Author Topic: Foreward to Fr. Paul Kramer's Soon to be Released "Heretic Pope?" (Read 3529 times)

forlorn · « **Reply #30 on:** September 16, 2018, 05:18:14 AM »

Quote from: AlbertP on September 15, 2018, 10:17:36 PM

In your earlier post, you said Bellarmine does not believe a heretical pope can retain the form of the pontificate. You were referring to this:

Bellarmine: "Further against the argument of Cajetan: either faith is a disposition necessary 'simpliciter' for someone to be Pope, or it is only necessary for someone to be a good Pope. In the first hypothesis, in case this disposition be eliminated by the contrary disposition, which is heresy, the Pope immediately ceases to be Pope: for the form cannot maintain itself without the necessary dispositions."

Incorrect. St. Bellarmine's personal view was that a Pope could not be a heretic at all. That article was him just addressing the various views on what would happen if he was incorrect and a heretical Pope somehow came to be.

Quote from: AlbertP on September 15, 2018, 10:17:36 PM

Bellarmine does not believe faith is a disposition necessary for a pope to retain the form of the pontificate. This is evident by what he wrote two paragraphs earlier (in his refutation of the Second Opinion) and at the end of his defense of the Fifth Opinion, as well as in other places.

In the quotation above, Bellarmine is attempting to use Cajetan's ecclesiology against him; he's not give his own opinion. Cajetan believes faith and the character are necessary for membership in the Church, Bellarmine doesn't. Bellarmine believes the external bonds alone suffice for membership, and external unity alone suffices for a pope to retain his office.

And it's strange that Bellarmine is attempting to refute this particular argument of Cajetan, since Cajetan used it in his own refutation of the opinion that Bellarmine lists as the 2nd Opinion (i.e., that the loss of interior faith causes a pope to lose his office), which Bellarmine also rejects. They are in agreement that the 2nd Opinion is wrong, and they both refute it, yet for some reason, in his attempted refutation of the 4th Opinion (which Cajetan holds), Bellarmine dedicates six paragraphs to refuting what Cajetan wrote against the 2nd Opinion. The reason Bellarmine did so was in an attempt to use Cajetan's ecclesiology against him, but in truth it wasn't a convincing argument. John of St. Thomas easily refuted it.

The problem is that if one doesn't realize that Bellarmine is attempting to use Cajetan's argument against him, they will entirely misunderstand his position. That's what happened to Fr. Kramer, who not only failed to realize what Bellarmine was doing, but ended up erecting an elaborate argument, full of novelties and errors, based on what he mistakenly thought Bellarmine himself believed.

If you read Fr. Kramer's argument for why the virtue of faith is supposedly necessary for a pope to teach infallibly (which NO ONE HAS EVER TAUGHT), you'll see that it's based on his misunderstanding of the above excerpt from Bellarmine - viz, that the virtue of faith is a necessary disposition for a pope to retain the form of the Pontificate. This same error is also why he now claims it is "proximate to heresy" to believe it's possible for a Pope to lose the virtue of faith, now that Vatican I has defined Papal Infallibility. All this based on the erroneous interpretation of Bellarmine's position, which Bellarmine himself explicitly refuted two paragraphs earlier.

A few posts up you were using St. Bellarmine to defend your views, and now you're claiming Bellarmine was incorrect. Which is it - what do you believe?

Neil Obstat · « **Reply #31 on:** September 18, 2018, 01:14:06 AM »

Quote from: forlorn on September 16, 2018, 05:18:14 AM

A few posts up you were using St. Bellarmine to defend your views, and now you're claiming Bellarmine was incorrect. Which is it - what do you believe?

.
You've been reading a demonstration of how to use the writings of a Church Doctor sort of like cannon fodder, a useful tool when applied for your various purposes, regardless of what your target of the moment is.

Ladislaus · « **Reply #32 on:** September 18, 2018, 09:25:23 AM »

Quote from: AlbertP on September 14, 2018, 09:20:32 PM

There’s the two ways Bellarmine believes a pope loses his office for manifest heresy: he either publicly separates himself from the Church, or he is determined to be a heretic by the Church, and legally declared to be separated from it.

Right here is the problem. If the Pope isn't separated from his office until a judgment by the Church that he has committed the crime of heresy, then the Church would be passing judgment on a sitting Pope.

So what exactly is the force of said declaration?

It's nothing more than a RECOGNITION by the Church that this has ALREADY HAPPENED.

Does this recognition require some kind of "legal" form? Without the Pope, what kind of "legal" status can a declaration from the headless Church even have? So this phrase you employ that the Pope would be "legally declared to be separated from [the Church]" is nonsense.

This recognition, by virtue of the infallibility of the Ecclesia Credens, would give the certainty of faith regarding this fact. Until it reaches that point, however, there's room for "widespread doubt" ... that eventually requires resolution one way or another.

So this recognition by the Church does not ontologically effect deposition, but constitutes merely a recognition regarding the truth of it. THAT is precisely why St. Robert Bellarmine states that it is the FACT ITSELF which effects the deposition. But this position of S&S twists it into a variant on --- the declaration causes the fact which causes the deposition, so ultimately the declaration causes the deposition.

Ladislaus · « **Reply #33 on:** September 18, 2018, 09:32:29 AM »

Quote from: AlbertP on September 15, 2018, 10:17:36 PM

external unity alone suffices for a pope to retain his office

I think that you're trying to twist Bellarmine's understanding of "external unity" into some kind of legal thing. Simple public adherence to heresy would, in Bellarmine's view, suffice on its own to sever someone from the external unity.

Ladislaus · « **Reply #34 on:** September 18, 2018, 12:18:04 PM »

You know, these academic discussions about what happens to a heretical pope are absolutely moot and a waste of time.

If this were the case of a Church whose Magisterium and Universal Discipline remained intact, but Bergoglio was running around spouting heretical nonsense, we'd just leave it up to the hierarchy to sort out and would not even give it a second thought.

All we know is that the Church's Magisterium and Universal Discipline are guaranteed by God not to go this badly off the rails where they're leading souls to hell and to displeasing Him. Consequently, we know that these men cannot be exercising legitimate teaching authority. As for the mechanism responsible? It could be many things: blackmail, drugging, illegitimate election/infiltration, heresy, etc. Archbishop Lefebvre went through this list with the same reasoning in mind.

I for one think these men are Communist-Masonic infiltrators who got Roncalli and his successors illegitimately elected to the See of Peter.

AlbertP · « **Reply #35 on:** September 19, 2018, 09:35:01 PM »

Quote from: forlorn on September 16, 2018, 05:18:14 AM

Incorrect. St. Bellarmine's personal view was that a Pope could not be a heretic at all. That article was him just addressing the various views on what would happen if he was incorrect and a heretical Pope somehow came to be.

That's a separate question. Bellarmine said the opinion that a pope cannot lose the faith is "probable and easily defendable", but then he addressed what would happen if he did lose the faith, since he admitted that the common opinion is that a pope can fall into heresy.

Quote

A few posts up you were using St. Bellarmine to defend your views, and now you're claiming Bellarmine was incorrect. Which is it - what do you believe?

I wasn't using Bellarmine to defend my views. I was showing what Bellarmine's position is. And I didn't say Bellarmine was incorrect. What i said is that the particular argument he used - the one you completely took out of context - was a bad argument.
Why did you ignore the fact that you entirely misunderstood what Bellarmine meant about the faith being a necessary disposition to retain the form of the papacy? You accused me of taking him out of context, when it was you who were doing so. Bellarmine was trying to use Cajetan's ecclesiology against him, and you thought he was explaining his own position.

AlbertP · « **Reply #36 on:** September 20, 2018, 12:25:52 AM »

Quote

AlbertP: There’s the two ways Bellarmine believes a pope loses his office for manifest heresy: he either publicly separates himself from the Church, or he is determined to be a heretic by the Church, and legally declared to be separated from it.

Quote

Ladislaus: Right here is the problem. If the Pope isn't separated from his office until a judgment by the Church that he has committed the crime of heresy, then the Church would be passing judgment on a sitting Pope.

Bellarmine: But it is certain (whatever one or another may think) that an occult heretic, if he be a bishop or even the supreme Pontiff, does not lose his jurisdiction, or dignity, or the title of head in the Church, until either [1] he publicly separates himself from the Church, or, [2] being convicted of heresy, is unwillingly separated.” (De Ecclesia Militante, bk III, ch. X)

How do you interpret that teaching of Bellarmine about the two ways a pope loses his jurisdiction, dignity and title of head of the Church? If you need some help, consult the 2^nd and 5^th opinions in bk 2, chapter 30 of De Romano Pontifice. The 5^thOpinion concerns the first way, the 2^nd Opinion concerns the second. If you want me to quote these opinions and comment on them, let me know.

Regarding judging the pope, if the Church were not permitted to determine, by human judgment, if a pope is a heretic, it would never be permitted to declare that he lost his office for heresy. The first judgment is required before the second can be rendered, and if the first is not permitted, the second could never be concluded. There is no way to escape that logic.

How does Bellarmine answer that difficulty? His answer is found in the 3^rd Opinion, where he says “in the case of heresy, a Roman Pontiff can be judged” because heresy “the only reason where it is lawful for inferiors to judge superiors.” He doesn’t say the reason he can be judged is because he is already “outside the Church and deposed by God.” No, he explicitly refutes that in the 2^nd Opinion, and further says that just as a pope does not receive his jurisdiction by God without the judgment of men, so to a pope who falls into heresy "is not removed by God unless it is through men".

Now, Bellarmine does say a pope cannot be judged with a coercive judgment, or 'judged and punished,' while he remains pope. But the Church is permitted to use human judgment to determine if he is a heretic. If the Church makes that determination, it can declare him separated from the Church and abrogate his pontificate.

Listen to what he wrote about the case of Marcellinus:

“The example of Marcellinus, who in the Council of Sinvessano was condemned by the bishops and deposed. I respond: a) Marcellinus was accused of an act of infidelity, in which case a Council can discuss the case of a Pope and if they were to discover that he really was an infidel, the Council can declare him outside the Church and thus condemn him.”

In another place, Bellarmine said he does not believe Marcellinus lost his office by his public act of apostasy, yet above he said it was permitted for the Council to be gathered to discuss the case because of the accusation against him. Bellarmine believes it was licit for a Council to gathered, not simply declare that he wasn’t the pope, but to examine the case in order to determine, by human judgment, if he was guilty as charge. If they were to make the determination, then they could declare him separated from the Church, and judge him with a coercive judgment.

Quote

So what exactly is the force of said declaration? It's nothing more than a RECOGNITION by the Church that this has ALREADY HAPPENED.

Let’s compare what Bellarmine says about the case of Pope Marcellinus and Pope Liberius to see if it supports your position.

Bellarmine: “Liberius neither taught heresy, nor was a heretic, but only sinned by external act, as did St. Marcellinus, and unless I am mistaken, sinned less than St. Marcellinus."

Notice, Bellarmine believes both Popes sinned by an external act, but believes the sin of Marcellinus was greater. Now, since Bellarmine did not believe Marcellinus lost his office ipso facto for his sin against the faith, he obviously didn’t believe Liberius lost his office for his lesser sin. Yet Bellarmine did believe Liberius lost the pontificate in some way. How did it happen? According to Bellarmine, the pontifical dignity “taken from" Liberius by the priests of Rome, who “stripped” him of it.

Bellarmine: “Then two years later came the lapse of Liberius, of which we have spoken above. Then indeed the Roman clergy, stripping Liberius of his pontifical dignity, went over to Felix, whom they knew to be a Catholic. From that time, Felix began to be the true Pontiff. For although Liberius was not a heretic, nevertheless he was considered one [by human judgment], on account of the peace he made with the Arians, and by that presumption the pontificate could rightly be taken from him: for men are not bound, or able to read hearts; but when they see that someone is a heretic by his external works, they judge him to be a heretic pure and simple, and condemn him as a heretic.” (De Romano Pontifice, bk IV)

How do you square that with your interpretation, and with your claim that the Church merely recognizes the fact of what already happened?

Ladislaus · « **Reply #37 on:** September 20, 2018, 09:09:45 AM »

Quote from: AlbertP on September 19, 2018, 09:35:01 PM

That's a separate question. Bellarmine said the opinion that a pope cannot lose the faith is "probable and easily defendable", but then he addressed what would happen if he did lose the faith, since he admitted that the common opinion is that a pope can fall into heresy.

He referred to it as "pious belief", something for which there's no actual theological proof. I believe this as well. If a true Catholic were elected Pope, I don't believe God would allow him even personally to lose the faith. That's why I hold that these men were most likely infiltrators who never had the faith in the first place. It's unlikely that any of them were completely orthodox at the time of their election and then somehow lost the faith afterwards.

Ladislaus · « **Reply #38 on:** September 20, 2018, 09:15:27 AM »

Quote from: AlbertP on September 20, 2018, 12:25:52 AM

Regarding judging the pope, if the Church were not permitted to determine, by human judgment, if a pope is a heretic, it would never be permitted to declare that he lost his office for heresy. The first judgment is required before the second can be rendered, and if the first is not permitted, the second could never be concluded. There is no way to escape that logic.

Apparently you completely missed my point. Yes, the Church "determines" that a Pope is a heretic, but this is not any kind of legal thing but, rather, an awareness or recognition of fact. And the recognition does not cause the loss of office, but the fact itself does. So logically the loss of office must occur BEFORE the awareness by the Church.

Ladislaus · « **Reply #39 on:** September 20, 2018, 09:19:39 AM »

Quote from: AlbertP on September 20, 2018, 12:25:52 AM

How does Bellarmine answer that difficulty? His answer is found in the 3^rd Opinion, where he says “in the case of heresy, a Roman Pontiff can be judged” because heresy “the only reason where it is lawful for inferiors to judge superiors.” He doesn’t say the reason he can be judged is because he is already “outside the Church and deposed by God.”

Yes, but as you point out, this is a different kind of judgment, a mere "assessment of fact", not a juridical thing.

Ladislaus · « **Reply #40 on:** September 20, 2018, 09:22:34 AM »

Quote from: AlbertP on September 20, 2018, 12:25:52 AM

In another place, Bellarmine said he does not believe Marcellinus lost his office by his public act of apostasy, yet above he said it was permitted for the Council to be gathered to discuss the case because of the accusation against him. Bellarmine believes it was licit for a Council to gathered, not simply declare that he wasn’t the pope, but to examine the case in order to determine, by human judgment, if he was guilty as charge. If they were to make the determination, then they could declare him separated from the Church, and judge him with a coercive judgment.

Yes, this is a determination of fact. That's my point entirely. Bellarmine's difficulties are best resolved by sedeprivationism. Pope formally becomes separated from his office by the heresy, and then the Church materially separates him from office. Bellarmine's position is messy, based upon some unsubstantiated gratuitous "exception" to the rule papa a nemine judicandus wherein he appears to conflate assessment of fact with some kind of juridical assessment. But sedeprivationism cleanly resolves this issue.

Ladislaus · « **Reply #41 on:** September 20, 2018, 10:03:50 AM »

You asked earlier the difference between Popes and bishops who are in heresy. In both cases, they must be materially separated from office, the bishops by the Pope and the Pope by the Church. But in the case of bishops, the Pope can separate him formally from office as well, since the form of office derives from him. But the Church cannot separate the Pope formally from office, because the form of the office comes directly from God. All the Church does is to recognize the fact that God has separated the form of the office from the person to whom it was united, and then materially separates him from the office. When the Church (via the Cardinals) elects a Pope, the Church DESIGNATES the candidate upon whom God bestows the office. It's not unlike in some parts of the early Church where the priests would "elect" their local bishop, and then another Bishop, a Metropolitan or some such, with the tacit approval of Rome, would come bestow the form of the office. In this case, the Church designates the candidate, and God Himself bestows the form of the office. After God has then removed the form of the office on account of heresy, the Church then LIFTS or REMOVES the DESIGNATION. So it's the exact reverse of the process by which the man was elected in the first place. This is the genius of sedeprivationism.

AlbertP · « **Reply #42 on:** September 20, 2018, 12:05:37 PM »

Quote from: Ladislaus on September 20, 2018, 10:03:50 AM

You asked earlier the difference between Popes and bishops who are in heresy. In both cases, they must be materially separated from office, the bishops by the Pope and the Pope by the Church. But in the case of bishops, the Pope can separate him formally from office as well, since the form of office derives from him.

Agreed, but you just contradicted your earlier statement.

In the comment above you admitted that (1) a heretical bishop remains in office materially, until he is removed by the Pope. Earlier you admitted that (2) a heretical bishop “would retain jurisdiction until it's withdrawn by the pope.” If he remains in office materially and retains his jurisdiction (the form) until is he legally removed, it means he retains his office materially and formally. Yet previously (see the first page in this thread), you claimed that heresy “intrinsically removes from office by its very nature before any crime has been juridically demonstrated.”

That is a contradiction. If heresy intrinsically removed one from office before the crime has been juridically demonstrated, a heretical bishop would not retain his office materially and formally until he is removed by the Pope, yet you now admit that he does.

Either heresy intrinsically removes from office or it doesn't. If it does, it applies to a bishop; if it doesn't it proves your assertion is false. How do you reconcile this?

More to follow…

Ladislaus · « **Reply #43 on:** September 20, 2018, 01:09:11 PM »

Quote from: AlbertP on September 20, 2018, 12:05:37 PM

Either heresy intrinsically removes from office or it doesn't. If it does, it applies to a bishop; if it doesn't it proves your assertion is false. How do you reconcile this?

It's based on the material vs. formal distinction.

I realize that I did not properly articulate my view regarding bishops retaining jurisdiction. I have before here on CI, but not within this thread. Since the jurisdiction of bishops is derived from the pope, as long as they remain materially in office (at the pleasure of the pope), they remain intact as conduits for the papal jurisdiction, as it were. So, for instance, even if you had a formally heretical bishop who had not yet been deposed from office, the priests in his diocese would still, for instance, receive faculties through the bishop for hearing Confessions, the bishops could appoint pastors to parishes, etc. So the power of designation and appointment (the material aspects of the office) remain intact until he is materially removed from office by the Pope. So, when I say that bishops retain jurisdiction, I mean that they remain conduits for the papal jurisdiction and can act as material agents for its exercise.

Similarly, with the papacy, I hold that until (in this case the Church) removes the material aspect of office (i.e. the designation), the Pope can remain a conduit for the authority bestowed by God. So he can appoint bishops, and appoint cardinals. Those bishops, if they themselves are not impeded from formally exercising jurisdiction, would do so upon being appointed by a material pope. But this heretical pope would not have any teaching authority or moral authority in the Church.

And, in the final analysis, is R&R really, for all practical intents and purposes, not all that different. They recognize the fact that these men hold office materially, but they do not recognize them as having moral authority or teaching authority. Now the only difference between (my twist on) sedeprivationism and R&R is that sedeprivationism holds that these popes lack moral authority and teaching authority categorically, period, even when it comes to their commands that are not bad or even good ... whereas R&R holds that they only lack authority when what they command or teach is wrong (otherwise they have authority). Father Chazal recently articulated a position that's closer to sedeprivationism than classic R&R in that he holds that these pope can be categorically ignored and that anything they teach or command is null and void on account of heresy.

Jorge Bergoglio: "I command that all Catholics say the Rosary tomorrow."
R&R: "We must comply and say the Rosary."
Sedeprivationism: "We are not strictly obliged to comply." [but we might anyway because it's a good thing]
Dogmatic Sedevacantists: "We refuse to say the Rosary tomorrow, even though we normally do anyway, because that might be giving the impression that this man has authority."

AlbertP · « **Reply #44 on:** September 20, 2018, 02:23:36 PM »

Quote

Ladislaus: “But the Church cannot separate the Pope formally from office, because the form of the office comes directly from God. All the Church does is to recognize the fact that God has separated the form of the office from the person to whom it was united, and then [the Church] materially separates him from the office.”

Let me make sure I understand your position. A pope who falls into heresy is ipso facto ‘deposed by God’ formally, while only remaining the office holder materially, and for this reason he ‘can be judged by the Church’. All the Church does is recognize and declare the fact that he has been already been deposed by divine law, and then depose him de facto, thereby removing from office materially, he who had already been removed by God formally. Did I get anything wrong?

The position you hold is the “2^nd Opinion” that Bellarmine rejects and refutes (with one difference). Here is the 2^nd Opinion in Bellarmine’s own words.

“The second opinion is that the Pope, in the very instant in which he falls into heresy, even if it is only interior, is outside the Church and deposed by God, for which reason he can be judged by the Church. That is, he is declared deposed by divine law, and deposed de facto, if he still refused to yield. This is of John de Turrecremata, but it is not proven to me.”

The only difference between your position, and what is described above, is that you believe the heresy must be professed, whereas the 2^nd Opinion maintains that he will be deposed by God even if the heresy remains interior. But the above opinion includes heresy that has been professed as well, since, if it had not been, there would be nothing for the Church to judge, and no cause for him to be "deposed de facto" for heresy. Next you say:

Quote

Ladislaus: “When the Church (via the Cardinals) elects a Pope, the Church DESIGNATES the candidate upon whom God bestows the office. (…) the Church designates the candidate, and God Himself bestows the form of the office. After God has then removed the form of the office on account of heresy, the Church then LIFTS or REMOVES the DESIGNATION. So it's the exact reverse of the process by which the man was elected in the first place. This is the genius of sedeprivationism.

That’s not genius. It’s a post-Vatican II novelty. When a bishop legally holds office, he possesses the jurisdiction of the office. You admit that other bishops retain both until they are legally removed, and the same is true for a pope. The difference concerns how the removal takes place with a pope.

Let’s compare your opinion, as you described it above, to Bellarmine’s refutation of the 2^nd Opinion. You say the Cardinal designate the man by election and then God bestows the form of the papacy on him. Then, if the Pope falls into heresy, God first removes him, and then man removes the designation. Compare that to Bellarmine’s refutation of the 2^nd Opinion:

“For Jurisdiction is certainly given to the Pontiff by God, but with the agreement of men, as is obvious; because this man, who beforehand was not Pope, has from men that he would begin to be Pope, therefore, he is not removed by God unless it is through men. But a secret heretic cannot be judged by men, nor would such wish to relinquish that power by his own will.”

Notice what he says: just as the man receives his jurisdiction by God with the agreement of men, so too he is not removed by God (jurisdiction is not taken away by God), unless it is through men. He doesn’t say he is made pope by God with the agreement of men, then removed partially by God without men, and finally removed the rest of the way by men without God (which is your position). Just as men and God work together in making him Pope (each doing their respective parts), so too men and God work together to remove him, with each doing their respective parts.

Consider again Bellarmine’s explanation of the case of Liberius. When he said the priests of Rome “stripped Liberius of the pontifical dignity,” he did not mean they authoritatively deposed him and deprived him of his jurisdiction. What he meant is the priests of Rome determined that he was a heretic (to the best of their ability), and then abrogated – legally rendered null - the pontificate (as the Latin shows). That was the part of men. The part of God was to authoritatively deprive him of the pontificate formally – but it is clear that Bellarmine did not believe God had already done his part, before the priests of Rome did theirs. This fits perfectly with his statement that a heretical Pope “is not removed by God unless it is through men.”

Author Topic: Foreward to Fr. Paul Kramer's Soon to be Released "Heretic Pope?" (Read 3529 times)

forlorn

Re: Foreward to Fr. Paul Kramer's Soon to be Released "Heretic Pope?"

Neil Obstat

Re: Foreward to Fr. Paul Kramer's Soon to be Released "Heretic Pope?"

Ladislaus

Re: Foreward to Fr. Paul Kramer's Soon to be Released "Heretic Pope?"

Ladislaus

Re: Foreward to Fr. Paul Kramer's Soon to be Released "Heretic Pope?"

Ladislaus

Re: Foreward to Fr. Paul Kramer's Soon to be Released "Heretic Pope?"

AlbertP

Re: Foreward to Fr. Paul Kramer's Soon to be Released "Heretic Pope?"

AlbertP

Re: Foreward to Fr. Paul Kramer's Soon to be Released "Heretic Pope?"

Ladislaus

Re: Foreward to Fr. Paul Kramer's Soon to be Released "Heretic Pope?"

Ladislaus

Re: Foreward to Fr. Paul Kramer's Soon to be Released "Heretic Pope?"

Ladislaus

Re: Foreward to Fr. Paul Kramer's Soon to be Released "Heretic Pope?"

Ladislaus

Re: Foreward to Fr. Paul Kramer's Soon to be Released "Heretic Pope?"

Ladislaus

Re: Foreward to Fr. Paul Kramer's Soon to be Released "Heretic Pope?"

AlbertP

Re: Foreward to Fr. Paul Kramer's Soon to be Released "Heretic Pope?"

Ladislaus

Re: Foreward to Fr. Paul Kramer's Soon to be Released "Heretic Pope?"

AlbertP

Re: Foreward to Fr. Paul Kramer's Soon to be Released "Heretic Pope?"