[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.

And here's the next problem.  What HERESY have the V2 papal claimants embraced?  I'm not talking about errors but about actual heresy.  Religious Liberty?  While it's a grave error, it's not heresy, strictly speaking, and I've seen a number of people jump through hoops to explain why it's not even erroneous.   Ecuмenism?  That's a practical thing and not theological.

Religious indifferentism, this notion that people can be saved in any religion?  But, wait, +Lefebvre and most of the Trad bishops say the same thing, that people of any religion can be saved.
V2 ecclesiology?  But, wait, the anti-Feeneyite Trads have the same ecclesiology.  Is it heretical?  Are they heretics also?

While Bergoglio might be a special case, since he stands up there and almost brags about being heretical, his predecessors insisted that there was some continuity between their teaching and prior Tradition.  So who's going to sort it all out and establish definitively, with the certainty of faith, that their claims are bogus and that they are in fact heretics?  But, then, what happens if, once the Church does definitely establish heresy, the V2 papal claimant were to recant?  Pure Bellarminism would have it that they were already deposed once it became manifest, so there would have to be a new election.

You guys pretend that it's all simple and black-and-white ... but it is anything BUT....

[Stubborn]

Here you go again. Your complete ignorance of Dogma has made you repeat this same nonsense. Again, there is no anathema that says that one cannot say the Pope is not the Pope. Again, you condemn St. Vincent.

No, the dogma specifically condemns schismatics, that is, dogmatic sedes like yourself. St. Vincent was a Catholic, not a schismatic, certainly not a dogmatic sede. He was actually correct in discerning who was and who was not the pope - all dogmatic sedes know is, the pope is not the pope - and for that you are anathema.

It is too bad for you that obvious as this is, you refuse to admit the difference.

[Pax Vobis]

I don't think there ever was a true Pope that became a Manifest heretic, which is why I think all of this stuff is not worth discussing. It's not dogmatically clear how a Pope would be deposed, the only thing clear in that matter is that we would treat him as if he was not Pope. This is a big hypothetical because there hasn't been one and I think it's the reason why the Church never decreed anything about,

Exactly.  This is what I was trying to point you towards earlier, when you gave me the ridiculous answer of 'martin luther'.  We are living in UNIQUE and UNPARALLELED times.  The pope, even if a heretic, is UNIQUE to all other heretics.  +Bellarmine's opinion is great, in theory, but practically (i.e. how does it work?) it has, to use a movie term, a lot of plot holes.  The contrary theologians tried to address his theory's problems.

[Cantarella]

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.

Given the historical setting of Bellarmine's life, we know that the saint was mostly concerned with the idea of a Protestant becoming Pope one day. The stubborn Huguenot who desired to usurp the Papal throne was the "manifest" heretic in the saint's mind. This was the time of the emerging Reformation in which the Church lost entire countries to the heretics. Although some of the principles found in his work are meritorious to the crisis today, I think no one ever was actually been able to envision the current situation, when not only the "pope" is a heretic; but a disparaging majority of bishops recognize him and are subject to him.   

Frankly, if there was not much theologian work in the matter of the pope becoming a heretic is well...because the whole notion is an oxymoron!. It took me very long to recognize this, trying desperately to find a continuity of religion pre - post Vatican II. I am now on the opinion, that no, a heretic cannot be Pope. If a Pope becomes a heretic, then the promises of Vatican I dogmatic Pastor Aeternum are meaningless:

6. For the Holy Spirit was promised to the successors of Peter not so that they might, by his revelation, make known some new doctrine, but that, by his assistance, they might religiously guard and faithfully expound the revelation or deposit of faith transmitted by the apostles. Indeed, their apostolic teaching was embraced by all the venerable fathers and reverenced and followed by all the holy orthodox doctors, for they knew very well that this See of St. Peter always remains unblemished by any error, in accordance with the divine promise of our Lord and Savior to the prince of his disciples: "I have prayed for you that your faith may not fail; and when you have turned again, strengthen your brethren."

7. This gift of truth and never-failing faith was therefore divinely conferred on Peter and his successors in this See so that they might discharge their exalted office for the salvation of all, and so that the whole flock of Christ might be kept away by them from the poisonous food of error and be nourished with the sustenance of heavenly doctrine. Thus the tendency to schism is removed and the whole Church is preserved in unity, and, resting on its foundation, can stand firm against the gates of hell.

If you notice, Bellarmine, Cajetan, St. John of Thomas...the few ones dealing with the possibility of a heretic becoming Pope were living in the XVI century, when the Protestant Reform occured. The heretic is the hypothetical Protestant. Do we actually find any work on the subject after Vatican I Council, when the dogma of Papal Infallibility was defined?  

  

  

[Pax Vobis]

When I look at the "evidence" Bellarmine stands above the rest of the theologians on this matter.

It's your opinon on his opinion.  I guess that settles it.

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.

For the record, I'm not opposed to sedevacantism, but I'm not for it, either.  What I am opposed to, are people calling me a HERETIC if I disagree with it  (i.e. dogmatic sedes).

No theologian, including +Bellarmine, EVER thought his opinion was THE OPINION.  Theologians know this is not how the Church works.  Theologians know that their job is to study, debate, study, and refine their arguments, not to "be right" but for the good of the Church.  We should all have the same mindset. 

So, yes, if you want to be a good catholic, you HAVE TO give credence to ALL theological opinions on a matter that is undecided.  This is the Church's view; this SHOULD BE your view.  If not, then you've made a decision where the Church has not and then many of you run around and proclaim others are heretics because they want to wait for the Church to decide.  Very impatient and divisive.

[Pax Vobis]

I am now on the opinion, that no, a heretic cannot be Pope. If a Pope becomes a heretic, then the promises of Vatican I dogmatic Pastor Aeternum are meaningless:

Pastor Aeternum didn't say that a pope couldn't be a heretic, it's saying that the Church would not OFFICIALLY teach error, which She has done, to date.  Even if you are a strict 'Bellarminist' you must admit he called for the Church to depose a heretic pope before they would be OFFICIALLY considered 'not the pope'. 

[Pax Vobis]

These men who now claim to be Pope were heretics before their supposed election, therefore were never elected.

Again, we go back to Pius X and XII who suspended the ecclesiastical penalties for heretics, thus allowing them to take part in the elections.

[Cantarella]

Pastor Aeternum didn't say that a pope couldn't be a heretic, it's saying that the Church would not OFFICIALLY teach error, which She has done, to date.  Even if you are a strict 'Bellarminist' you must admit he called for the Church to depose a heretic pope before they would be OFFICIALLY considered 'not the pope'.

It is telling me that the Holy Ghost is promised to the successor of St. Peter so he can safeguard Divine Revelation and protect me from error in doctrine. It also tells me that His Faith cannot fail because the Lord has specifically prayed for it.

It says that "the See of St. Peter always remains unblemished by any error, in accordance with the divine promise of our Lord and Savior to the prince of his disciples: "I have prayed for you that your faith may not fail; and when you have turned again, strengthen your brethren." Pastor Aeternum is not dealing with the Church infallibility; but the person of the Pope Himself.

Again, I disagree with trying to prove the truth of sedevacantism, based solely upon Bellarmine, for the reasons explained above.  

[Pax Vobis]

And here's the next problem.  What HERESY have the V2 papal claimants embraced?  I'm not talking about errors but about actual heresy.  Religious Liberty?  While it's a grave error, it's not heresy, strictly speaking, and I've seen a number of people jump through hoops to explain why it's not even erroneous.   Ecuмenism?  That's a practical thing and not theological.

Religious indifferentism, this notion that people can be saved in any religion?  But, wait, +Lefebvre and most of the Trad bishops say the same thing, that people of any religion can be saved.
V2 ecclesiology?  But, wait, the anti-Feeneyite Trads have the same ecclesiology.  Is it heretical?  Are they heretics also?

While Bergoglio might be a special case, since he stands up there and almost brags about being heretical, his predecessors insisted that there was some continuity between their teaching and prior Tradition.

Lad, this is TOTALLY off topic, but the points you make above are contrary to points you've made in the past vs Stubborn and I.  I agree with you above.  I think that *technically and legally* speaking (and we know that satan is the master of technicalities) that V2 did not FORMALLY teach error (because this is what Pastor Aeternum from V1 says would not happen). 

Did it promote error?  Yes.  Did it FORMALLY BIND anyone to believe error, as a Catholic, under pain of sin?  Of course not.  So, the magisterium has not defected (which you've argued to the contrary in the past).  I never understood where you were going with that argument (I think you were trying to use it to justify a Fr Chazal-type situation).  Not trying to say "I told you so", just pointing out that Fr Chazal's view is unaffected even if your view above is true.

[Pax Vobis]

It is telling me that the Holy Ghost is promised to the successor of St. Peter so he can safeguard Divine Revelation and protect me from error in doctrine. It also tells me that His Faith cannot fail because the Lord has specifically prayed for it.

It says that "the See of St. Peter always remains unblemished by any error, in accordance with the divine promise of our Lord and Savior to the prince of his disciples: "I have prayed for you that your faith may not fail; and when you have turned again, strengthen your brethren." Pastor Aeternum is not dealing with the Church infallibility; but the person of the Pope Himself.

No, absolutely not.  The pope is only special BECAUSE OF his papal powers -
1.  Material - governmental/jurisdiction
2.  Spiritual - infallibility - which protects/teaches doctrine.

If the pope does not USE infallibility to teach/clarify doctrine, then he is fallible, just like any other bishop.  His faith is just as tenuous as yours, mine or any catholic's.  This is why we pray for him!  We know that the pope, as a man, can fail because it happened to St Peter and many other popes (who may not have been manifest heretics but some did hold heretical ideals for a time and MANY, many were immoral and scandalous).  The point is, that V1 is dealing with the SPIRITUAL office of the papacy.  It's not dealing with the MATERIAL office because that has nothing to do with doctrine.

The point is that every main theologian agrees that if a pope loses his faith, he 'ipso facto' loses his spiritual authority because of his heresy.  Ergo, the papacy is protected (as V1 says it will be).  The matter of his material office is not addressed by 'Pastor Aeternum' because it has nothing to do with doctrine, ergo his material office is still held, until the Church deposes him.

[Pax Vobis]

Saint Robert Bellarmine
"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..."

He can be judged and punished by the Church because due to his heresy - HE IS NO LONGER THE POPE.  

I didn't realize that in all the volumes and volumes and volumes that +Bellarmine wrote, that this quote COMPLETELY summarizes his ENTIRE view on the matter - and he has nothing left to say, or distinguish about it.  Isn't that nice?  (Surely that's not the case).

G whiz, not only do some of you Bellarminists throw out every contrary opinion, but you throw out 99% of Bellarmine himself!  You take ONE (just one?!) of his quotes and treat it as GOSPEL.  ??  You don't even deserve to be called 'Bellarminists'!  

[Pax Vobis]

I've already posted an article by Salza/Sisco, which you made fun of.  The point is, that even in the Bellarmine quote you posted he never says 'we can say he's not the pope'.  He is talking about his SPIRITUAL loss of office, as a member of the church.  What comes next?  The church must decide when/how to depose him from his MATERIAL office.  This lines up with what Salza/Sisco wrote that before one can OFFICIALLY say "he's not the pope" that the Church must act.

This is the only minor (but important) point i'm trying to make.  Bellarmine seems to have said this; but you've glossed over this fact.  Bellarmine was debated precisely because his view is too idealistic.  It's missing practical details.

The analogy would be:  The parents make a rule that any child caught doing drugs is considered 'no longer part of the family' and is to be banished immediately from the house.  Teenager A is caught doing drugs on saturday, therefore he's no longer part of the family.  ...but he's still sleeping in his room on sunday morning.  What happened?  Thought he wasn't part of the family anymore?  He should be sleeping outside.

This is the problem with Bellarmine's explanation; it gives no real-life explanation or rules on how to remedy the situation.  Contrary theologians say, "When the teenager is caught doing drugs, they are spiritually no longer part of the family, but in reality, until the parents (i.e. the Church) kick the child out of the house, you can't say they aren't a member, because if they're living there, they are."

[Meg]

It is telling me that the Holy Ghost is promised to the successor of St. Peter so he can safeguard Divine Revelation and protect me from error in doctrine. It also tells me that His Faith cannot fail because the Lord has specifically prayed for it.

It says that "the See of St. Peter always remains unblemished by any error, in accordance with the divine promise of our Lord and Savior to the prince of his disciples: "I have prayed for you that your faith may not fail; and when you have turned again, strengthen your brethren." Pastor Aeternum is not dealing with the Church infallibility; but the person of the Pope Himself.

Again, I disagree with trying to prove the truth of sedevacantism, based solely upon Bellarmine, for the reasons explained above.  

Does Bellarmine say that the Pope's faith cannot fail? You indicate above that this is what you believe (that the Pope's faith cannot fail).

Bellarmine may have written that the Pope's faith cannot fail, but I don't recall ever seeing that. 

[Cantarella]

No, absolutely not.  The pope is only special BECAUSE OF his papal powers -
1.  Material - governmental/jurisdiction
2.  Spiritual - infallibility - which protects/teaches doctrine.

If the pope does not USE infallibility to teach/clarify doctrine, then he is fallible, just like any other bishop.  His faith is just as tenuous as yours, mine or any catholic's.  This is why we pray for him!  We know that the pope, as a man, can fail because it happened to St Peter and many other popes (who may not have been manifest heretics but some did hold heretical ideals for a time and MANY, many were immoral and scandalous).  The point is, that V1 is dealing with the SPIRITUAL office of the papacy.  It's not dealing with the MATERIAL office because that has nothing to do with doctrine.

The point is that every main theologian agrees that if a pope loses his faith, he 'ipso facto' loses his spiritual authority because of his heresy.  Ergo, the papacy is protected (as V1 says it will be).  The matter of his material office is not addressed by 'Pastor Aeternum' because it has nothing to do with doctrine, ergo his material office is still held, until the Church deposes him.

Popes may err personally; but not judicially or definitively. The dogmatic definition on Pastor Aeternum is based upon the Divine promise found in Luke 22, 32 that the Pope's Faith shall never fail. This was true for St. Peter as well as for all his successors. Their Roman Faith cannot fail. In the annotations of that biblical passage, dated in 1582, we find the following:

Neither was this privilege of St. Peter's person, but of his Office, that he shall not fail in faith; but even confirm all other in their Faith. For the Church, for whose sake the privilege was thought necessary in Peter the Head there of, was to be preserved no less afterward, then in that Apostle's time. Whereupon all the Fathers apply this privilege of not failing and of confirming other in faith, to the Roman Church and peter's successors in the same.

To which, saith St. Cyprian, infidelity or false Faith cannot come. And St. Bernard saith writing to Innocent Pope, against Abaliardus the Heretic, we must refer your Apostleship all the scandals and perils which may fall, in matter of faith specially. For there the defects of faith must be helped, where faith cannot fail.

For to what other See was it ever said I have prayed for thee Peter, that thy Faith do not fail? so say the Fathers, not meaning that none of Peter's seat can err in person, understanding, private doctrine or writing, but that they cannot nor shall not ever judicially conclude or give definitive sentence for falsehood or heresy against the Catholic Faith, in their Consistories, Courts, Councils, decrees, deliberations, or consultations kept for decision and determinations of such controversies, doubts, questions of faith as shall be proposed unto them: because Christ's prayer and promise protected them therein for conformation of their Brethren.  

If we, as Catholics, cannot even hope in a single man on earth, (the Roman Pontiff) faith not failing - even though Christ Himself prayed for it-, what hope is there for us?

[Stubborn]

Again you claim that saying the pope is not the Pope is schismatic. This means you believe St. Vincent was schismatic. You are really going out of your way to say, in as many ways possible, that you believe St. Vincent was not a Catholic. This is very evil.

In your dreams that's what it means.