[Pax Vobis]

It is even MORE damning of his opinion in the light of the fact that V1, which used +Bellarmine's views to formulate its doctrines (as many of you have repeatedly pointed out), explained the parameters of infallibility, which contradict +Bellarmine's interpretation of Luke 22. 

Moral of the story:  V1's guidelines on when a pope is infallible MUST be believed and are very strict.  This is a direct, Holy Ghost-inspired, interpretation of Luke 22.  Outside of these parameters, the papacy can fail and we all must believe that.  It is doctrine.

[Pax Vobis]

This isn't my opinion, it is what V1 teaches.  It shows us PRECISELY when the pope is infallible.  When he does not fulfill the conditions below he is fallible.  Fallible does not mean we ignore it, or devalue it, or joke about it, it just means that it cannot be trusted 100% completely without judging it according to orthoxody and previous dogmas.  If it agrees with 'what has always been taught' then it is part of the magisterium.


Chapter 4, number 9:

Therefore...
we teach and define as a divinely revealed dogma that

• when the Roman pontiff speaks EX CATHEDRA,
  
  • that is, when,
  • in the exercise of his office as shepherd and teacher of all Christians,
  • in virtue of his supreme apostolic authority,
  • he defines a doctrine concerning faith or morals to be held by the whole church,
• he possesses,
  
  • by the divine assistance promised to him in blessed Peter,
• that infallibility which the divine Redeemer willed his church to enjoy in defining doctrine concerning faith or morals.
• Therefore, such definitions of the Roman pontiff are of themselves, and not by the consent of the church, irreformable.

So then, should anyone, which God forbid, have the temerity to reject this definition of ours: let him be anathema.

[Pax Vobis]

I'll take Bellarmine over Pax Vobis every time...  

So will I.  Just because one of +Bellarmine's points is wrong (and only because the Church made a decision on the matter) doesn't mean he's wrong on everything. 

[reconquest]

In one of his articles Fr. Cekada includes the following quote about the possibility of a heretical pope being brought up at Vatican I:

What would be said if the Roman Pontiff were to become a heretic? In the First Vatican Council, the following question was proposed: Whether or not the Roman Pontiff as a private person could fall into manifest heresy?

The response was thus: ‘Firmly trusting in supernatural providence, we think that such things quite probably will never occur. But God does not fail in times of need. Wherefore, if He Himself would permit such an evil, the means to deal with it would not be lacking.’ [Mansi 52:1109]

Theologians respond the same way. We cannot prove the absolute unlikelihood of such an event [absolutam repugnatiam facti]. For this reason, theologians commonly concede that the Roman Pontiff, if he should fall into manifest heresy, would no longer be a member of the Church, and therefore could neither be called its visible head. (Serapius Iragui, Manuale Theologiae Dogmaticae. Madrid: Ediciones Studium 1959. 371.)

Once again, it's clear that Vatican I didn't intend to dogmatize Bellarmine's first opinion or his fifth.

[2Vermont]

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

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.

I'm not convinced that you're neutral (not opposed but not for) sedevacantism Pax Vobis.  I know you say this, but you also like to belittle those of us who hold the position...even those of us who are not "dogmatic" in your view.  Your clear, anti-sede mentality is evidenced by your "outside of Bellarmine there is no salvation" comment and your recent sarcastic comment above about how my opinion of Bellarmine's opinion "settles it" just to name a couple.  

I was clear in that last post (and I truly wanted it to be my last) that it is your/others' prerogative to go with the other theologians' ideas..and what do you post in return?  Belittle my decision to go with Bellarmine.  I don't happen to agree with anyone calling you a "heretic", but when you offer such gems as these, your whining about the dogmatic sedes calling you a "heretic" doesn't garner too much sympathy from me. 

Lastly, regarding your assertion that in order to be a "good Catholic" I must give credence to all the theologians on matters that are not settled: show me the Catholic teaching that demands this of me.  Besides I NEVER said that we shouldn't consider other opinions.  Neither did I say that I hadn't considered them.
  
My point was that the other non-sede posters here seem to think that I MUST put them on equal footing.  That I am not allowed to come to the conclusion that St Bellarmine had the right opinion. And you're wrong that Bellarmine himself didn't think he had "The Opinion".  His writings are clear that the fifth opinion (his) is the "TRUE opinion".  That means he believed all of the others were FALSE.  Are you trying to tell me that he should have given them all equal credence despite the fact that he thought they were wrong?

[Pax Vobis]

And you're wrong that Bellarmine himself didn't think he had "The Opinion".

Bellarmine and any other good catholic certainly argued for his opinion but when I say he didn't think his was 'the one' i'm talking about in reference to the Church, not other theologians.  Theologian A can think their opinion is better than theologian B, C and D but that doesn't mean the Church won't declare that the true opinion is from theologian Z (who lives after theologian A) or a combo of all of them.  This is why catholics who write books offer up their writings to the judgement of the church.  And Bellarmine certainly didn't refer to other theologians as 'garbage' or declare them 'heretics', as some of you have said concerning Suarez, etc.

Secondly, when I say you must give 'credence' to a theologian who is contrary to Bellarmine, that doesn't mean you have to agree with him.  It means you have to admit that Bellarmine's opinion is, firstly, just that - an opinion.  Secondly, his opinion is on the same level as theologian B, C, and D.  By 'level' I mean they are all opinions - they carry no moral weight or obligation.  So, yes, all of you who prop up +Bellarmine as the 'end all, be all' are not looking at this topic with the necessary indifference.  If, however, I am wrong and you do recognize that all these theologians' opinions have the same weight, then I apologize, but (except for Cantarella, who did so implicitly) you have not admitted this fact.  

Finally, I don't know who is or isn't a 'dogmatic' sede in this whole debate.  But anyone who doesn't see the extreme error and uncharity (possibly sin) in declaring a fellow catholic a heretic over sedevacantism is definitely dogmatic in their thinking.  The idea that a group of catholics can anathematize and refuse sacraments to other catholics over this as-yet-undecided papal issue is a case of extremism that rivals the anathemas of the religious orders in the 'immaculate conception' debate.  And we all know that such historical actions were stupid, embarrassing, sinful and ridiculous.

For the record, I am not opposed to the theory of sedevacantism, but I tend to see +Bellarmine's views as problematic from a practical standpoint, while agreeing that idealisticly they are correct.  The difference between +Bellarmine and the others is very, very minor (but still a difference).  I am absolutely opposed to dogmatic sedevacantism and dogmatic R&R because the issue is undecided.  I'll argue against 'dogmatism' and 'sola Bellarmina' all day long.

[Cantarella]

In one of his articles Fr. Cekada includes the following quote about the possibility of a heretical pope being brought up at Vatican I:

What would be said if the Roman Pontiff were to become a heretic? In the First Vatican Council, the following question was proposed: Whether or not the Roman Pontiff as a private person could fall into manifest heresy?

The response was thus: ‘Firmly trusting in supernatural providence, we think that such things quite probably will never occur. But God does not fail in times of need. Wherefore, if He Himself would permit such an evil, the means to deal with it would not be lacking.’ [Mansi 52:1109]

Theologians respond the same way. We cannot prove the absolute unlikelihood of such an event [absolutam repugnatiam facti]. For this reason, theologians commonly concede that the Roman Pontiff, if he should fall into manifest heresy, would no longer be a member of the Church, and therefore could neither be called its visible head. (Serapius Iragui, Manuale Theologiae Dogmaticae. Madrid: Ediciones Studium 1959. 371.)

Once again, it's clear that Vatican I didn't intend to dogmatize Bellarmine's first opinion or his fifth.

Not sure why not his fifth:

“The fifth opinion is thus the true one: a manifestly heretical pope ceases by that very fact to be pope and head, even as he ceases by this reason to be a Christian and a member of the Body of the Church; and this is why he can be judged and punished by the Church. This is the position of all the ancient fathers who teach that manifest heretics immediately lose all jurisdiction”

What difference do you see there?

[Cantarella]

Nearly all Trads overlook Bellarmine's thesis on the local Roman Church.


My emphasis.

Yes, he expressed the belief as "a pious and most probable teaching" that the individual Roman Church must be considered both infallible and indefectible. This in virtue, I suppose, of St. Peter establishing his See there, and his successors (having the promise of Divine Assistance) being the Bishops presiding over it. However, if the Eternal City cannot lose the faith, then that would be a direct contradiction to the La Salette's message "Rome will lose the Faith and become the seat of the antichrist". It is interesting. I personally do not believe this to be possible, though. I am in the side of Bellarmine on this. 

  

[Stubborn]

Nearly all Trads overlook Bellarmine's thesis on the local Roman Church.

His main thesis in this chapter was the contention that not only the Roman Pontiff, but also the particular or local Church of the city of Rome, must be considered as incapable of error in matters of faith.

My emphasis.

This does not make any sense whatsoever, especially in light of V1. Who authored this narrative of St. Robert? I suspect it is the work of one of the "well respected" 19th/20th century theologians.

Please explain exactly which one of the +900 Churches in the city of Rome is "the particular or local Church" this author is speaking of and why that particular Church "must be considered as incapable of error in matters of faith" - what about the other +900 churches?

[Stubborn]

Referring to a particular Church is the same as referring to a diocese. There are the particular Churches of, for example: Constantinople, Canterbury, Armagh, Baltimore etc.

That idea still makes no sense, at the very least it is ambiguous. The Church, which is Christ, is infallible and indefectible, why does he limit it to what appears to be inside only one Church or diocese of Rome and who is the author you quoted that attributes this to St. Robert?
 

[2Vermont]

Bellarmine and any other good catholic certainly argued for his opinion but when I say he didn't think his was 'the one' i'm talking about in reference to the Church, not other theologians.  Theologian A can think their opinion is better than theologian B, C and D but that doesn't mean the Church won't declare that the true opinion is from theologian Z (who lives after theologian A) or a combo of all of them.  This is why catholics who write books offer up their writings to the judgement of the church.  And Bellarmine certainly didn't refer to other theologians as 'garbage' or declare them 'heretics', as some of you have said concerning Suarez, etc.

Secondly, when I say you must give 'credence' to a theologian who is contrary to Bellarmine, that doesn't mean you have to agree with him.  It means you have to admit that Bellarmine's opinion is, firstly, just that - an opinion.  Secondly, his opinion is on the same level as theologian B, C, and D.  By 'level' I mean they are all opinions - they carry no moral weight or obligation.  So, yes, all of you who prop up +Bellarmine as the 'end all, be all' are not looking at this topic with the necessary indifference.  If, however, I am wrong and you do recognize that all these theologians' opinions have the same weight, then I apologize, but (except for Cantarella, who did so implicitly) you have not admitted this fact.  

Finally, I don't know who is or isn't a 'dogmatic' sede in this whole debate.  But anyone who doesn't see the extreme error and uncharity (possibly sin) in declaring a fellow catholic a heretic over sedevacantism is definitely dogmatic in their thinking.  The idea that a group of catholics can anathematize and refuse sacraments to other catholics over this as-yet-undecided papal issue is a case of extremism that rivals the anathemas of the religious orders in the 'immaculate conception' debate.  And we all know that such historical actions were stupid, embarrassing, sinful and ridiculous.

For the record, I am not opposed to the theory of sedevacantism, but I tend to see +Bellarmine's views as problematic from a practical standpoint, while agreeing that idealisticly they are correct.  The difference between +Bellarmine and the others is very, very minor (but still a difference).  I am absolutely opposed to dogmatic sedevacantism and dogmatic R&R because the issue is undecided.  I'll argue against 'dogmatism' and 'sola Bellarmina' all day long.

Sure you do. Those who call you "heretic" are dogmatic in your mind.  That means that those that don't call you "heretic"/plainly say they don't think others should call you "heretic" shouldn't be dogmatic in your mind. But now I see that you have a new anti-sede label:  "sola Bellarmina" and "Bellarminists" for those of us who happen to believe that Bellarmine's opinion was the true opinion. You do just as good a job at "othering" your fellow Catholics.

As for the "necessary indifference", who are you to say that none of us didn't do this at one point?  I came to the decision that one opinion is better than the others.  It also seems to me that there is actual evidence that the Church Herself looks to Bellarmine on matters of the pope...not Suarez, not Cajetan, etc.  Although the Church has not "dogmatized" Bellarmine's teachings, it is clear to me that Bellarmine has more weight in the minds of the hierarchy.  As a result, I do not have to keep them all on equal footing just because you say I do. It seems to me that the anti-sedes here wish to downplay his importance.
 

[Pax Vobis]

Sure you do. Those who call you "heretic" are dogmatic in your mind.

Obviously.  The only ones, so far, have been 'LastDays' and 'AnEvenSeven'.

That means that those that don't call you "heretic"/plainly say they don't think others should call you "heretic" shouldn't be dogmatic in your mind.

Not necessarily.  You've not called me a heretic, yet you said I was "whining" when I mentioned being called one.  If you don't see the moral problem in calling other catholics 'heretics' over an undecided issue, I don't know what to tell you.  But still, I'm not sure what you believe.

But now I see that you have a new anti-sede label:  "sola Bellarmina" and "Bellarminists" for those of us who happen to believe that Bellarmine's opinion was the true opinion. You do just as good a job at "othering" your fellow Catholics.

These labels are just meant to show the (potential) extremism in your thinking.  If you reject the #3 error below, then I apologizie.  I've been trying to figure this out and it's not clear to me.

1. If you say you agree with Bellarmine above all other theologians - no problem.
2. If you say you agree with Bellarmine and all other theologians are wrong - no problem.
3. If you say you agree with Bellarmine and all other theologians are wrong, AND that Bellarmine is (basically) the the ONLY opinion of the Church - that is a problem.  (this is Fr Cekada's view)

As for the "necessary indifference", who are you to say that none of us didn't do this at one point?  I came to the decision that one opinion is better than the others.  It also seems to me that there is actual evidence that the Church Herself looks to Bellarmine on matters of the pope...not Suarez, not Cajetan, etc.  Although the Church has not "dogmatized" Bellarmine's teachings, it is clear to me that Bellarmine has more weight in the minds of the hierarchy.  As a result, I do not have to keep them all on equal footing just because you say I do. It seems to me that the anti-sedes here wish to downplay his importance.

Good points and I agree, mostly.  Your last 2 sentences show you are missing the entire purpose of this thread and why Fr Chazal spent his time and effort in making his video - which is against dogmatic sedevacantism.  Fr Chazal is trying to moderate the dogmatic extremism of Fr Chekada, +Sanborn, etc - anyone who says that their version of sedevantism is the ONLY version, that it is the Church's version, and anyone who disagrees is a heretic.  This is a BIG problem today and it's sinful.  It causes all sorts of uncharity and division in the trad world, in families and between friends.  It causes people to skip mass, causes chapel divisions, and all other sorts of extreme activity.  This is why Fr Chazal is speaking; this is why I'm posting - to get rid of this extremist error.

So, by necessity, those of us who are non-dogmatic about the issue of sedevacantism MUST downplay +Bellarmine's importance because Fr Chekada has put him on a pedastal so high, that on a cloudy day, it's hard to see him.  Fr Cekada has used +Bellarmine as the main opinion in his quest for his "my way or the highway" sede-religion.  This is totally uncatholic and extreme behavior.

All Fr Chazal is doing is putting the brakes on the +Bellarmine cult that has developed in some areas.  Fr Chazal is reminding everyone that 1) the Church has not decided this issue, 2) there are other theologians who disagree with +Bellarmine and 3) there is no consensus among theologians, therefore, EVERYONE is free to believe what he wants.  Heresy has NO PART in any of this debate.

Can we agree on any of this?  If so, which parts?

[Meg]

Obviously.  The only ones, so far, have been 'LastDays' and 'AnEvenSeven'.
Not necessarily.  You've not called me a heretic, yet you said I was "whining" when I mentioned being called one.  If you don't see the moral problem in calling other catholics 'heretics' over an undecided issue, I don't know what to tell you.  But still, I'm not sure what you believe.
These labels are just meant to show the (potential) extremism in your thinking.  If you reject the #3 error below, then I apologizie.  I've been trying to figure this out and it's not clear to me.

1. If you say you agree with Bellarmine above all other theologians - no problem.
2. If you say you agree with Bellarmine and all other theologians are wrong - no problem.
3. If you say you agree with Bellarmine and all other theologians are wrong, AND that Bellarmine is (basically) the the ONLY opinion of the Church - that is a problem.  (this is Fr Cekada's view)
Good points and I agree, mostly.  Your last 2 sentences show you are missing the entire purpose of this thread and why Fr Chazal spent his time and effort in making his video - which is against dogmatic sedevacantism.  Fr Chazal is trying to moderate the dogmatic extremism of Fr Chekada, +Sanborn, etc - anyone who says that their version of sedevantism is the ONLY version, that it is the Church's version, and anyone who disagrees is a heretic.  This is a BIG problem today and it's sinful.  It causes all sorts of uncharity and division in the trad world, in families and between friends.  It causes people to skip mass, causes chapel divisions, and all other sorts of extreme activity.  This is why Fr Chazal is speaking; this is why I'm posting - to get rid of this extremist error.

So, by necessity, those of us who are non-dogmatic about the issue of sedevacantism MUST downplay +Bellarmine's importance because Fr Chekada has put him on a pedastal so high, that on a cloudy day, it's hard to see him.  Fr Cekada has used +Bellarmine as the main opinion in his quest for his "my way or the highway" sede-religion.  This is totally uncatholic and extreme behavior.

All Fr Chazal is doing is putting the brakes on the +Bellarmine cult that has developed in some areas.  Fr Chazal is reminding everyone that 1) the Church has not decided this issue, 2) there are other theologians who disagree with +Bellarmine and 3) there is no consensus among theologians, therefore, EVERYONE is free to believe what he wants.  Heresy has NO PART in any of this debate.

Can we agree on any of this?  If so, which parts?

Excellent summary of the main problem of sedevacantism - well, the extremist version anyway. The problem is, people like 2Vermost still think that there's evidence that the Church does look to Bellarmine on the issue. They don't seem to accept that that's not the case. 

[Meg]

For the record, I don't think all those who are not SV are heretics or necessarily going to hell. I do think people like Pax and Stubbs are indeed heretics because of their tireless attack on the Catholic Faith, the spreading of a false Catholic faith, and their proud, willful subjection to heretics.

The above is the type of thinking that is extreme. As long as everyone is quiet and doesn't say anything against sedevacantism, and they don't say much about being subject to the pope - then they aren't heretics. 

Warped thinking. 

[Stubborn]

For the record, I don't think all those who are not SV are heretics or necessarily going to hell. I do think people like Pax and Stubbs are indeed heretics because of their tireless attack on the Catholic Faith, the spreading of a false Catholic faith, and their proud, willful subjection to heretics.

You equate those who have faith in and remain faithful to the dogma as being heretics - is that before or after presupposing the pope is not the pope?