[Cantarella]

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.  

There is an observation made by St. Bellarmine in which he considers the case of a heretical bishop teaching false doctrines. Although a Pope is different from a bishop, the case presented here does give us an insight into the saint's reasoning. He says:

“It is true that the people should discern the true prophet from the false, but not by any other rule than the following: Observe carefully if what he teaches is contrary to what his predecessors have said, [70] or that which is said by other pastors, ordinaries, and above all the Apostolic See and the principal Church; for it is commanded that the people should listen to their pastors: Luke X: He who listens to you listens to me; and Matt. XXIII, do that which they tell you to do. The people ought not to judge their pastors except when they introduce innovations or doctrines which are in disagreement with those of the other pastors.” [71]
 
“Moreover, it is necessary to observe that the people can clearly discriminate, by the rule that we have given, between true and false prophets. But for all that they cannot depose of a false pastor if he is a bishop and substitute another in his place. For the Lord and Apostle only commanded that false prophets not be listened to by the people; but not that the people should depose them. It has always been the practice of the Church to depose heretical bishops by councils of bishops or by an act of the sovereign pontiffs.”

First, the manner of distinguishing a true pastor from a false one, is nothing but the Catholic Principle of non-Contradiction. Because we know that God is Truth and Truth does not change, whenever there is a teaching which is contrary to what has always been taught as true, then that it is sign indicating a false pastor.

Second, St. Bellarmine does make a distinction between the loss of Authority and the juridical deposition following it. In the example, the people can and should judge that a contradiction has occurred, then, as a result, they should refuse listening to the false pastor. He has lost his Authority because he is no longer an instrument of Christ. However, if such a false pastor is not as yet deposed, he must be deposed by proper Authority according to the laws of the Church. In the mean time, he continues to materially occupy the office.

[MyrnaM]

Myrna, why does the church need theologians if everything is so simple?  Some things are simple, some are not.  

The point that I am trying to make is:  Theologians are God's gift when everyone knew where the Church was/is and above all it was the Church they were talking about.

 It is sort of like all the rules we live by currently in the world to maintain order, traffic rules and such, but what if suddenly instead of a city full of people after a tragic event the population was reduced to 10 or 20 people instead of thousands.  Are all the rules necessary after that fact?  Do they even apply anymore?

After the Church of England apostatized, they still maintained the same buildings, but were they still Catholic? 


Not to mention that all these labels, sede+  the different variations of sedevacantism,  R&R  Home alone, indult, Fssp, etc are only separating Traditional Catholics instead of uniting us.  

[Pax Vobis]

Yes, there are many (too many) traditional factions.  Yes, I wish people agreed more.  But the point of this whole thread (at least, now) is to discuss Fr. Chazal's opposition to dogmatic, Chekada-style, there's-only-one-answer, sedevacantism.  And Fr says that, no, there is not only "one way" to view a heretical papacy, and there is much debate on the issue.  

If Catholics could be less dogmatic on this issue, and agree that there is no theological agreement, it would go a long way towards helping unity.  

[Meg]

Oh, it most certainly does.  You can't even understand your own posts?  You were pitting Father Chazal against the sedevacantists by way of contrast ... but Father Chazal is more sedevacantist than R&R in many ways, so the contrast is not valid.

My post referred to Fr. Chazal showing that in scripture, there's is nothing at all about immediate loss of office for those who are in heresy. Your response didn't directly address that. 

I did find where Father later said, in part 2, that a heretical Pope does not have jurisdiction and that we cannot follow a heretic. But other than that, I don't see that he's said that sedes would agree with, though I haven't viewed the entire video. 

[Meg]

My post referred to Fr. Chazal showing that in scripture, there's is nothing at all about immediate loss of office for those who are in heresy. Your response didn't directly address that.

I did find where Father later said, in part 2, that a heretical Pope does not have jurisdiction and that we cannot follow a heretic. But other than that, I don't see that he's said that sedes would agree with, though I haven't viewed the entire video.

Correction to the above post: "I don't see that he's said anything else that sedes would agree with."

[Neil Obstat]

Just did, should get it by 12/29. Thanks for the reminder. :)

.

You're welcome. Congratulations!   :cheers:

.

[Cantarella]

So its August 1870 and I'm in Rome for the summer reading the decrees of the recent Vatican Council and I begin to have a suspicion and a positive doubt about its legitimacy, therefore it would be permissible for me to reject it.

Personally, I disagree with the notion of positive "doubt" being a legitimate reason for disobedience, rejection, or separation.

Instead, it would be the certainty (based on objective reason and observation) that an error did in fact occurred, based on the Catholic principle of non - Contradiction.

[2Vermont]

I'm used to your snideness. But I thought that you might just tone it down a bit, since I was taking the time and trouble to post the info you asked for, since you said that couldn't understand anything Fr. Chazal was saying. I assume now that that was just a ruse. I should have known better. Sedes can be insincere.

No, my post was totally sincere.  
You asked if I would read Fr Chazal's examples if you bothered to post them and I promised that I would consider his points.  I was also sincere that my tone with you would change if you lost your rabid anti-sedevacantist attitude.  Clearly, you know you are totally incapable of doing so, so you decided to turn things around and accuse me of being insincere.  By doing so, I see that you also failed to post Fr Chazal's scriptural examples of manifest heretics not losing their offices.  
Exactly who was insincere again?

[2Vermont]

The Jєωιѕн hierarchy was also never promised infallibility.  On the other hand, the Church was promised infallibility and the Church has already decreed that heresy automatically renders the heretic outside the Church and results in the loss of office--even before any declaratory sentence (N.B. Nestorius).  With these Bible verses, the only relevant passages would be those passages that say Church officials do not lose office due to heresy (of which there are none).

That's my take TKGS.  Having said that, I would consider Fr Chazal's "proof" that manifest heretics do not lose their offices ipso facto.  I suspect that his "proof" is merely his personal interpretation of Scripture, but I am willing to take a gander and research what the Church teaches regarding his examples.

[Cantarella]

A good post Cantarella...  

A couple questions, though - You say " In the mean time, he continues to materially occupy the office."  

Can you explain how material occupancy works?  What are the limits of the material occupier of an office?  

Material occupancy is basically having the false pope remaining visibly in office; but only preserving the right of designation of others, until either the impediment to a formal papacy ceases to exist (he converts and abjures heresy) or there is a declaration of deposition made by the competent authority. The false pope lacks authority to make any laws. He does not have jurisdiction, but he can and will appoint electors and even bishops for the purpose of succeeding to sees of authority, thus continuing the mark of Apostolic succession.      

My simple understanding is this: just as a Sacrament is composed by matter and form, in this case, the matter is the designation and the form is the authority. The false pope has designation; but not authority. That is why we refer to a materialiter Pope; not formaliter.    

Unless the obstacle (in this case, heresy) is removed, the limit of the material occupier is exercising the power of nominating others (for instance, bishops), including possible electors of the pope. He does not have the jurisdiction or Authority to enact laws because of the impediment (habitual intention of doing harm); but only preserves the power of designation so that Apostolicity, this is, a continual succession from the Apostles, can continue. Because in nomination no law is made; it does not involve jurisdiction. The right of electing (a new Pope) also does not involve jurisdiction.

[Pax Vobis]

Limiting the Pope's jurisdiction and/or authority over the Universal Church is heretical. This position is condemned by Vatican I.

apples to oranges.  Vatican I was defining the pope's authority and its extent; it does not address what happens to a heretical pope.  Your quote does not apply.

[Pax Vobis]

This quote is defining the pope's supreme governing authority, which Fr Chazal is arguing is NOT affected if he becomes a heretic.  Fr is arguing that a heretic incurs the SPIRITUAL penalty of excommunication, which affects his SPIRITUAL authority, but his EARTHLY, governing authority (i.e. his material office) is not affected.  Fr's view actually supports the V1 quote you provided, in a sense.  But, V1 was just defining the governing powers, it did not list when/if they ever are limited.


1.  Earthly/material office - Governing/jurisdiction/running the daily affairs of the church. 
2.  Spiritual/teaching office - Faith/Morals/teaching authoritatively - Infallibility.

[Pax Vobis]

You obviously didn't watch the video.  Fr Chazal addresses the 'cuм ex' apostolic bull, which is a legal docuмent and was revised in the mid 1900s.  This makes your quotes of both 'cuм ex' and 'canon law' obsolete. 

[Ladislaus]

I don't really know what Chazal says. I was responding to what Cantarella wrote. If Chazal says what she wrote, then it is definitely condemned by the Vatican Council.
If he says things like "The false pope lacks authority to make any laws" or "He does not have jurisdiction" or "He does not have the jurisdiction or Authority to enact laws" which are contained in her post, theses are specifically condemned in the quote I provided from the Vatican Council.
 

Nope.  You completely misunderstand Vatican I's teaching on that subject.

[Cantarella]

The dogma says that if your are going to advance that a claimant to the Papacy holds the office of the Roman Pontiff, then he must also possess the full and supreme power of jurisdiction over the whole church. The dogma makes no exceptions for a notoriously heretical claimant. We can't import them. That's the job of the Holy Ghost. The reason that there is no exception is because a notoriously heretical claimant to the Papacy holds no office at all (as far as a Catholic is concerned). This is the teaching of the Church (not just the theologians and doctors). Non members of the Church cannot hold an office in the Catholic Church by divine law. Catholics always must presume malice in the external forum.

It is necessary to make the appropriate distinctions. Occupying an office materially, only involves designation. Occupying an office formally (this is, having Authority) does require to be a member of the Church. An example of this, St. Ambrose who received the designation to the episcopacy of Milan while he was still a catechumen (and therefore not baptized and outside the Catholic Church). If he had refused baptism, he would not have been able to receive authority, but would have remained a bishop-elect until this designation had been taken away from him. He was not even a member of the Church when he was elected as Bishop of Milan.

The distinction here is between the notions of Act and Potency. While this example of course does not apply to the current situation, it is a good one to demonstrate that it is possible, even remotely, for a non member of the Church to occupy an office only materially.

There are just not easy answers for this crisis. I am genuinely interested in knowing how an absolute sedevacantist resolves the problem of Apostolicity, if the false pope does not keep the power of designation.