[reconquest]

The least that can be said is that Vatican I didn't dogmatize Bellarmine's opinion on the ipso facto loss of office by a heretical pope.

[2Vermont]

No, Pax Vobis, I assumed nothing.  The quote clearly mentions "the Council of Bishops" and they clearly discussed whether a pope can even be a heretic.  The quote clearly relays Bellarmine's views on when a heretic pope is no longer a pope, not "the other theologians". In this very long thread we most certainly have discussed St Bellarmine and his teaching that a manifest heretic pope loses his office ipso facto.  This quote supports that it was discussed at Vatican I because it was critical to the overall discussion on papal infallibility.

I find it interesting that the non-sedes are fighting this tooth and nail.  They won't give it any credence whatsoever.  The quote comes from one of the Fathers of the Council.  He wasn't a sede.  The book wasn't written by a sede.  And yet here he is relaying what sedes have been saying all along! Those crazy Fathers of the Vatican I Council!  

[Ladislaus]

No, Pax Vobis, I assumed nothing.  The quote clearly mentions "the Council of Bishops" and they clearly discussed whether a pope can even be a heretic.  The quote clearly relays Bellarmine's views on when a heretic pope is no longer a pope, not "the other theologians". In this very long thread we most certainly have discussed St Bellarmine and his teaching that a manifest heretic pope loses his office ipso facto.  This quote supports that it was discussed at Vatican I because it was critical to the overall discussion on papal infallibility.

I find it interesting that the non-sedes are fighting this tooth and nail.  They won't give it any credence whatsoever.  The quote comes from one of the Fathers of the Council.  He wasn't a sede.  The book wasn't written by a sede.  And yet here he is relaying what sedes have been saying all along! Those crazy Fathers of the Vatican I Council!  

Well, that particular quote supports the Cajetan and John of St. Thomas position.  It clearly speaks of a Council of Bishops deposing the pope after he had been deposed by God.  What's there to depose and in what sense is he being deposed if he's already been deposed ipso facto?  Clearly the authoritative deposition happens by God whereas there's a declarative/ministerial deposition from the Bishops.  This completely backs John of St. Thomas.  And, to back Father Chazal, the quote also indicates that the Church should avoid a heretical pope.

[2Vermont]

Well, that particular quote supports the Cajetan and John of St. Thomas position.  It clearly speaks of a Council of Bishops deposing the pope after he had been deposed by God.  What's there to depose and in what sense is he being deposed if he's already been deposed ipso facto?  Clearly the authoritative deposition happens by God whereas there's a declarative/ministerial deposition from the Bishops.  This completely backs John of St. Thomas.  And, to back Father Chazal, the quote also indicates that the Church should avoid a heretical pope.

No, it doesn't.  Cajetan teaches that the heretical pope is not deposed until the Church deposes him.  In other words, the heretical pope remains pope until the Church deposes him.  
The quote states that he is no longer pope ipso facto before Church deposition. Subsequent deposition is a formal declaration of what has already happened by God ipso facto. This is Bellarmine's teaching, not Cajetan.

And Lad:  will you answer my question up-thread?  If Bellarmine states that his opinion was held by all the ancient fathers, why is Cajetan an opinion I should consider?  Was Bellarmine lying?  Was he mistaken?  And if so, where is the proof that he was wrong?

[Pax Vobis]

It's clear that many of you have not watched the video, nor are you (have the ability of?) distinguishing the various angles of this situation (i.e. Spiritual vs temporal office).  

Also clear that your faith hinges on one theologian only "Outside St Robert Bellarmine there is no salvation"!

[reconquest]

And Lad:  will you answer my question up-thread?  If Bellarmine states that his opinion was held by all the ancient fathers, why is Cajetan an opinion I should consider?  Was Bellarmine lying?  Was he mistaken?  And if so, where is the proof that he was wrong?

If jurisdiction cannot be granted to a heretic or schismatic by a higher authority, how is it that any priest - even a heretic or schismatic - can absolve at the point of death?

[Pax Vobis]

This quote supports that it was discussed at Vatican I because it was critical to the overall discussion on papal infallibility.

Im questioning your characterization and the over-importance you are attaching to the quote.  You are implying that EVERY council father agreed with this.  Maybe it was only 2, or maybe it was 10 - it's not clear.  Even if it was everyone there, that means nothing - because the cardinals are not infallible without the pope.  So, as you admitted, this is not authoritative, therefore it's on the same level of theological opinion as Bellarmine vs Cajetan, etc.  

[Pax Vobis]

Excerpt from the below article, which does not address Bellarmine vs Cajetan, but instead Bellarmine vs Suarez.  

http://www.cfnews.org/page88/files/d9316b1dfdf813d95b197bee8640f489-219.html


Moral of the story: The pope does not lose his office through private determination or public opinion, but through a decision by the Church, which is the normal, catholic way...

2nd moral of the story: +Bellarmine wasn't the only theologian who thought the Church Fathers agreed with him.  

**red text is a highlight from me**

Bellarmine and Suarez on
The Question of a Heretical Pope

By Robert J. Siscoe


In the February 2014 issue of Catholic Family News, John Salza published a timely and revealing piece on the position of Archbishop Lefebvre with respect to the question of Sedevacantism – a topic on the mind of many today following the election of Jorge Mario Bergoglio and the increasing doctrinal and moral chaosthat has ensued. In his article, Mr. Salza mentioned a two-fold opinion with respect to a heretical Pope: that of St. Robert Bellarmine, who taught that a manifestly heretical Pope loses his office without a sentence from the Church; and that of Suarez, who taught that a heretical Pope loses his office by virtue of a declaration by the Church. In footnote #14, Mr. Salza notes an interesting point about this apparent contradiction:

“It is interesting to note that St. Bellarmine (d. 1621) and Suarez (d. 1617) lived at the same time, and yet both held that their seemingly inapposite opinions were the teaching of the Church Fathers and Doctors.”

There is an important point that needs to be clarified regarding the respective opinions of St. Bellarmine and Suarez. While there is indeed a difference between the two on the speculative level, when it comes to the practical level both opinions are in agreement. The difference between the two opinions refers to when and how a heretical Pope loses his office, but both opinions agree that a judgment of guilt must be rendered by the proper authorities, or by the guilty party himself, in order for the Pope to be considered no longer Pope. And such a judgment, and consequent determination, is not the domain of private opinion.

The opinion of St. Bellarmine (which maintains that a heretical Pope automatically loses his office) does not preclude a judgment of guilt by the Church. It only maintains that the judgment does not cause the heretical Pope to lose his office, but rather confirms that he is guilty of heresy, and as such has lost his office. This is opposed to the opinion of Suarez, and others, who maintain that the judgment of guilt and declaration by the Church cause the loss of office. One opinion maintains that the Church judges the Pope guilty and then declares he has already lost his office as a result of his heresy; the other opinion maintains that the Church judges the guilt and then renders a declaration that causes the loss of office. The difference between the two is more technical than practical.

...continues, in above link...

[Merry]

From a portion of an article in Catholic Family News (which also had an article about the mechanism the Church has in place to depose a "bad" Pope) -


Those who adhere to the Sedevacantist position based on the opinion of the Saints and Doctors of the Church, who held that a manifestly heretical Pope automatically loses his office, have mistakenly concluded that their private judgment on the matter suffices in place of a formal judgment by the Church; and that, based on their private judgment, they are permitted to declare openly that a man elected by the College of Cardinals as Pope is not a true Pope (8); and furthermore, that they are then permitted to attempt to persuade others to accept their private judgment as a public fact. (9) Based on this false premise, Sedevacantists apologists have spilled much ink over the years trying to explain to individual Catholics in the pew how they can detect heresy in the Pope, so that they too will personally conclude that the Pope is a “manifest heretic” and publicly adopt the Sedevacantist position. What they have failed to understand is that the judgment of heresy is not left to individual Catholics in the pew, but to the Church, which is why John of St. Thomas said: “be he [the Pope] ever so manifestly heretical according to private judgment, he remains as far as we are concerned a member of the Church and consequently its head. Judgment is required by the Church. It is only then that he ceases to be Pope as far as we are concerned."

[Centroamerica]

From a portion of an article in Catholic Family News (which also had an article about the mechanism the Church has in place to depose a "bad" Pope) -


Those who adhere to the Sedevacantist position based on the opinion of the Saints and Doctors of the Church, who held that a manifestly heretical Pope automatically loses his office, have mistakenly concluded that their private judgment on the matter suffices in place of a formal judgment by the Church; and that, based on their private judgment, they are permitted to declare openly that a man elected by the College of Cardinals as Pope is not a true Pope (8); and furthermore, that they are then permitted to attempt to persuade others to accept their private judgment as a public fact. (9) Based on this false premise, Sedevacantists apologists have spilled much ink over the years trying to explain to individual Catholics in the pew how they can detect heresy in the Pope, so that they too will personally conclude that the Pope is a “manifest heretic” and publicly adopt the Sedevacantist position. What they have failed to understand is that the judgment of heresy is not left to individual Catholics in the pew, but to the Church, which is why John of St. Thomas said: “be he [the Pope] ever so manifestly heretical according to private judgment, he remains as far as we are concerned a member of the Church and consequently its head. Judgment is required by the Church. It is only then that he ceases to be Pope as far as we are concerned."

Anti-sedevacantist apologists used to talk about distinctions between material and formal heresy and how the pope (JP2) was only a material heretic. Everyone agreed that heresy was detected. That was not the issue. The issue is that these camps changed their arguments after Bergoglio and started saying that him being a heretic (formal) and all didn't matter cause the sedevacantists were still wrong. If someone says "today I'm going to say something heretical"... well common sense and Sensus fidei tells us that that person is a formal heretic and no member of the Church. I don't really see the need to convince others of it. About two hundred or so (including Bishop Fellay and the Remnant) just signed a docuмent formally accusing Bergoglio of heresy...

[2Vermont]

Im questioning your characterization and the over-importance you are attaching to the quote.  You are implying that EVERY council father agreed with this.  Maybe it was only 2, or maybe it was 10 - it's not clear.  Even if it was everyone there, that means nothing - because the cardinals are not infallible without the pope.  So, as you admitted, this is not authoritative, therefore it's on the same level of theological opinion as Bellarmine vs Cajetan, etc.  

If you actually read the excerpt from the book, you would see that Archbishop Purcell was speaking to the whole Council about questions/concerns he had regarding infallibility.  When he relays the question asked and answered at the council regarding what happens when a pope becomes a heretic, he never mentions that anyone disagreed with it.  Given the answer to this question was critical for him in accepting papal infallibility, I am sure that if there were any different/contrary answers, he would have at least mentioned them.

To be clear, the only importance I am lending it is that it was discussed at the Council and there was no argument made against it. When the issue of a heretical pope came up, the Council used Bellarmine's teaching to assuage another Father's concerns. For me, this is just another indication that it is Bellarmine's teachings that the Church looked to in these matters.  

When I look at the "evidence" Bellarmine stands above the rest of the theologians on this matter.  If others want to look to other theologians, I guess that's their prerogative, but I am sick of the anti-sede rhetoric (you know the rhetoric that says stuff like "Outside Bellarmine there is no Salvation"?) that sedes are wrong for not giving equal credence to them and that we should HAVE TO DO SO.  No, I don't have to do so and so far no one has given me any reason to believe that their teaching is heavier or more correct than Bellarmine's.

I think I have said enough on this matter. Carry on. 

[Stubborn]

You are proving yourself to be a coward and liar again. When cornered with the consequences of your stupid assertions you crumble.

The only consequence of dogmatic sedeism is loss of the Catholic faith - St. Vincent was not afflicted with dogmatic sedeism, he remained Catholic. You sedes cannot differentiate because you are of a different faith, a faith that has no popes, no hierarchy and no church. All by design and all for absolutely no reason whatsoever. It's really quite iniquitous.

[Ladislaus]

And Lad:  will you answer my question up-thread?  If Bellarmine states that his opinion was held by all the ancient fathers, why is Cajetan an opinion I should consider?  Was Bellarmine lying?  Was he mistaken?  And if so, where is the proof that he was wrong?

Because the Church Fathers did not address the question of a POPE falling into heresy ... but the broader question of whether heretics can hold office.  John of St. Thomas in particular points out that papal authority is completely different than any other type of authority in the Church and it's from that difference that he draws his argument.

[Ladislaus]

Bellarminists can't address the problem of when heresy has become sufficiently manifest in order for deposition to happen.

1) Joe Sixpack reads a papal encyclical and determines that it's heretical.
2) Several priests and a bishop decide that the pope is a heretic.
3) Several bishops determine that a pope is a heretic but most other bishops disagree with them.
4) 49% of the Church's bishops consider the pope a heretic, but 51% don't.
5) 51% of the Church's bishops consider the pope a heretic, but 49% don't.
6) 90% of the Church's bishops consider the pope a heretic, but 10% don't.
7) General Council declares the pope a heretic and to have lost office.

Right now we're somewhere between #1 and #3.  I'm pretty sure that you had more bishops who considered the pope a heretic for defining infallibility at Vatican I than you have bishops today who consider the V2 papal claimants to be heretics.

[Stubborn]

There is nothing you can do to get yourself out of the corner you've backed yourself into. You say that it's not Catholic to say the Pope is not the Pope, yet St. Vincent said the Pope is not the Pope. Now you must say that he was not Catholic or you are a liar and you must admit you have no idea what you're talking about. You merely say whatever it is you think will make Sedevacantists look bad, much like your foolish "sedeism" word you've made up. This word doesn't even make sense and makes you look really dumb. Own it, like Bellator Dei says. Own your stupid claims that have nothing to do with the Pope issue. Tell us that St. Vincent wasn't Catholic because he broke your ridiculous, made-up rule. It the only logical consequence.

Though I said it, I did not say it's not Catholic to say the pope is not the pope when one is merely confused - in the mind of dogmatic sedes, they are not confused, to them it's a religion and as such - it is not Catholic, it is in fact, anti-Catholic. So you have no right to include St. Vincent in your dogmatic sedeism. He was NOT dogmatic sede because if he was, he would have NEVER been canonized. Certainly you cannot disagree here.

Because it is, I said it is a dogma of the Catholic Church that whoever says the pope is not the pope is anathema. The reason I said that is because it is dogma, but you say dogma does not apply because you presuppose the popes have been heretics. So you're good and covered and all set - or so you've fooled yourself into thinking.

Stop using Catholic saints, popes and teachings - use only teachings from dogmatic sede popes and saints to vindicate your dogmatic sedeism from now on - do that and the whole thing should straighten out for you immediately, or at least quite quickly.