[Cantarella]

I don't believe that St. Bellarmine was a sedevacantist. If you can prove that he was, then I might accept what you say.

Of course he was not, at the time. Why would have he been? St. Bellarmine was dealing with Pope Clement VIII; not "Pope" Francis.

We could only speculate on St. Bellarmine's response to this unprecedent crisis, if he was still on earth.

[Meg]

Of course he was not, at the time. Why would have he been? St. Bellarmine was dealing with Pope Clement VIII; not Pope Francis.
We could only speculate on St. Bellarmine's response to this unprecedent crisis, if he was still on earth.

 

"Speculation" on what St. Bellarmine's response would to the unprecedented crisis doesn't make for good evidence or proof of the sedevacantist position.

[2Vermont]

Continual dishonesty. I've come to expect that from some sedes. Some of you sedes are starting to get upset now, since we won't back down.

Why don't you view Fr. Chazal's video for yourself? It really isn't as scary as you might think.

Start at the 1:33 minute mark, and you'll see the good examples he provides from scripture. If you won't look at the evidence, how can you assume that scripture doesn't really matter, since St. Ballarmine has now apparently corrected the inadequacy of scripture, in your view?

I don't believe that St. Bellarmine was a sedevacantist. If you can prove that he was, then I might accept what you say.

Here's the video:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=5727&v=zkoG3rznTwQ

I can't understand what he is saying with his accent.  Can you docuмent the examples he gives?  
I suspect that these examples don't contradict the idea that loss of office for manifest heretics happens ipso facto.  Otherwise, "all the ancient fathers" got it wrong and Fr Chazal finally got things right.

[2Vermont]

Where did I take him out of context, Meg?  

::crickets::

[Meg]

I can't understand what he is saying with his accent.  Can you docuмent the examples he gives?  
I suspect that these examples don't contradict the idea that loss of office for manifest heretics happens ipso facto.  Otherwise, "all the ancient fathers" got it wrong and Fr Chazal finally got things right.

I can understand most of what Father says, and I speak no French. Try to listen to it more carefully.

Regarding the "ancient fathers," isn't it possible that your interpretation of the "ancient fathers" is wrong, and Fr. Chazal's assessment of there being no loss of office according to scripture, is correct?  

[2Vermont]

I can understand most of what Father says, and I speak no French. Try to listen to it more carefully.

Regarding the "ancient fathers," isn't it possible that your interpretation of the "ancient fathers" is wrong, and Fr. Chazal's assessment of there being no loss of office according to scripture, is correct?  

I've tried a few times already.  Why can't you just write down his examples.  I can then go to my Bible and check them out.
As for your question, it is possible only if one thinks St Robert Bellarmine was lying when he clearly states it was the opinion of "all the ancient fathers".

[Stubborn]

Saint Robert Bellarmine says that the loss of office due to heresy is the traditional teaching of ALL the ancient Fathers...

"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..."

I'll take Saint Robert Bellarmine's words over Father Chazal's words any time.  

I say that it is licit to resist him [the pope] by not doing what he orders and by impeding the execution of his will; it is not licit, however, to judge, punish or depose him, since these are acts proper to a superior." - Saint Robert Bellarmine, Catholic

[Neil Obstat]

I've tried a few times already.  Why can't you just write down his examples.  

.
It's so much easier to dish out incredulity on steroids.

[Meg]

I've tried a few times already.  Why can't you just write down his examples.  I can then go to my Bible and check them out.
As for your question, it is possible only if one thinks St Robert Bellarmine was lying when he clearly states it was the opinion of "all the ancient fathers".

I will try later to write down his examples. Right now I have to go stand I line at the post office to mail some packages.

I would never presume that a saint is lying. I think it's likely that St. Bellarmine is not interpreted correctly. We all have the tendency to take things out of context to prove our POV, or we just don't look at the entire body of what a saint or Father has written. I'm guilty too of doing this, but I try not to.

Father Chazal does have a thick accent. I'm terrible with foreign languages, but I can usually understand those who have English as a second language. Not everyone can do that. It's okay.

[Neil Obstat]

Whoever said Saint Robert was a sedevacantist?

.
I did. 

[Neil Obstat]

Why?

.
Uhhh....... Because it's true?
.

[Neil Obstat]

Do tell...

.
He was a saint, wasn't he?

[Stubborn]

The only problem here my friend is this: Unless the person belongs to the Novus Ordo, they have indeed judged him as a heretic already... and resist him, or separate, or just flat deny he is the pope.

Judging him as a heretic is not deposing him for it - unless one has first inflicted themself with dogmatic sedeism, in that case, judging him a heretic means he has self deposed.

St. Robert here teaches the Catholic principle, in the Great Sacrilege, Fr. Wathen expounds on this principle superbly:

...Catholics must be convinced of the following most important principle, a principle which has a special relevance in the context of this present writing. It is this: No matter what may happen, since no one may justifiably command another to sin, and since no one is permitted to obey such a command, no one may ever blame another—even an errant pope—for his sins. Conversely, the failure of any person—even the pope—to keep God's law or to preserve his own faith, does not excuse any other person for his failure to do the same. Ignorance of the law or ignorance of the Faith is never an excuse for sinning; one is bound to know when he is being commanded to sin. The notion is abroad that one may always simply follow the pope and the bishops and thus be sure of salvation. Ordinarily this is a reliable norm. However, it is so only because ordinarily the pope and the bishops are more zealous for and more perfectly instructed in the Faith than their subjects.

Neither can anyone get permission to sin through the erroneous teaching of the pope or any of his other spiritual superiors, nor through their failure to teach what they ought. Everyone is bound to keep God's law and the Faith....

[Neil Obstat]

Is

.
So then he wasn't but is? Like in St. John 17:11 but the opposite?

[Stubborn]

Context, sir...

In regards to the quote above:

1. Bellarmine is talking about a morally evil pope who gives morally evil commands — not one who, like the post-Vatican II popes, teaches doctrinal error or imposes evil laws.

2. The context of the statement is a debate over the errors of Gallicanism, not the case of a heretical pope.

3. Bellarmine is justifying “resistance” by kings and prelates, not by individual Catholics.

4.  Bellarmine teaches in the next chapter of his work (30) that a heretical pope automatically loses his authority.


The above is from Father Cekada.  I don't agree with a lot of things Father Cekada has to say, but what he states above rings true.  

Regardless, wrong is wrong even if the most holy pope in history wants you to do wrong, it is not just licit to resist him, you must resist him if not resisting means offending God.