12. Having (incorrectly, I believe) explained the terms “public” and “notorious,” Fr. Boulet then applies them as follows.

3.5.  Notoriety of law and notoriety of fact:

1.  Notoriety of law: A crime becomes Notorious with a notoriety in law only when a judicial sentence has been rendered by a competent judge - but the Pope has no superiors and no one has juridical competence to judge him : “The first See can be judged by no one.” [http://sspx.ca/Sedevecantism.htm#10B#10B]

- Hence any heretical act of John - Paul II cannot be Notorious with a notoriety of law.

2. Notoriety of fact: Can we say the same thing about the notoriety in fact of the Pope’s heresy? For it to be so, it would have to be widely recognised as both heretical and morally imputable – as Pertinacious (persistent and determined to the point of stubbornness).  That is to say that it must be not only materially notorious, the heretical act being widely known, but also formally notorious, the act being widely recognised as a morally imputable crime of formal heresy.  We may see this from the comments of the canonists : “An offense is Notorious by notoriety of fact, if it is publicly known and committed under such circuмstances that it cannot be concealed by any  subterfuge, nor excused by any excuse admitted in law, i.e., both the fact of the offense and the imputability or criminal liability must be publicly known.” [http://sspx.ca/Sedevecantism.htm#10B#10B] So a papal act of heresy would be notorious in fact only if both the act were “publicly known” – and the “imputability or criminal liability” were “publicly known”.  There is no competent judge who could rule of a Pope that guilt was involved, and so the guilt could be Notorious only by being widely publicly known – it would have to be widely known that the act was morally imputable.  And it would be necessary that it could not be excused by an appeal to an “accident ”, some sort of “self-defence”, or some other legally admissible excuse; it would also be necessary that “no subterfuge” could possibly conceal it.

a) Against Fr. Boulet’s first point, in which he cites the divine law, The First See can be judged by no one , we may consider the Decretal Si papa, and the commentary upon it of Innocent III, who famously taught as follows.

He [the Roman Pontiff] can be judged by men, or rather can be shown to be already judged, if for example he should wither away into heresy; because he who does not believe is already judged.” (Sermo 4); see Decreta Gratiani , III, d. 40, c.6. [Quoted by Mgr. G. Van Noort, Dogmatic Theology , Vol. II, "Christ's Church" - Mercier Press, 1958, . 310.]

And the Decretal itself reads,

“Let no mortal being have the audacity to reprimand a Pope on account of his faults, for he whose duty it is to judge all men cannot be judged by anybody, unless he should be called to task for having deviated from the faith.” [Ia, dist. XL, c. 6, Si papa; ex Gestis Bonifacii martyris.]

The Abbé de Nantes provides a parallel text from the same Roman Pontiff, as follows.

“The great Innocent III comments on this, applying it humbly to himself: ‘For me the faith is so necessary that, whereas for other sins my only judge is God, for the slightest sin committed in the matter of the faith I could be judged by the Church.’ (Serm. Consecrat. Pontif. Rom., P. L. CCXVII, col. 656).

Nothing turns on the point, but it appears to be inaccurate to say that no act of Paul VI’s, John Paul II’s, or Benedict XVI’s could be notorious with a notoriety of law, on the grounds that nobody may judge “the Pope.” For if any of the three were guilty of public heresy he would lose his papal status by the very fact, and could therefore be declared a heretic by an imperfect general council. This would render his heresy notorious with a notoriety of law.

b) Fr. Boulet’s failure accurately to define the terms “notorious” and “pertinacious” now really causes some mischief. He avers that for heresy to be notorious “it would have to be widely recognised as both heretical and morally imputable,” which is simply wrong,  as I hope has been demonstrated. There is no such requirement for “wide recognition” – although if it were widely recognised it would certainly be notorious. Likewise, Fr. Boulet informs us that, “guilt could be Notorious only by being widely publicly known.” Whence this novel term, widely publicly known?

c) Pertinacity also seems to cause some difficulties. Fr. Boulet tells us it means, “persistent and determined to the point of stubbornness.” But perhaps he has been deceived by an English dictionary, for that is the kind of definition he has given. Da Silveira himself has quoted several canonists on this point in his Essay on Heresy.

Moreover, it must be noted that the word "pertinacity" has, in the definition of heresy a different sense from that which it has in everyday usage. In the usual dictionary meaning, "pertinacious" means very tenacious, obstinate, secretive, persistent, continuing for a long time, perseverant. This is also the meaning of the Latin word.

If pertinacity, so understood, were essential to the sin of heresy, this would only exist in the cases of intrinsic malice which may be frequent, but is difficult to prove; it could only be determined after a long period of observation; it would never be committed in a moment of weakness, for example of anger.

Now the moralists and canonists are unanimous in affirming that the Code of Canon Law (can. 1325,D.2) does not use the term in this sense. As Tanquerey teaches, "pertinacity refers to denying or doubting a truth of the faith", "Scienter et volente", that is to say, with full knowledge that this truth is a dogma, and with full adhesion of will. "For there to be pertinacity", he adds, "it is not necessary that the person should be admonished several times and persevere for a long time in his obstinacy, but it is sufficient that consciously and willingly (sciens et volens) he refused a truth proposed in a sufficient manner, be it through pride or delight in contradiction or for any other reason." (Tanquerey, "Syn. Th. Mor. et Past.", pg.473.) Even if he denies it "brevi mora", ie. for a moment, a very brief space of time (Tanquerey, "Brevior Syn. Th. Mor.", pg.95) because pertinacity in this context "does not indicate duration of time, but perversity of reason" (Zalba, pg.28). There can be pertinacity in a sin of heresy committed by simple weakness (cf. Caietano in II; II, II.2.).

Concerning the canonical meaning of "pertinacity" in the definition of heresy, see also: St. Thomas "Summa Theol." II; II, II. 2,3; "Super Ep. ad Titum Lect.", n.l02; Wernz - Vidal, pgs. 449 - 450 Merkelbach, pg. 569; Prummer, pg. 364; Noldin. vol. II, pg.25; Avis, pg. 292; Peinador, pg.99; Regatillo, pg. 142; Journet pg.709. [Arnaldo Xavier da Silveira, Essay on Heresy , translated by John S. Daly.]

It is interesting that people on a Catholic forum down thumb the idea that a public heretic cannot be Pope as was done immediately in the General Discussion section.  I guess that means they like their Popes to be heretics.

"A public heretic cannot be Pope"  Boo!  Boo!  Hiss!!!   :heretic:

How dare you suggest such a thing!!!  Popes can be and are public heretics.  What planet did you come from?!?

As I've pointed out many times before, none of this speculation is even relevant to the issue of the V2 papal claimants.

We do NOT have an obvious case of one of these claimants going around word-for-word denying a dogma they know to be taught by the Church.  What we have is an interpretation of Catholic teaching which even the likes of Bishop Fellay claims CAN with difficulty be reconciled with Traditional Catholic theology.  So there's a serious problem with determining the fact of heresy.  What St. Robert had in mind with manifest heresy is a pope going around saying something like, "I know that the Church teaches transubstantiation, but I don't really buy it." ... an obvious clear rejection of a dogma.

While the SVs THINK that they have slam-dunk arguments to prove heresy, these arguments are only slam-dunk in their own minds and are not slam-dunk based on any kind of authoritative determination made by the Church.  Not only that but most of the charges of "heresy" from the SV quarters actually involve errors which, as grave as they might be, do not quite rise to the level of heresy.  And only HERESY PROPER causes one to lose membership in the Church, not holding an opinion that's "PROXIMATE" to heresy or otherwise erroneous with a lesser theological note of error.

That's where the SV "manifest heresy" nonsense completely falls apart.

In fact, if you believe that Suprema Haec is traditional Catholic teaching, as LoT does, then V2 is ABSOLUTELY AND EASILY RECONCILABLE WITH TRADITIONAL CATHOLIC TEACHING.

But if the V2 papal claimants are heretics, the only charge of heresy that sticks is EENS-denial (and the underlying false ecclesiology), and ironically 99% of SVs are guilty of the VERY SAME HERESY.  Consequently, the SVs themselves are manifest heretics and outside the Church.

Ironic, isn't it, LoT?

At the origin of the thread we have John Lane making assertions that are backed up by sound theologians and canonists and divine law.  Then we have to Feeneyites disagree.  I'm not sure if this is ironic but it is interesting though somewhat sad for the souls involved.

At the origin of the thread we have John Lane making assertions that are backed up by sound theologians and canonists and divine law.  Then we have to Feeneyites disagree.  I'm not sure if this is ironic but it is interesting though somewhat sad for the souls involved.

"A public heretic cannot be Pope"

In real life, this argument fails due to the following reasons:

First, according to St. Bellarmine, a heretic pope formally becomes manifest and lose the pontificate.  For this to apply to the conciliar Popes, would require it to be formal heresy, (meaning they consciously reject the teaching of the Church) and this formal heresy to be public.  Even if there is evidence of heretical statements pronounced by the conciliar Popes, it is very difficult to prove that they are in fact aware of rejecting a dogma of the Church, which constitutes formal heresy. Most likely, they are material heretics.

Second, even if the formal heresy was proved, it is simply not up to the layman to judge or depose the Roman Pontiff (even according to Bellarmine himself) but the Church.

Third, there is no theological consensus about the case of a heretical Pope. According to most, even a heretical pope may continue to exercise the papacy. It would be necessary, so that it loses its jurisdiction, a statement of Catholic Bishops stating heresy of Pope. Again, this is based upon merely theological speculation.

"According to the most common view, Christ, by a special providence, for the common good and peace of the Church, continues to give jurisdiction to a pontiff even manifestly heretical, until it is declared manifest heretic by the Church"

Quote from: Lover of Truth

"A public heretic cannot be Pope"

In real life, this argument fails due to the following reasons:

First, according to St. Bellarmine, a heretic pope formally becomes manifest and lose the pontificate.  For this to apply to the conciliar Popes, would require it to be formal heresy, (meaning they consciously reject the teaching of the Church) and this formal heresy to be public.  Even if there is evidence of heretical statements pronounced by the conciliar Popes, it is very difficult to prove that they are in fact aware of rejecting a dogma of the Church, which constitutes formal heresy. Most likely, they are material heretics.

Second, even if the formal heresy was proved, it is simply not up to the layman to judge or depose the Roman Pontiff (even according to Bellarmine himself) but the Church.

Despite being sincere you are manifesting your ignorance.  But I'll give you a chance.  Can you please show where Bellarmine teaches that a purported Pope must be a formal heretic before he loses his office?  You are suggesting we need to read his conscience before we can make a determination and that so long as they are good willed, Martin Luther or not, and who can say for sure anyone is bad willed, we must accept them as Pope?

By this "reasoning" who would we be able to say is not Pope were he to make a claim to the office?

Please elaborate.

Ladislaus, as I stated in another post, I don't think any of us know what we're talking about (and you agreed with it), but your posts seem to focus that charge on only those you disagree with.  Do you think you know what you're talking about?  

But, you see, an acknowledgement of the fact that I could be wrong is inherent in my position, the sede-doubtism, whereas it's the SVs who claim certainty.