Catholic Info
Traditional Catholic Faith => Crisis in the Church => Topic started by: DecemRationis on April 25, 2021, 03:59:56 PM
-
I'm reading Fr. Chazel's book Contra Cekadam. I'm right now going through his discussion of the pre-Vatican I theologians, including St. Robert Bellarmine. I find him very convincing.
So, before I finished (and I will), I wanted to get a sense of Fr. Cekada's response, so I pulled that up on the internet. He directly hits what has been shadowing Fr. Chazel's argument as I read:
If Fr. Chazal agrees with the statements in points 1 (the changes are evil) and 2 (and the Church, by Christ’s promise, cannot give evil/error), but he nevertheless still insists the Vatican II popes are true popes possessing authority from Christ, he maintains in effect that the Church of Christ has defected and that Christ’s promises are void.
http://www.fathercekada.com/2017/08/25/my-response-to-fr-chazals-contra-cekadam/
Again and again and again the real issue becomes indefectibility - as has been shown here lately. Fr. Chazal is very convincing (so far) on the need for a declarative judgment for the Church by its bishops/cardinals (or some competent authority) when it finds itself with a heretical pope.
If he is right, what about indefectibility? What about the "Church" promulgating through the man on the See of Peter errors and evils in teachings and laws?
If he is right, the man on the chair, prior to the declarative sentence, is still a true pope. Impound him - whatever - he is still issuing, or has issued, false and/o evil teachings and laws while in the seat.
So if Fr. Chazal is right, what does that say about the traditional teaching regarding indefectiblity?
Seems to me he can't be right and the traditional notion of indefectibility right at the same time - either must be false.
Not sure if Fr. Chazal deals with indefectibility; I sure hope so.
Thoughts?
-
If he is right, the man on the chair, prior to the declarative sentence, is still a true pope. Impound him - whatever - he is still issuing, or has issued, false and/o evil teachings and laws while in the seat.
.
No human being has any jurisdiction, whether spiritual or temporal, over a true pope. That means no one can pass sentence against a true pope.
.
This is why the Fathers of the Church don't teach any such thing. They all teach (and St. Robert Bellarmine says it is the unanimous teaching of the Fathers) that a pope who taught heresy would fall from office by that very act, and the cardinals would then make a declaration of the fact that he had already lost the papacy and then proceed to elect a pope. But obviously this is only possible if the former-pope had already lost his office before the cardinals made a declaration to that effect and then elected a replacement.
-
The numbered statement won't come up in the quote from Fr. Cekada. Here they are:
1. Officially-sanctioned Vatican II and post-Vatican II teachings and laws embody errors and/or promote evil.
2. Because the Church is indefectible, her teaching cannot change, and because she is infallible, her laws cannot give evil.
3. It is therefore impossible that the errors evils officially sanctioned in Vatican II and post-Vatican II teachings and laws could have proceeded from the authority of the Church.
-
.
No human being has any jurisdiction, whether spiritual or temporal, over a true pope. That means no one can pass sentence against a true pope.
.
This is why the Fathers of the Church don't teach any such thing. They all teach (and St. Robert Bellarmine says it is the unanimous teaching of the Fathers) that a pope who taught heresy would fall from office by that very act, and the cardinals would then make a declaration of the fact that he had already lost the papacy and then proceed to elect a pope. But obviously this is only possible if the former-pope had already lost his office before the cardinals made a declaration to that effect and then elected a replacement.
Fr. Chazal's heretic pope is still pope until the declarative sentence. He is still "true" pope in that sense. That's all that is meant.
-
Fr. Chazal's heretic pope is still pope until the declarative sentence. He is still "true" pope in that sense. That's all that is meant.
.
I'm not sure I follow your point, but no sentence of any kind can be passed against a true pope.
-
.
I'm not sure I follow your point, but no sentence of any kind can be passed against a true pope.
Just call it a declaration then.
-
.
I'm not sure I follow your point, but no sentence of any kind can be passed against a true pope.
You should go back in time and tell that to Cajetan, John of St. Thomas, Billuart, Billot, Torquemada, and Vittoria.
All acknowledge that the Church can declare that God has deposed the pope.
-
All acknowledge that the Church can declare that God has deposed the pope.
.
Yes, that is my understanding too. It is not human beings who depose a pope, but they can only acknowledge that he has lost his office already, or, as you put it, been deposed by God.
-
.
Yes, that is my understanding too. It is not human beings who depose a pope, but they can only acknowledge that he has lost his office already, or, as you put it, been deposed by God.
Fine. You took "sentence" in the wrong way.
Fr. Chazal quotes, for example, Wernz-Vidal:
"A declaratory sentence of the crime, however, is not excluded, as long as it is merely declaratory."
-
I think the three of us agree, just like in Belloc's Christmas carol:
.
May all good fellows that here agree
Drink Audit Ale in heaven with me.
And may all my enemies go to hell
Noel! Noel! Noel! Noel!
May all my enemies go to hell
Noel! Noel!
-
This is why the Fathers of the Church don't teach any such thing. They all teach (and St. Robert Bellarmine says it is the unanimous teaching of the Fathers) that a pope who taught heresy would fall from office by that very act...
Not a single one of the Church Fathers that Bellarmine quoted or referenced in support of his position said any such thing. In fact, none of them taught that a manifest heretic is ipso facto deposed. Not a single one.
-
Not a single one of the Church Fathers that Bellarmine quoted or referenced in support of his position said any such thing. In fact, none of them taught that a manifest heretic is ipso facto deposed. Not a single one.
.
Here's what St. Robert Bellarmine said (https://novusordowatch.org/de-romano-pontifice-book2-chapter30/):
.
Now the fifth true opinion, is that a Pope who is a manifest heretic, ceases in himself to be Pope and head, just as he ceases in himself to be a Christian and member of the body of the Church: whereby, he can be judged and punished by the Church. This is the opinion of all the ancient Fathers, who teach that manifest heretics soon [mox — better translation: immediately] lose all jurisdiction, and namely St. Cyprian who speaks on Novation, who was a Pope in schism with Cornelius: “He cannot hold the Episcopacy, although he was a bishop first, he fell from the body of his fellow bishops and from the unity of the Church”. There he means that Novation, even if he was a true and legitimate Pope; still would have fallen from the pontificate by himself, if he separated himself from the Church. The same is the opinion of the learned men of our age, as John Driedo teaches, those who are cast out as excommunicates, or leave on their own and oppose the Church are separated from it, namely heretics and schismatics.
-
Not a single one of the Church Fathers that Bellarmine quoted or referenced in support of his position said any such thing. In fact, none of them taught that a manifest heretic is ipso facto deposed. Not a single one.
That’s based on the idiotic S&S position which spends 500 pages to claim that the Bellarmine and Cajetan opinions are identical ... even though Bellarmine cites it and rejects it.
-
.
Here's what St. Robert Bellarmine said (https://novusordowatch.org/de-romano-pontifice-book2-chapter30/):
Now the fifth true opinion, is that a Pope who is a manifest heretic, ceases in himself to be Pope and head, just as he ceases in himself to be a Christian and member of the body of the Church: whereby, he can be judged and punished by the Church. This is the opinion of all the ancient Fathers, who teach that manifest heretics soon [mox — better translation: immediately] lose all jurisdiction, and namely St. Cyprian who speaks on Novation, who was a Pope in schism with Cornelius: “He cannot hold the Episcopacy, although he was a bishop first, he fell from the body of his fellow bishops and from the unity of the Church”. There he means that Novation, even if he was a true and legitimate Pope; still would have fallen from the pontificate by himself, if he separated himself from the Church. The same is the opinion of the learned men of our age, as John Driedo teaches, those who are cast out as excommunicates, or leave on their own and oppose the Church are separated from it, namely heretics and schismatics.
I know what he said, but what I am saying is that not a single one of the Fathers of the Church that Bellarmine quoted - not St. Cyprian, who he quoted three times, not St. Jerome, who he quote once, and not St. Athanasius, St. Augustine, St. Ambrose or Optatus, who he referenced - taught that manifest heretics are ipso facto deposed. Not one.
In the quotation you provided above, Bellarmine quotes St. Cyprians commentary on Novation to support his position. Let's see what Cyprian actually taught.
To begin with, Novation never held office in the Church or possessed jurisdiction. He left the Church after Cornelius was elected Pope, because he considered him to be too liberal, and was illicitly consecrated outside the Church by three bishop he had previously left the Church. Soon thereafter, Novation declared that he was the true Pope.
Now, in the quotation Bellarmine references above, St. Cyprian says is even if Novation had been legitimately consecrated a bishop before he separated from the Church, he would not be have been able to remain a member of the episcopate, since he separated from the Church and from unity with the other bishops. Here is the entire quote from St. Cyprian, with the that portion Bellarmine quoted underlined:
St. Cyprian: “In reference, however, to the character of Novatian, dearest brother, of whom you desired that intelligence should be written you what heresy he had introduced; know that, in the first place, we ought not even to be inquisitive as to what he teaches, so long as he teaches out of the pale of unity. … schismatics are always fervid at the beginning, but that they cannot increase nor add to what they have unlawfully begun, but quickly fail along with their evil emulation. But he could not hold the episcopate, even if he had been made a bishop before he departed, since he has cut himself off from the body of his fellow bishops and from the unity of the Church; since the apostle admonishes that we should mutually sustain one another, and not withdraw from the unity which God has appointed, and says, ‘Bearing with one another in love, endeavoring to keep the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace’ (Ephesians 4:2-3). He who observes neither unity of spirit nor the concord of peace, and severs himself from the bonds of the Church, and from the fellowship of her priests, cannot have episcopal power or honor, since he has refused to maintain either the unity or the peace of the episcopate. (Bk 4, Epist. 2).
It was because Novation separated himself from the Church and from the body of bishops that he would have been unable to retain episcopal power or dignity, not merely because he fell into personal heresy. It is also worth noting that Cyprian never says Novation would have lost his jurisdiction ipso facto, without having to be formally deposed by the Church. All he says is if he would not have been able to retain the episcopal power and dignity if he failed to remain in union with the episcopate.
The other authority Bellarmine quoted above is John Dreido, and he doesn't help his opinion either. All Driedo says is some Christians are cut off by the Church's judgment, while others depart from the Church on their own. No great revelation there. Here is the actual quotation:
John Dreido: “All those who have received the sacrament of faith [Baptism], and are visibly attached to the Church, and associate in a peaceable way with the Christian people, are in the Church until they are either cut off by the Church’s judgment, or depart of their own accord."
Nothing there about a manifest heretic being ipso facto deposed.
The other quotations Bellarmine references in the chapter (in response to the fourth opinion), the ones from St. Augustine, St. Athanasius, St. Jerome, the other two from St. Cyprian, and the one from Optatus, don't support his position that "a manifest heretic is ipso facto deposed" either. In fact, none of those quotations even mention a bishop losing his jurisdiction. The quotation from Pope Celestine regarding Nestorius was also a fail. All Celestine said was the excommunications Nestorius pronounced against those who refused to accept his heresy was null and void. What Bellarmine doesn't mention, is that Pope Cornelius said Novation remained in communion with himself and with the Church even after he had been formally judged a heretic, and had been warned three times to renounce his heresy. Nestorius retained his office until he was deposed by the Council of Ephesus, in July of 431 - which was 11 months after he had been judged a heretic by the Pope himself at a Council in Rome.
To say Bellarmine failed to prove his position would be an understatement. What Bellarmine did proved, is that he was not aware of a single Father of the Church, or any theologian, who supported his position, since if he had known of any, you can be sure he would have quoted them.
-
That’s based on the idiotic S&S position which spends 500 pages to claim that the Bellarmine and Cajetan opinions are identical ... even though Bellarmine cites it and rejects it.
I've read True or False Pope, and they don't say Bellarmine and Cajetan held the same opinion. On the contrary, they do a very good job explaining the difference between the two opinions.
-
Are you saying St. Robert Bellarmine misunderstood what he read in the Fathers? :jester:
-
The Church has never defined (but needs to) indefectibility, and how it does, or does not, mesh with infallibility. So this discussion will never reach a conclusion.
-
Are you saying St. Robert Bellarmine misunderstood what he read in the Fathers? :jester:
What I am saying is not a single one of them said a manifest heretic is ipso facto deposed, and not a single one of them supported his position. If you disagree, please show which quotation Bellarmine quoted or referenced that supports his position.
-
What I am saying is not a single one of them said a manifest heretic is ipso facto deposed, and not a single one of them supported his position. If you disagree, please show which quotation Bellarmine quoted or referenced that supports his position.
.
Okay, but St. Robert Bellarmine said, "This is the opinion of all the ancient Fathers, who teach that manifest heretics soon [mox — better translation: immediately] lose all jurisdiction, and namely St. Cyprian who speaks on Novation ..." If you disagree with St. Robert Bellarmine about what the ancient Fathers teach, that's a matter between you and him.
.
I'm definitely not going to get into a debate with anyone about whether a Doctor of the Church understands the Fathers of the Church correctly. I don't think a question like that is within the realm of what is acceptable to be debated.
-
I've read True or False Pope, and they don't say Bellarmine and Cajetan held the same opinion. On the contrary, they do a very good job explaining the difference between the two opinions.
No, of course they don't SAY that, but their novel "interpretation" of Bellarmine's position makes it into the same position as what Cajetan held. I've read several theologians characterize Bellarmine's position exactly as sedevacantists understand it.
-
.
Okay, but St. Robert Bellarmine said, "This is the opinion of all the ancient Fathers, who teach that manifest heretics soon [mox — better translation: immediately] lose all jurisdiction, and namely St. Cyprian who speaks on Novation ..." If you disagree with St. Robert Bellarmine about what the ancient Fathers teach, that's a matter between you and him.
.
I'm definitely not going to get into a debate with anyone about whether a Doctor of the Church understands the Fathers of the Church correctly. I don't think a question like that is within the realm of what is acceptable to be debated.
I will explain how Bellarmine was trying to defend his position, and it is not what most people think. The first thing to realize is that none of the Fathers taught that "manifest heretics are ipso facto deposed". That's why Bellarmine was unable to quote any who taught it.
What the Fathers did teach is that 1) heretics (meaning those who were visibly separated from the Church) and also schismatics (who were visibly separated from the Church) were outside of the Church; and 2) because they were outside of the Church they lacked jurisdiction. The reason it was necessary for Bellarmine to establish point #1 is because some theologians in Bellarmine's day held that heretics and schismatics who had publicly left the Church, or were never in the Church, were still part of the Church. Bellarmine proved that the Fathers taught otherwise. If they were separated from communion with the Church, they were not part of the Church.
But it is one thing to say a heretic who is outside the Church lacks jurisdiction, and another to say a Catholic bishop who falls into heresy loses jurisdiction. Not having jurisdiction is one thing; losing it is another. Joel Osteen is a heretic who lacks jurisdiction, not because he lost it, but because he never had it.
What the quotations that Bellarmine references from St. Athanasius, St. Augustine, Optatus, St. Ambrose, and the two others from St. Cyprian that he quotes confirm, is that those who are outside the Church lack jurisdiction. And the quotations from St. Cyprian and Ambrose were both referring to Novation, who never had jurisdiction to begin with. Nothing in any of those quotes speaks of how someone who possessed jurisdiction in the Church would lose it if he fell into heresy and/or left the Church.
What Bellarmine was trying to argue is that since the Fathers all taught that heretics and schismatics (who were visibly separated from the Church) lacked jurisdiction, if a Pope was outside the Church, he too would lack jurisdiction. The problem, as noted above, is that lacking jurisdiction and losing jurisdiction are two different things.
The only example Bellarmine used of a bishops who possessed jurisdiction before losing it was Nestorius, but if anything, the case of Nestorius refutes Bellarmine's position. Nestorius wasn't ipso facto deposed. He retained his office from the day he first preached his new heresy (Christmas of 428), until he was deposed by the Council of Ephesus (July 431). Between those two date, Nestorius had been issued to formal warnings by St. Cyril, the Patriarch of Alexandria, he had been judged by the Pope during a council held in Rome (August 430), and had been issued a third and final warning by the Pope via St. Cyril, following the Council, giving him 10 days to renounce his heresies. Up to that point, Nestorius remained "in communion with the Church," according to the Pope himself. And when the Pope learned that the emperor had called a council to consider the matter, he agreed to suspended the sentence of deposition that he said would take effect after the 10 days were up, and allowed Nestorius to remain in is see until the Council rendered a judgement. Only then was Nestorius deposed.
That is the only example Bellarmine referenced of a bishop who lost his jurisdiction. And the only aspect of the story Bellarmine related is that after the Pope judged Nestorius at the Council of Rome (August 430), he wrote to those who had been excommunicate by Nestorius to let them know the excommunications that had been pronounced against them were null.
To say the least, Bellarmine completely failed to prove his position. He didn't provide one convincing argument in favor of it or quote any authority who supported it. Again, if you disagree, point out anything Bellarmine wrote that you find convincing, or any authority he cited that you believe supports his position.
-
I will explain how Bellarmine was trying to defend his position, and it is not what most people think. The first thing to realize is that none of the Fathers taught that "manifest heretics are ipso facto deposed". That's why Bellarmine was unable to quote any who taught it.
What the Fathers did teach is that 1) heretics (meaning those who were visibly separated from the Church) and also schismatics (who were visibly separated from the Church) were outside of the Church; and 2) because they were outside of the Church they lacked jurisdiction. The reason it was necessary for Bellarmine to establish point #1 is because some theologians in Bellarmine's day held that heretics and schismatics who had publicly left the Church, or were never in the Church, were still part of the Church. Bellarmine proved that the Fathers taught otherwise. If they were separated from communion with the Church, they were not part of the Church.
But it is one thing to say a heretic who is outside the Church lacks jurisdiction, and another to say a Catholic bishop who falls into heresy loses jurisdiction. Not having jurisdiction is one thing; losing it is another. Joel Osteen is a heretic who lacks jurisdiction, not because he lost it, but because he never had it.
What the quotations that Bellarmine references from St. Athanasius, St. Augustine, Optatus, St. Ambrose, and the two others from St. Cyprian that he quotes confirm, is that those who are outside the Church lack jurisdiction. And the quotations from St. Cyprian and Ambrose were both referring to Novation, who never had jurisdiction to begin with. Nothing in any of those quotes speaks of how someone who possessed jurisdiction in the Church would lose it if he fell into heresy and/or left the Church.
What Bellarmine was trying to argue is that since the Fathers all taught that heretics and schismatics (who were visibly separated from the Church) lacked jurisdiction, if a Pope was outside the Church, he too would lack jurisdiction. The problem, as noted above, is that lacking jurisdiction and losing jurisdiction are two different things.
The only example Bellarmine used of a bishops who possessed jurisdiction before losing it was Nestorius, but if anything, the case of Nestorius refutes Bellarmine's position. Nestorius wasn't ipso facto deposed. He retained his office from the day he first preached his new heresy (Christmas of 428), until he was deposed by the Council of Ephesus (July 431). Between those two date, Nestorius had been issued to formal warnings by St. Cyril, the Patriarch of Alexandria, he had been judged by the Pope during a council held in Rome (August 430), and had been issued a third and final warning by the Pope via St. Cyril, following the Council, giving him 10 days to renounce his heresies. Up to that point, Nestorius remained "in communion with the Church," according to the Pope himself. And when the Pope learned that the emperor had called a council to consider the matter, he agreed to suspended the sentence of deposition that he said would take effect after the 10 days were up, and allowed Nestorius to remain in is see until the Council rendered a judgement. Only then was Nestorius deposed.
That is the only example Bellarmine referenced of a bishop who lost his jurisdiction. And the only aspect of the story Bellarmine related is that after the Pope judged Nestorius at the Council of Rome (August 430), he wrote to those who had been excommunicate by Nestorius to let them know the excommunications that had been pronounced against them were null.
To say the least, Bellarmine completely failed to prove his position. He didn't provide one convincing argument in favor of it or quote any authority who supported it. Again, if you disagree, point out anything Bellarmine wrote that you find convincing, or any authority he cited that you believe supports his position.
They revoked everything nestorious did once he became a heretic, exactly because he didn't have jurisdiction to do any of it. What kind of nonsense you peddling?
-
They revoked everything nestorious did once he became a heretic, exactly because he didn't have jurisdiction to do any of it. What kind of nonsense you peddling?
Nay, rather, the Pope declared that his acts never had any effect; this was declaratory on the Pope's part. He did not lift the excommunication, but declared these excommunications to have been invalid from the time Nestorius began to preach heresy (rather than from his formal deposition).
I believe that the Nestorius episode actually backs sedeprivationism, where on account of his manifest heresy, Nestorius lacked authority even before he officially (materially) lost his office.
-
I believe that the Nestorius episode actually backs sedeprivationism, where on account of his manifest heresy, Nestorius lacked authority even before he officially (materially) lost his office.
Agreed. It also provides an excellent case study supporting attendance at masses offered "una cuм" this or that manifestly heretical but yet-to-be-judged bishop or pontiff.