Read an Interview with Matthew, the owner of CathInfo

Author Topic: Foreward to Fr. Paul Kramer's Soon to be Released "Heretic Pope?"  (Read 1280 times)

0 Members and 2 Guests are viewing this topic.

Offline cassini

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 1439
  • Reputation: +742/-85
  • Gender: Male
Re: Foreward to Fr. Paul Kramer's Soon to be Released "Heretic Pope?"
« Reply #15 on: September 13, 2018, 05:50:47 AM »
  • Thanks!2
  • No Thanks!0
  • Can you name any bishops from the time of Bellarmine until today who the Church recognizes as having lost their office for heresy, before the crime had been legally determined by the Church?

    Heresy and Bellarmine. Now wasn't it the same Bellarmine who, having presided over the trial of Bruno, sided with Pope Paul V when he defined and declared biblical heliocentrism formal heresy?
    When faced with the false assertions of philosophers and media that physical heliocentrism was a proven fact, even popes ruled in favour of human reasoning and allowed the one time formal heresy to be the correct interpretation of the bible.

    Now this was done in spite of a number of Holy Office members who rejected the claims of science and tried to defend the papal decree of Pope Paul V as 'irreversable.' In other words the threat of heresy meant NOTHING to many churchmen, including popes, one after the other, beginning in 1741.

    Ok, now let us get back to Bellarmine, the saint who set down teaching on papal heresy and who presided over 1616 decree that defined biblical heliocentrism as formal heresy. With popes now allowing heliocentrism to be understood as a truth of nature and thus the Bible, we now have to find a way out so as to be able to say the post 1741 heliocentric popes of the Church were not heretics or we would have to face the situation of having few popes since 1741 true popes.

    So, we must now say they never REALLY meant to contradict the definition of heresy, but when they preferred the 'proof' that the 1616 decree was proven false to faith in their predecessors ruling, their heresy is demoted to MATERIAL HERESY which is really no heresy at all.

    But now that the dogs in the street know that the 1616 decree defining biblical heliocentrism was NEVER falsified, and confirms the position of Fr Anfossi and his supporters in the Holy Office of 1820 who warned all that there was no proof and that the 1616 decree was papal, it puts the popes' position into a matter of belief (in human reasoning or in that of all the Fathers and the 1616 decree) once again. So, what kind of heresy is now involved.

    Given that we now know heliocentrism was never proven, and thus the decree defining this belief is formal heresy never proven false or abrogated, is it still material heresy to continue to choose heliocentrism as a truth of nature and revelation?

    If one goes by Bellarmine's opinion, then how many popes were heliocentric formal heretics, how many were only Material heretics, and how many, after Einstein chose the formal heretical position. For example, Pope John Paul II, in his address at the Galileo commission, confirmed Einstein said relativity prevails and we cannot tell if helio or geo is the truth. But he said in effect, I will go for Galileo rather that the Church of 1616. In other words he chose the formal heretical heliocentrism.

    Given it is now proven that the 1616 decree was never an error as promulgated for centuries, right up to this day, and catholics, even on this forum, prefer to hold on to the heresy and even argue in favour of others holding the same heretical position.

    Our Lady recognised many of the heliocentric believing popes as Christ's Vicars, as true popes Yes? So if we are to do the maths, Bellarmine's teaching on heretical popes included, none of then intended to deliberately contradict the 1616 decree, so harmless material heresy was involved. So, can ignorance now be used to excuse the appearance of heresy by the Vatican II popes?

    The long drawn out history of the Galileo case has shown me that it is a waste of time trying to resolve this problem of popes and heresy. Some things get so confusing and complicated that we can only find comfort in knowing God is watching all from above and He will sort it out in this life of at the time of judgement. In charity, we lay Catholics are forbidden to judge the person, lest we be judged for what could amount to wrong judgement. That said, we are allowed to point out the errors of the past without judging the intent of the persons if not known.

    Offline Ladislaus

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 15009
    • Reputation: +7943/-2488
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Foreward to Fr. Paul Kramer's Soon to be Released "Heretic Pope?"
    « Reply #16 on: September 13, 2018, 09:24:41 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Manifest heresy does not require that the culprit be guilty of an interior sin. 

    Agreed.  de internis Ecclesia non judicat


    Offline Neil Obstat

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 17333
    • Reputation: +8055/-589
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Foreward to Fr. Paul Kramer's Soon to be Released "Heretic Pope?"
    « Reply #17 on: September 13, 2018, 01:47:45 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • .
    Quote
        The theory, which holds that the pope, while still in office, can be judged and deposed for heresy; whether the deposition be considered as a proper act of juridical deposition, or as an act of removal of one who is considered jure divino removable upon having been judged guilty of the crime of heresy by competent ecclesiastical authority, and as a consequence of that judgment to have fallen from office ipso facto; has, since the time shortly after the First Vatican Council, been unanimously rejected by theologians, since it could be clearly seen, in the light of the absolute supremacy and injudicability of the pope set forth in solemn definition of the primacy, to be contrary to the faith of the Church. Likewise, the belief that a true and valid pope could even fall into formal heresy was generally abandoned after Pastor Aeternus taught that St. Peter and his successors were given the grace of unfailing faith as a requisite disposition for exercising the charism of papal infallibility. St. Robert Bellarmine had also forcefully argued this point in Caput iii Liber iv of De Romano Pontifice; but it was only after the support it received from Pastor Aeternus, that Bellarmine’s position on the question became the opinio communissima.  Since then it has been the nearly unanimous opinion of theologians that a pope cannot fall into formal heresy. While in the Middle Ages it was the far more common opinion among theologians and canonists that a pope could fall into formal heresy, and that he could be judged for heresy by a council; conversely, by the time of the Tridentine and post-Tridentine period, the great Counter-Reformation doctors such as Cajetan, Bellarmine, Suarez, and John of St. Thomas, were of the opinion that a pope cannot become a formal heretic, and therefore considered the question of papal heresy as a mere hypothesis.
        Today, more than a century after the opinion that a heretical pope could be judged while still holding office and deposed by the Church had been discarded and totally abandoned by theologians, since that opinion was clearly seen to oppose the dogmatic pronouncements of the magisterium; that opinion has resurfaced in some quarters, due to the doctrinal heterodoxy of the “Conciliar Popes” – i.e. the popes, beginning with John XXIII up to the present, who have all, without exception, distinguished themselves in the most dubious manner but in different degrees – having deviated from the rule of faith in their opinions and pronouncements. It is due, in no small measure, to the deceptive sophistry of the Conciliar Church propagandists, John Salza and Robert Siscoe, that this heretical opinion, which holds that a pope while still in office can be judged by his inferiors in the Church, has experienced a recrudescence; and ironically, it is in the sector of the Church where the most careful attention to doctrinal rectitude is usually found, i.e. among the traditionalists, that this errant theory, which can be seen to be heretical in the light of Pastor Aeternus, has been resurrected.
        In his book, Contra Cekadam, the learned and highly respected rector of the Hearts of Jesus and Mary Seminary, Fr. François Chazal, has adopted the opinion of John of St. Thomas on the question of deposition of a manifest heretic pope from office. It was the opinion of John of St. Thomas that one who is manifestly a formal heretic would not fall from the papal office ipso facto; but would remain in office as pope until convicted of heresy by a council, and then would only fall from office upon being declared vitandus by the council. This is the fourth of the five opinions outlined by St. Robert Bellarmine in Book II of his De Romano Pontifice. Bellarmine utterly demolished this opinion in his refutation of it in chapter 30, and his own opinion (the fifth opinion) that a manifest heretic pope would straightaway fall from office ipso facto, was eventually incorporated into the 1917 Code of Canon Law (Canon 188 n. 4); and remains in force in the 1983 Code. According to Canon 188 n. 4, one who publicly defects from the faith automatically falls from whatsoever office ipso jure. In this volume I have demonstrated that this position is indeed, as Bellarmine called it, “the true opinion” beyond all shadow of doubt, and beyond any legitimate dispute.  
         Unfortunately, since Fr. Chazal is refuting a sedevacantist in his work, he relies too heavily on the thoroughly dishonest scholarship of Salza & Siscoe in their fraudulent diatribe against Sedevacantism, True or False Pope? This unfortunate reliance, which is undoubtedly due to its being the most exhaustive exposition published on Sedevacantism to date, is plainly discernible in Bishop Richard Williamson’s comments on Fr. Chazal’s brief work.
    .
    Fr. Kramer is clearly pro-Fr.Chazal and anti-Salza&Siscoe

    .--. .-.-.- ... .-.-.- ..-. --- .-. - .... . -.- .. -. --. -.. --- -- --..-- - .... . .--. --- .-- . .-. .- -. -.. -....- -....- .--- ..- ... - -.- .. -.. -.. .. -. --. .-.-.

    Offline Mr G

    • Jr. Member
    • **
    • Posts: 344
    • Reputation: +254/-33
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Foreward to Fr. Paul Kramer's Soon to be Released "Heretic Pope?"
    « Reply #18 on: September 13, 2018, 02:11:45 PM »
  • Thanks!1
  • No Thanks!0
  • ..
    Fr. Kramer is clearly pro-Fr.Chazal and anti-Salza&Siscoe
    Yes, that is true. Fr. Kramer helped Fr. Chazal in the Philippines in the old SSPX days, and as far as I know, are still on friendly terms. I know there is a video of Fr. Kramer visiting and offering Mass at the "bamboo seminary" just a couple of years ago.

    Offline forlorn

    • Jr. Member
    • **
    • Posts: 495
    • Reputation: +214/-258
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Foreward to Fr. Paul Kramer's Soon to be Released "Heretic Pope?"
    « Reply #19 on: September 13, 2018, 03:19:46 PM »
  • Thanks!1
  • No Thanks!0

  • The Church Militant is a juridical institution with a spiritual aspect, not a spiritual entity with an juridical aspect.  

    Interior faith is, according to one opinion (e.g. Franzilin, Garrigou-Lagrange), necessary to be member of the Church secundum quid, but not simpliciter, while according to the more common opinion (e.g., Bellarmine, Billot) it is in no way necessary for membership.  But according to both opinions, interior faith is not required for a person to legitimately hold office in the Church, since holding office pertain to the Church as a visible, juridical society.

    Similarly, to lose an ecclesiastical office for heresy, the culprit must be guilty of the crime of heresy, since only the crime separates a person from the Church juridically.  


    Wernz-Vidal: “a General Council declares the fact that a crime had been committed, a crime by which the heretical pope on his own had separated himself from the Church..” (Wernz, Ius Decretalium, 1913, II, p. 615).

    If the sin of heresy resulted in the loss of office, how would you ever know who legitimately held office? and how could the Church ever declare that an office had been lost for heresy, without being able to read hearts?  

    But I do agree with you that Fr. Kramer contradicts himself when he says a pope cannot lose the faith, and then says if Francis were the true Pope, he would have lost his office for heresy.  If you read Fr. Kramer's arguments carefully, you find similar contradictions constantly.
    Funny how you cite Bellarmine while you completely ignore his writings refuting the belief that a heretic Pope could retain the form of his office until deposition. In fact, he went so far as to say that the belief a manifest heretic Pope is not ipso facto deposed "cannot be defended". He addressed the "secundum quid vs simpliciter" distinction too. 
    http://www.cmri.org/02-bellarmine-roman-pontiff.html


    Offline nottambula

    • Newbie
    • *
    • Posts: 10
    • Reputation: +14/-0
    • Gender: Female
    Re: Foreward to Fr. Paul Kramer's Soon to be Released "Heretic Pope?"
    « Reply #20 on: September 13, 2018, 07:17:56 PM »
  • Thanks!1
  • No Thanks!0
  • Yes, that is true. Fr. Kramer helped Fr. Chazal in the Philippines in the old SSPX days, and as far as I know, are still on friendly terms. I know there is a video of Fr. Kramer visiting and offering Mass at the "bamboo seminary" just a couple of years ago.

    Except Fr. Kramer and Fr. Chazal disagree on who is the pope. Not an insignificant matter. 

    Offline Ladislaus

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 15009
    • Reputation: +7943/-2488
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Foreward to Fr. Paul Kramer's Soon to be Released "Heretic Pope?"
    « Reply #21 on: September 13, 2018, 08:09:04 PM »
  • Thanks!1
  • No Thanks!0
  • Except Fr. Kramer and Fr. Chazal disagree on who is the pope. Not an insignificant matter.

    What does a different pope matter among friends?   :laugh1:

    Seriously, though, you had saints on both sides of the Great Schism.

    In any case, Father Kramer LIKES Father Chazal, but very much dislikes S&S.  He disagrees with Father Chazal's adoption of John of St. Thomas' position, saying that St. Robert Bellarmine "demolished" that position.  Then he blames S&S, by saying this was because Father Chazal relied too much on the shoddy scholarship of S&S.  LOL

    In point of fact, Father Chazal came to his position before S&S had come out with their book.

    Offline AlbertP

    • Newbie
    • *
    • Posts: 25
    • Reputation: +10/-9
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Foreward to Fr. Paul Kramer's Soon to be Released "Heretic Pope?"
    « Reply #22 on: September 14, 2018, 05:59:33 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!1
  • Well, the case of bishops is different from that of popes.  In the case of bishops, it's the papal authority that keeps them in office, and so they would retain jurisdiction until it's withdrawn by the pope.  Popes receive their authority from God, and that's the entire reason this is such a sticky issue.  In the case of a bishop, the remedy is simply for Rome to depose them, but Popes cannot be deposed by human authority.

    But you said "heresy intrinsically removes from office, by its very nature, before the crime has been juridically demonstrated".  Now you're saying that only applies in the case of a Pope.  But if it only applies in the case of a Pope, it means your assertion is not true since, if it were, it would apply in the case of all Bishops.  

    And if a heretical bishops is sustained in office by the Pope until the Church deposes him, why would it be assumed that God would not likewise sustain a heretical pope in office until the Church declared that he had lost it?  Should we not expect that the law of the Church, which is established for the good of the Church and souls, reflects the divine law, in such a way that what applies to a heretical bishop vis-a-vis the pope, would likewise apply to the pope vis-a-vis God?  Also consider that if God were to strip a pope of the pontifical dignity while the Church continued to recognize him as pope, the consequences for the Church and for souls would be much more grave than if a lesser bishop lost his office while the Church continued to recognize him as a legitimate bishop.

    I would also point out that Bellarmine doesn't say only a manifestly heretical pope loses his jurisdiction, but that the same applies in the case of all manifest heretics.  Yet, as you rightly pointed out, as long as a heretical bishop is being tolerated by the Pope he retains his jurisdiction.   How do you reconcile your position with that of Bellarmine?  There's actually a way to do so. Want to give it a try?





    Offline Ladislaus

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 15009
    • Reputation: +7943/-2488
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Foreward to Fr. Paul Kramer's Soon to be Released "Heretic Pope?"
    « Reply #23 on: September 14, 2018, 08:45:17 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • I'll answer in depth later, but the clue is that I'm a privationist.  I believe that the heretical Pope retains material jurisdiction in the exact same way that heretical bishops do.

    Offline AlbertP

    • Newbie
    • *
    • Posts: 25
    • Reputation: +10/-9
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Foreward to Fr. Paul Kramer's Soon to be Released "Heretic Pope?"
    « Reply #24 on: September 14, 2018, 09:20:32 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!1
  • Let's say Jorge Bergogio says:  "I am converting to Buddhism as of right now."  He'd be gone as of that very moment and would lose office at that moment.  There need be no juridical process to declare.  "Jorge Bergoglio has left the Church and is no longer pope."

    Let's say that Bergoglio says:  "I am converting to Buddhism as of right now."  30 days later the Church gathers in Council and declares that Bergoglio has lost office.  So WHEN did loss of office take place.  At the moment that Bergoglio made manifest his leaving of the Church or at the time of the declaration 30 days later?  Answering that question is key to resolving this debate.


    In the hypothetical case you proposed, it seems as though he would lose his office before any action was taken by the Church (although I wouldn’t venture the guess the exact moment).  The reason is because the act of leaving the Church by a public profession, and declaring that he is converting to Buddhism, severs every external bond of unity with the visible society of the Church.  If he were no longer a member of the visible society of the Church, by his own admission, he would no longer be the head of the visible society of the Church, by his own action. The only thing the Church would do is declare that he was no longer Pope.  That being said, if there were a mitigating factor (e.g., if he had been drugged, or forced to make the false profession against his will, etc.), and provided he quickly returned to the Church before the declaration was issued, I believe he would remain pope.  

    But in the case of a member of the hierarchy who publicly errs in the faith, and is suspected or believed a heretic, yet who continues to profess being a Catholic and remains united to the visible society of the Church, he will not lose his office unless the Church legally established that he’s a heretic and deposed him, or (in the case of a Pope) declares him deposed.

    Bellarmine teaches that those are the two ways a heretical bishop or pope will lose his office.  In the case of a Pope, he loses his office is ipso facto, (since the Church has no authority to depose him), but if he has not publicly separate himself from the visible society of the Church, he only loses his jurisdiction when the Church has determined that he’s a heretic and, as far as we are concerned, legitimately declared him deposed.  

    As in the case of a heretical bishop who, as you conceded, retains his office and jurisdiction as long as he remains externally united to the Church, and is being tolerated by the Pope, so likewise will a heretical pope will retain his jurisdiction as long as he remains united to the visible society of the Church, and is being tolerated by her.  

    They key difference is whether he continues to be a Catholic by external profession (not a Buddhist by external profession), and remains externally united to the visible society of the Church (not openly leaving the Church, as in the hypothesis you proposed).  Bellarmine discusses this at lengthy in De Ecclesia Militante, and goes so far in defending it that he even teaches that manifest heretics, Jews and Pagans are “members of the Body of the Church” if they meet these two conditions.  

    I think Bellarmine went too far, since baptism is necessary for true membership, but his error helps us to understand his position on what is necessary for someone to become separated from the Church. Listen to what he wrote in response to the teaching of Pope of Pope Nicholas, who said “the Church is the gathering of Catholics”:

    “We are necessarily compelled to say that they are called Catholics who profess the Catholic Faith, irrespective of their internal faith. (…) Moreover, it is clear that a gathering of Catholics cannot be formed other than by convoking into one place all those who are said to be and are called Catholic, that is, those who publicly profess themselves to be Catholic.” (De Ecclesia Militante, bk III, ch. X)

    According to Bellarmine, if person profess himself to be Catholic, and remain visibly united with the other Catholics, he is a member of the body of the Church. If a professing Catholic is a heretic, he only ceased to be a member, according to Bellarmine, when he breaks into open schism and leaves the Church, or is expelled from her.  

    Listen to what Bellarmine wrote about those who deny the Faith, but profess themselves to be Catholic for some temporal benefit. After remarking the Calvin and some others believed such people are not members of the Church, he writes:

    “We, however, follow the manner of speaking of the majority [of Catholic theologians], who teach that those who are joined with the other faithful by a purely external profession, are true parts, and therefore members of the Body of the church, although withered and dead. And, first of all, this opinion can be demonstrated by these words of John: “And now many have become Antichrists; they went out from us, but they were not of us; for, if they had been of us, they certainly would have remained with us” (1 John 2).  For, in this place, John is speaking of heretics, whom he calls Antichrists, and says that before they went out from us they were not of us—that is to say, they were not Catholics in mind and will, even though they were by external profession; but, after they betrayed themselves and burst forth into open schism, they ceased to be ‘of us’ in any sense. (…)”  (De Ecclesia Militante, bk III, ch. X)

    Next he explains how a heretical bishop or pope loses his office:

    “Secondly, the same is demonstrated by the testimonies of those Fathers who teach, with a general consensus, that those who are outside of the Church have no authority or jurisdiction over the Church. And, indeed, reason itself manifestly teaches the same thing: for how is it at all possible to suppose or imagine that he should have jurisdiction, and therefore be head of the Church, who is not a member of the Church [has openly left the Church]?  Who ever heard of a heard, who was not a member?  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 he publicly separates himself from the Church, or, being convicted of heresy, is unwillingly separated.” (De Ecclesia Militante, bk III, ch. X)

    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.  

    The latter is what he believed happened in the case of Pope Liberius.  Pay close attention to what he wrote about how Liberius lost the pontifical dignity:

    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, 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)

    Bellarmine doesn’t say Liberius automatically lost the pontificate without the priests of Rome being involved.  Quite the contrary, he says the priests of Rome stripped Liberius of the pontifical dignity, which he says they were permitted to do because they believed him to be a heretic. If you consult the Latin, what he actually says is the priests of Rome “abrogated” Liberius’ Pontificate – that is, they legally rendered the papacy null – even though he did not believe Liberius was guilty of the sin of heresy.  

    That’s how Bellarmine believes the ipso facto loss of office takes place for a heretical pope who has not publicly left the Church.  To be clear, the Church does not authoritatively depose him, but simply determines, to the best of its ability, if the Pope has fallen into heresy.   If so, and even the bishops are dead wrong, Bellarmine says “by that presumption the pontificate could rightly be taken from him”.  

    How can they do so, given the fact that the Church has no authority to depose the Pope?  They can do so, according to Bellarmine, because manifest heretics are ipso facto deposed, and therefore they don’t need to be authoritatively deposed.  The Church simply determines if he’s a heretic, and declares that he is no longer pope.  No need to actually depose him.   And the Church has the right to make that determination, even though it does not have the authoritatively judge the Pope, in the true sense of the word (as Bellarmine also explains elsewhere), until he has already been determined to have lost his office – only then can he be judged and punished by the Church.

    Neither John XXIII, Paul VI, JP II, Benedict, or Francis publicly left the Church.   Nor were any of them “stripped of the Pontifical dignity” by the Church.  Therefore, they all retained their office and jurisdiction until death, and Francis retains it until now – no less than any other heretical bishop who is being tolerated by the Church and left in office.  

    Offline forlorn

    • Jr. Member
    • **
    • Posts: 495
    • Reputation: +214/-258
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Foreward to Fr. Paul Kramer's Soon to be Released "Heretic Pope?"
    « Reply #25 on: September 15, 2018, 10:37:04 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Once again you quote Bellarmine out on context while you completely ignore his own writinngs that SPECIFICALLY address your claims. He refuted the belief that a heretic Pope could retain the form of his office until deposition. In fact, he went so far as to say that the belief a manifest heretic Pope is not ipso facto deposed "cannot be defended". If a Pope's loss of office has to be declared by the rest of the Church, as you claim, then it is not an ipso facto deposition. You have to twist ipso facto to mean its exact opposite for that to work. If a Pope retains his jurisdiction even after his "hidden" deposition for embracing heresy, then it would be impossible for the Church to de facto depose him. The Church cannot depose the Pope if he still has his jurisdiction, which you claim he maintains even as a heretic. He could ergo never be deposed. 


    Offline Neil Obstat

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 17333
    • Reputation: +8055/-589
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Foreward to Fr. Paul Kramer's Soon to be Released "Heretic Pope?"
    « Reply #26 on: September 15, 2018, 01:59:44 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • .
    Just imagine all the defenders of Bishop of Rome Francis -- they would all drop him in a New York minute if he were to deny BoD. 
    .
    They're all for giving him the benefit of the doubt for the pederasty scandal, but if he were to deny BoD that would be REAL heresy.
    .--. .-.-.- ... .-.-.- ..-. --- .-. - .... . -.- .. -. --. -.. --- -- --..-- - .... . .--. --- .-- . .-. .- -. -.. -....- -....- .--- ..- ... - -.- .. -.. -.. .. -. --. .-.-.

    Offline AlbertP

    • Newbie
    • *
    • Posts: 25
    • Reputation: +10/-9
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Foreward to Fr. Paul Kramer's Soon to be Released "Heretic Pope?"
    « Reply #27 on: September 15, 2018, 03:14:55 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!1
  • Funny how you cite Bellarmine while you completely ignore his writings refuting the belief that a heretic Pope could retain the form of his office until deposition. In fact, he went so far as to say that the belief a manifest heretic Pope is not ipso facto deposed "cannot be defended". He addressed the "secundum quid vs simpliciter" distinction too.
    http://www.cmri.org/02-bellarmine-roman-pontiff.html


    Quote the excerpts you referring to and tell me what you think Bellarmine means.
     
    And what he said is “To my judgment” it “cannot be defended”.  Why did you leave off the first three words, which show that he's simply giving an opinion, and only quote the last three words, thereby making it appear to be a statement of fact?

    Offline forlorn

    • Jr. Member
    • **
    • Posts: 495
    • Reputation: +214/-258
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Foreward to Fr. Paul Kramer's Soon to be Released "Heretic Pope?"
    « Reply #28 on: September 15, 2018, 03:42:00 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0

  • Quote the excerpts you referring to and tell me what you think Bellarmine means.

    And what he said is “To my judgment” it “cannot be defended”.  Why did you leave off the first three words, which show that he's simply giving an opinion, and only quote the last three words, thereby making it appear to be a statement of fact?
    Obviously it's to his judgement. Everything a man says is to his own judgement. I never claimed Bellarmine was infallible. 

    Offline AlbertP

    • Newbie
    • *
    • Posts: 25
    • Reputation: +10/-9
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Foreward to Fr. Paul Kramer's Soon to be Released "Heretic Pope?"
    « Reply #29 on: September 15, 2018, 10:17:36 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Obviously it's to his judgement. Everything a man says is to his own judgement. I never claimed Bellarmine was infallible.



     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."
     
    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.  
     

     

    Sitemap 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16