism, or simply by falling into naturalism and complete neglect of religion; the heretic always retains faith in Christ.
-
AJPM,
I thought that when you actually read the text you would see your error. You really have no idea what you are talking about.
Our Lord never accused the Pharisees of heresy. He accused them of other grave offenses, but never heresy.
You are making this up, and you know it.
One of these verses is made up and you know it. See if you can figure out which one.
And in vain do they worship me, teaching doctrines and commandments of men. (Matt 15:9)
And in vain do they worship me, committing grave offenses. (Matt 15:9)
And in vain do they worship me, teaching doctrines and commandments of men. [10] And having called together the multitudes unto him, he said to them: Hear ye and understand.
[9] Commandments of men: The doctrines and commandments here reprehended are such as are either contrary to the law of God, (as that of neglecting parents, under pretence of giving to God,) or at least are frivolous, unprofitable, and no ways conducing to true piety, as that of often washing hands, etc., without regard to the purity of the heart. But as to the rules and ordinances of the holy church, touching fasts, festivals, etc., these are no ways repugnant to, but highly agreeable to God's holy word, and all Christian piety: neither are they to be counted among the doctrines and commandments of men; because they proceed not from mere human authority; but from that which Christ has established in his church; whose pastors he has commanded us to hear and obey, even as himself. St. Luke 10. 16; St. Matt. 18. 17.
Doctrines and commandments contrary to Divine Law=Heresy.
Neglecting parents under pretence of giving to God is heresy?
St. Thomas (II-II:11:1) defines heresy: "a species of infidelity in men who, having professed the faith of Christ, corrupt its dogmas".
So heresy did not exist before the dogmas of the Catholic faith? Just like Divine Law didn't exist? Or maybe St. Thomas Aquinas gave this definition, because at time he gave it, the Old Covenant was no longer in effect?
-
AJPM,
Defend your position using only approved sources. You have no authority to create your own theology. You are creating a new definition of heresy, I, and now SJB are trying to point his out to you, and you just dig in deeper.
For the last 2000 years you are the only person that has ever accused the Pharisees of heresy. All the Saints, Fathers, Doctors, Theologians, Canonists, and Church historians must have missed what you now see. Does this not set off the "pride alarm" in your conscience?
You, an untrained and unauthorized layman, privately on your own authority interpret scripture and create new doctrine and you think we will just believe you?
-
Replying to this topic's title question, does Canon Law support sede vacante, I would answer yes. Specifically, Title 13 on offenses against the authorities, persons, ecclesiastical matters provides Canon 2335 (from Church commentary - Those who join a Masonic sect or other societies of the same sort, which plot against the Church or legitimate civil authority, incur ipso facto an excommunication simply reserved to the Holy See.)
-
Replying to this topic's title question, does Canon Law support sede vacante, I would answer yes. Specifically, Title 13 on offenses against the authorities, persons, ecclesiastical matters provides Canon 2335 (from Church commentary - Those who join a Masonic sect or other societies of the same sort, which plot against the Church or legitimate civil authority, incur ipso facto an excommunication simply reserved to the Holy See.)
The sedevacantist version of "ipso facto" means that if one "appears" to have defected from the faith, that any layperson or priest can declare a vacant seat. This is not reality, and exists only in the wacky world of sedevacantists. In reality the Church determines whether or not there is a vacant seat, and the penalty would be applied retroactively. Notice, that the "ipso facto" excommunication is reserved to the Holy See (not to laypersons and priests etc.) Until then the cleric would have to be tolerated and resisted until the declaratory sentence.
Canon 2258~1: Some excommunicates are banned, others tolerated.
Canon 2232~2: A declaratory sentence makes the penalty retroactive to the moment of committing the delict.
Canon 2314~3: If they give their names to non-Catholic sects or publicly adhere [to them] they are by that fact infamous, and with due regard to Canon 188, n. 4. clerics, the previous warnings having been useless, are degraded.
-
AJPM,
Defend your position using only approved sources. You have no authority to create your own theology. You are creating a new definition of heresy, I, and now SJB are trying to point his out to you, and you just dig in deeper.
For the last 2000 years you are the only person that has ever accused the Pharisees of heresy. All the Saints, Fathers, Doctors, Theologians, Canonists, and Church historians must have missed what you now see. Does this not set off the "pride alarm" in your conscience?
You, an untrained and unauthorized layman, privately on your own authority interpret scripture and create new doctrine and you think we will just believe you?
I'm starting to suspect that AJPM and Laramie are one and the same or are at least tag-teaming the forum. I can't verify it, of course. What I CAN verify is that they're full of hot air - among other things. And isn't it strange how ever since Francis the Phony was "elected" and after every anti-Catholic BS comment he makes, the anti-sedes have come on fast and furious? They can't defend their schizophrenic R&R "theology," so the program is to simply attack. I think they protest too much. "Sedevacantism just can't be the answer; Francis must be the Pope" is the "logic." It reminds me of the great line from Planet of the Apes: "There is no cave. There can't be!"
-
Based on the texts that have been repeatedly posted here and on other threads I honestly can state that AJPM purposely falsifies what Catholic Popes and theologians have said, obstinately mischaracterizes the Sedevacantist position and is ipso facto lying or illiterate.
That does not mean that holds true for sedeplenists, it just applies to the weasely AJPM :ape:
-
I'm starting to suspect that AJPM and Laramie are one and the same or are at least tag-teaming the forum. I can't verify it, of course.
I've also heard I'm Jєωιѕн.
-shalom
-
I think the charge of narcissistic fit you really well!!!
-
I think the charge of narcissistic fit you really well!!!
And you and all sedevacantists are true cafeteria Catholics. Cafeteria Catholics of the other extreme.
-
...based on your obstinate and continuous rejection of definitions of True Catholic Popes and theologians repeatedly posted for you here?
I say you have just typed the definition of YOUR false faith!
And your blanket accusation of sedevacantists proves your dogmatic sedeplenist heresy!!
It is pretty egotistical of you to reject OUTRIGHT the definitions set forth by the Church concerning heresy and the loss of office!
You are a TRUE PROTESTANT and a DECEIVER of Catholics who come to this site seeking truth!!! May God forgive you for such scandal!!!
-
You are a TRUE PROTESTANT and a DECEIVER of Catholics who come to this site seeking truth...
Says the man who doesn't respect the pope's authority.
-
Funny for you to say that because it is YOU who reject the popes!!
As long as you insist on carrying on this ABSURD rejection of Catholic Popes and theologians, I will expose you!
Why do you choose to assault the faith of our fathers as you do? :confused1:
You are like a stubborn donkey!
:pray:
-
Funny for you to say that because it is YOU who reject the popes!!
As long as you insist on carrying on this ABSURD rejection of Catholic Popes and theologians, I will expose you!
This is sort of fun. We are talking past each other completely. But you know what I mean, and I know what you mean.
I'm accusing you of not recognizing popes since Vatican II, because you are a sedevacantist. I also accuse you of failing to respect the apostolic authority of these popes, the cardinals, and most of the Church hierarchy.
You are accusing me of not recognizing errors in the Church, and that at some point something you would deem as heretical occurred which nullified the whole thing.
My trouble lately, here on Cathinfo, is that even when I try to sincerely tackle something specific, I get all sorts of thumbs down and all sorts of nasty little rebukes.
My last exchange with TP went unsuccessful, and in the end I had to recommend to him and everyone else for the second time of the existance of the HIDE button, in case people don't want to read anything i have to say.
So far this late summer/early fall, we've discussed the Catechism and the Lumen Gentium. They are not infallible. Other things were said of them, but moving on.
You state that I am rejecting Catholic Popes. Which pope am I rejecting? How am I rejecting that pope?
I just want to stay specific here. And although I don't have an enormous amount of time per session, I can pay attention to the issue in a long-term manner.
If you want to expose me, then lets pull out facts, discuss them, and see where things lie. It's the most honest way to do this.
-Laramie
* The bolded part of this thread post is the part I want you to respond to.
-
You are the one who is talking past everyone. This is not a cute game I am playing with you. You are full of deception.
Here are two popes for starters.
Leaving out the other theologians. for now.
Bull cuм Ex Apostolatus [16 Feb. 1559], Pope Paul IV — “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 time in the foregoing situation, be considered even partially legitimate in any way.... — “Each and all of their words, 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.”
Pope Innocent III — “The Pope should not flatter himself about his power nor should he rashly glory in his honor and high estate, because the less he is judged by man, the more he is judged by God. Still the less can the Roman Pontiff glory because he can be judged by men, or rather, can be shown to be already judged, if for example he should wither away into heresy; because he who does not believe is already judged. In such a case it should be said of him: 'If salt should lose its savor, it is good for nothing but to be cast out and trampled under foot by men.’” - See more at: http://www.cmri.org/02-answering-objections-sede.html#sthash.GRApehic.dpuf
-
Please refute Pope Paul IV first.
Thank you
-
This is not a cute game I am playing with you.
You're right. It's an internet forum.
Look, please try to lay off snarky attacks. You are full of deception.
I appreciate your giving us a starting point. Also, please don't look for any conclusions to be reached on my end tonight or tomorrow. Like I said, I don't have all the time in the world. I get on the internet and chat and blog because it's amusing for me. It is fun. It is extracurricular. It is not my life.
I will be back later. -LH
-
I'm carrying this conversation into a new thread, here:
http://www.cathinfo.com/catholic.php?a=topic&t=27878
-
This is sort of fun. We are talking past each other completely. But you know what I mean, and I know what you mean.
You're not a serious person, as no serious person finds your style of arguing "fun."
So far this late summer/early fall, we've discussed the Catechism and the Lumen Gentium. They are not infallible. Other things were said of them, but moving on.
You state that I am rejecting Catholic Popes. Which pope am I rejecting? How am I rejecting that pope?
You reject the proximate rule of faith for a Catholic being the preaching of the Church. You dismiss the Council's teaching (even if you say it's only pastoral) and the catechism. Even if you admit to the crisis, your solution is totally Protestant.
-
The ironic thing about all of LH's anti-sede BS posts is that, by definition, he's the schismatic. He recognizes the Conciliar Church popes yet refuses them the due authority that comes with the office. He also refuses communion with Catholics. He's here to stir the pot, plain and simple. No one should take him seriously.
-
The ironic thing about all of LH's anti-sede BS posts is that, by definition, he's the schismatic. He recognizes the Conciliar Church popes yet refuses them the due authority that comes with the office. He also refuses communion with Catholics. He's here to stir the pot, plain and simple. No one should take him seriously.
If he is the Pope, then we are to submit to him 100%.
-
The ironic thing about all of LH's anti-sede BS posts is that, by definition, he's the schismatic. He recognizes the Conciliar Church popes yet refuses them the due authority that comes with the office. He also refuses communion with Catholics. He's here to stir the pot, plain and simple. No one should take him seriously.
If he is the Pope, then we are to submit to him 100%.
Exactly my point. That includes liturgical rites, catechisms, canon law, etc. In LH's world, the only thing we recognize are infallible statements; everything else is up for grabs. How ridiculous is that? By that "logic," if Francis were to grant another of his endless interviews and explicitly state that Jesus Christ is not truly God, that would be just fine because the statement wasn't issued ex cathedra. How utterly ludicrous. If he walks like an apostate and talks like an apostate...