Quote from: Ladislaus

St. Robert Bellarmine's position is way too simplistic.

You mean, Doctor of the Church, Saint Robert Bellarmine's position is way too simplistic while all the complex, nuanced positions of other, lesser, theologians is right on the money?

All I can say is, wow!

Quote from: TKGS

Quote from: Ladislaus

St. Robert Bellarmine's position is way too simplistic.

You mean, Doctor of the Church, Saint Robert Bellarmine's position is way too simplistic while all the complex, nuanced positions of other, lesser, theologians is right on the money?

All I can say is, wow!

St Bellarmine is a simpleton too!  Wheee!

Incredible.  It shows you what we are dealing with though.

Quote

    The character of a moral act which makes it attributable to a certain person is called imputability. The imputability of a crime depends on the malice (dolus) of the culprit or on his culpability (culpa) in being ignorant of the law or in failing to use due diligence; hence all causes which increase, diminish, or excuse from malice or culpability, automatically increase, diminish, or excuse from the imputability of a crime (c. 2199).
    Malice here means the deliberate will to violate the law; opposed to it on the part of the mind is want of knowledge, on the part of the will, want of freedom (c. 2200, §1). When an external violation of the law has been committed, malice is presumed in the external forum until the contrary is proved (c. 2200, §2).

    Persons who conspire to commit a crime and physically concur in it are all held equally guilty, unless circuмstances increase or diminish the guilt of some or one of them (c. 2209, §1). In a crime which by its nature requires an accomplice, each party has the same guilt unless the contrary is clear from the circuмstances (c. 2209, §2). Not only the one who commands a crime and who is thus the principal culprit, but also those who induce the commission of the crime or concur in it in any way, incur no less guilt, other things being equal, than the one who perpetrated it, if without their help the crime would not have been committed (c. 2209, §3). But if their co-operation only made easier a crime which would have been committed even without their concurrence, it is less guilty (c. 2209, §4). One who by timely retraction completely withdrew his influence toward the commission of the crime is freed from all imputability, even though the perpetrator neverless completed the crime for reasons of his own; if he did not completely withdraw his influence, the retraction diminishes but does not entirely remove culpability (c. 2209, §5). One who concurs in a crime only by neglecting his duty incurs imputability proportionate to the obligation which he had to prevent the crime by doing his duty (c. 2209, §6). Praise of the crime after its commission, sharing in its fruits, concealing and harboring the culprit, or other acts subsequent to the completion of the crime, may constitute new crimes, namely, if they are punished by a penalty in the law; but, unless before the crime there was an agreement with the criminal to perform those acts, they do not entail imputability for the crime (c. 2209, §7).

    Excommunication is a censure by which one is excluded from the communion of the faithful, with the consequences which are enumerated in the following canons, and which cannot be separated (c. 2257, §1). It is also called anathema, especially if it is inflicted with the solemnities described in the Roman Pontifical (c. 2257, §2).
    Some excommunicated persons are vitandi, others tolerati (c. 2258, §1). No one is vitandus unless he has been excommunicated by name by the Holy See, and the excommunication has been publicly announced, and it is expressly stated in the decree or sentence that he is to be avoided, without prejudice to canon 2343, §1, 1° (c. 2258, §2). The canon cited declares anyone who lays violent hands on the Supreme Pontiff ipso facto vitandus.

    An excommunicated person is forbidden licitly to consecrate or administer sacraments and sacramentals, except as follows (c. 2261, §1). Except as provided in §3, the faithful can for any just cause ask for sacraments or sacramentals of one who is excommunicated, especially if there is no one else to give them; and in such cases the excommunicated person so asked may administer them, and is not obliged to ask the reason for the request (c. 2261, §2). But from an excommunicated vitandus or one against whom there is a declaratory or condemnatory sentence, the faithful may only in danger of death ask for sacramental absolution according to canons 882, 2252, and also for other sacraments and sacramentals in case there is no one else to administer them (c. 2261, §3).

    An excommunicated person who still holds an office to which ordinary jurisdiction is attached, acts illicitly but validly until a condemnatory or declaratory judgment has been passed upon him; thereafter he acts invalidly (c. 2264).
    A person who is suspended from jurisdiction similarly, acts illicitly but validly before, and invalidly after a condemnatory or declaratory judgment. (c. 2284).

    All apostates from the Christian faith, and all heretics and schismatics: (1) are ipso facto excommunicated; (2) if after due warning they fail to amend, they are to be deprived of any benefice, dignity, pension, office, or other position which they may have in the Church, they are to be declared infamous, and clerics after a reception of the warning are to be deposed; (3) if they have joined a non-Catholic sect or publicly adhered to it, they are ipso facto infamous, and clerics, in addition to being considered to have tacitly renounced any office they may hold, according to canon 188, 4°, are, if previous warning proves fruitless, to be degraded (c. 2314, §1). The abjuration [from crimes] is regarded as legally made when it is made before the Ordinary of the place or his delegate and at least two witnesses (c. 2314, §2).
    One who is suspected of heresy, and who after warning fails to remove the cause of suspicion, shall be barred from legitimate acts, and if he is a cleric he shall moreover, after a repetition of the warning has proved fruitless, be suspended a divinis; if one who is suspected of heresy does not amend his life within six full months from the time when the penalty was incurred, he shall be considered a heretic and be subject to the penalties for heresy (c. 2315).
    One who spontaneously and with full knowledge helps in any way in the propagation of heresy, or who co-operates in divinis with heretics contrary to the provision of canon 1258, is suspected of heresy (c. 2316).
    Those who obstinately teach or defend, either publicly or privately, a doctrine which has been condemned, though not as formally heretical, by the Holy See or by a General Council, are to be excluded from the ministry of preaching the word of God or of hearing sacramental confessions, and from teaching in any capacity, in addition to any other penalties which the condemnatory sentence may inflict or which the Ordinary, after due warning, may deem necessary to repair the scandal (c. 2317).

    Those who join a Masonic sect or other societies of the same sort, which plot against the Church or legitimate civil authority, incur ipso facto an excommunication simply reserved to the Holy See (c. 2335).

- From Canon Law, A Text and Commentary

Quote from: JohnAnthonyMarie

Quote

    The character of a moral act which makes it attributable to a certain person is called imputability. The imputability of a crime depends on the malice (dolus) of the culprit or on his culpability (culpa) in being ignorant of the law or in failing to use due diligence; hence all causes which increase, diminish, or excuse from malice or culpability, automatically increase, diminish, or excuse from the imputability of a crime (c. 2199).
    Malice here means the deliberate will to violate the law; opposed to it on the part of the mind is want of knowledge, on the part of the will, want of freedom (c. 2200, §1). When an external violation of the law has been committed, malice is presumed in the external forum until the contrary is proved (c. 2200, §2).

    Persons who conspire to commit a crime and physically concur in it are all held equally guilty, unless circuмstances increase or diminish the guilt of some or one of them (c. 2209, §1). In a crime which by its nature requires an accomplice, each party has the same guilt unless the contrary is clear from the circuмstances (c. 2209, §2). Not only the one who commands a crime and who is thus the principal culprit, but also those who induce the commission of the crime or concur in it in any way, incur no less guilt, other things being equal, than the one who perpetrated it, if without their help the crime would not have been committed (c. 2209, §3). But if their co-operation only made easier a crime which would have been committed even without their concurrence, it is less guilty (c. 2209, §4). One who by timely retraction completely withdrew his influence toward the commission of the crime is freed from all imputability, even though the perpetrator neverless completed the crime for reasons of his own; if he did not completely withdraw his influence, the retraction diminishes but does not entirely remove culpability (c. 2209, §5). One who concurs in a crime only by neglecting his duty incurs imputability proportionate to the obligation which he had to prevent the crime by doing his duty (c. 2209, §6). Praise of the crime after its commission, sharing in its fruits, concealing and harboring the culprit, or other acts subsequent to the completion of the crime, may constitute new crimes, namely, if they are punished by a penalty in the law; but, unless before the crime there was an agreement with the criminal to perform those acts, they do not entail imputability for the crime (c. 2209, §7).

    Excommunication is a censure by which one is excluded from the communion of the faithful, with the consequences which are enumerated in the following canons, and which cannot be separated (c. 2257, §1). It is also called anathema, especially if it is inflicted with the solemnities described in the Roman Pontifical (c. 2257, §2).
    Some excommunicated persons are vitandi, others tolerati (c. 2258, §1). No one is vitandus unless he has been excommunicated by name by the Holy See, and the excommunication has been publicly announced, and it is expressly stated in the decree or sentence that he is to be avoided, without prejudice to canon 2343, §1, 1° (c. 2258, §2). The canon cited declares anyone who lays violent hands on the Supreme Pontiff ipso facto vitandus.

    An excommunicated person is forbidden licitly to consecrate or administer sacraments and sacramentals, except as follows (c. 2261, §1). Except as provided in §3, the faithful can for any just cause ask for sacraments or sacramentals of one who is excommunicated, especially if there is no one else to give them; and in such cases the excommunicated person so asked may administer them, and is not obliged to ask the reason for the request (c. 2261, §2). But from an excommunicated vitandus or one against whom there is a declaratory or condemnatory sentence, the faithful may only in danger of death ask for sacramental absolution according to canons 882, 2252, and also for other sacraments and sacramentals in case there is no one else to administer them (c. 2261, §3).

    An excommunicated person who still holds an office to which ordinary jurisdiction is attached, acts illicitly but validly until a condemnatory or declaratory judgment has been passed upon him; thereafter he acts invalidly (c. 2264).
    A person who is suspended from jurisdiction similarly, acts illicitly but validly before, and invalidly after a condemnatory or declaratory judgment. (c. 2284).

    All apostates from the Christian faith, and all heretics and schismatics: (1) are ipso facto excommunicated; (2) if after due warning they fail to amend, they are to be deprived of any benefice, dignity, pension, office, or other position which they may have in the Church, they are to be declared infamous, and clerics after a reception of the warning are to be deposed; (3) if they have joined a non-Catholic sect or publicly adhered to it, they are ipso facto infamous, and clerics, in addition to being considered to have tacitly renounced any office they may hold, according to canon 188, 4°, are, if previous warning proves fruitless, to be degraded (c. 2314, §1). The abjuration [from crimes] is regarded as legally made when it is made before the Ordinary of the place or his delegate and at least two witnesses (c. 2314, §2).
    One who is suspected of heresy, and who after warning fails to remove the cause of suspicion, shall be barred from legitimate acts, and if he is a cleric he shall moreover, after a repetition of the warning has proved fruitless, be suspended a divinis; if one who is suspected of heresy does not amend his life within six full months from the time when the penalty was incurred, he shall be considered a heretic and be subject to the penalties for heresy (c. 2315).
    One who spontaneously and with full knowledge helps in any way in the propagation of heresy, or who co-operates in divinis with heretics contrary to the provision of canon 1258, is suspected of heresy (c. 2316).
    Those who obstinately teach or defend, either publicly or privately, a doctrine which has been condemned, though not as formally heretical, by the Holy See or by a General Council, are to be excluded from the ministry of preaching the word of God or of hearing sacramental confessions, and from teaching in any capacity, in addition to any other penalties which the condemnatory sentence may inflict or which the Ordinary, after due warning, may deem necessary to repair the scandal (c. 2317).

    Those who join a Masonic sect or other societies of the same sort, which plot against the Church or legitimate civil authority, incur ipso facto an excommunication simply reserved to the Holy See (c. 2335).

- From Canon Law, A Text and Commentary

I do not believe that Canon Law or its censures and penalties, apply to the Pope. He is above Canon Law.

Quote from: 2Vermont

Quote from: TKGS

Quote from: Ladislaus

St. Robert Bellarmine's position is way too simplistic.

You mean, Doctor of the Church, Saint Robert Bellarmine's position is way too simplistic while all the complex, nuanced positions of other, lesser, theologians is right on the money?

All I can say is, wow!

St Bellarmine is a simpleton too!  Wheee!

I said that his OPINION is simplistic, not that he's a simpleton.  By simplistic I mean that it failed to make ADDITIONAL DISTINCTIONS which come into play, the distinctions which +Guerard des Lauriers DID see and DID make.  You don't even understand basic English and yet arrogate to yourself the right to depose popes.

You've demonstrated your bad will and hubris on this issue already in declaring that you refuse to accept a state of doubt or uncertainty and have decided that your private judgment involves de fide certainty.

Not a single one of you is remotely capable of engaging in substantive intellectual discussion of any subject.  And yet despite being thus intellectually challenged and having no education in philosophy or theology decide that you are competent to depose popes and declare your own personal dogmas.

You guys are a complete joke.

You sit here swooning like Southern belles ("Oh, I dooo declare.") while wiping your brow in a feigned sanctimonious display of scandal and indignation.  I'm surprised you didn't rend your garments like the Pharisees.

Yes, it is my allegation that St. Robert Bellarmine has a very simplistic ONTOLOGICAL view of the subject and fails to account for the criteriological and juridical aspects of the papacy.

On this and on every issue, you guys just believe what you want to believe and if you find a quote from someone who agrees with YOUR preconceived notions, you declare it to be of divine inspiration.

There were SEVERAL different opinions regarding the heretical pope issue, ALL of which labored with certain difficulties.  And you just latch on to the simple one which your simple minds can grasp and which happens to conform to your bad wills.

You use St. Robert Bellarmine's opinion to allege that any jokers like yourselves can go around deposing popes if you have decided that they are heretical and because you don't like them.  Which is why a LOT of later theologians didn't accept St. Robert's view (cf. John of St. Thomas and many others).

Manifest to whom?  To Lover of Truth?  Let's say that 5% of all Catholics think that Francis I is a heretic.  45% think that he's spoken error but error that's short of heresy.  50% think he's just fine.  So what's the objective canonical status of Francis?  Who the heck are you to decide who's a pope and who isn't?  That belongs to THE CHURCH.  What St. Robert Bellarmine was saying is that the Church cannot EFFECT deposition, but his notion of "manifest" heresy was very simplistic and could not solve the problem of a heretical pope in the practical order.

And it's not just I who realized this.  Bishop Guerard des Lauriers, an eminent theologian who helped Pius XII formulate the dogmatic definition of the Assumption and who helped write the Ottaviani intervention, made the formal / material distinction PRECISELY BECAUSE HE TOO CONSIDERED St. Robert's OPINION TO BE OVER SIMPLISTIC, i.e. because St. Robert failed to take into account the juridical (material) aspects of the papacy and the role of CHURCH AUTHORITY.  I find his distinction to be quite VALID because it helps resolve the shortcomings of both the DEPONENDUS and the IPSO FACTO DEPOSITUS schools.  Bishop Guerard des Lauriers was RIGHT in this regard, and you know-nothing bozos are completely wrong.

I'll be very honest that it's bitter, uncharitable, haughty, know-nothing people like you who were the biggest reason I began to reconsider sedevacantism and to question why it might be mistaken.

Quote from: Ladislaus

You guys are a complete joke.

You sit here swooning like Southern belles ("Oh, I dooo declare.") while wiping your brow in a feigned sanctimonious display of scandal and indignation.  I'm surprised you didn't rend your garments like the Pharisees.

Yes, it is my allegation that St. Robert Bellarmine has a very simplistic ONTOLOGICAL view of the subject and fails to account for the criteriological and juridical aspects of the papacy.

On this and on every issue, you guys just believe what you want to believe and if you find a quote from someone who agrees with YOUR preconceived notions, you declare it to be of divine inspiration.

There were SEVERAL different opinions regarding the heretical pope issue, ALL of which labored with certain difficulties.  And you just latch on to the simple one which your simple minds can grasp and which happens to conform to your bad wills.

You use St. Robert Bellarmine's opinion to allege that any jokers like yourselves can go around deposing popes if you have decided that they are heretical and because you don't like them.  Which is why a LOT of later theologians didn't accept St. Robert's view (cf. John of St. Thomas and many others).

Manifest to whom?  To Lover of Truth?  Let's say that 5% of all Catholics think that Francis I is a heretic.  45% think that he's spoken error but error that's short of heresy.  50% think he's just fine.  So what's the objective canonical status of Francis?  Who the heck are you to decide who's a pope and who isn't?  That belongs to THE CHURCH.  What St. Robert Bellarmine was saying is that the Church cannot EFFECT deposition, but his notion of "manifest" heresy was very simplistic and could not solve the problem of a heretical pope in the practical order.

And it's not just I who realized this.  Bishop Guerard des Lauriers, an eminent theologian who helped Pius XII formulate the dogmatic definition of the Assumption and who helped write the Ottaviani intervention, made the formal / material distinction PRECISELY BECAUSE HE TOO CONSIDERED St. Robert's OPINION TO BE OVER SIMPLISTIC, i.e. because St. Robert failed to take into account the juridical (material) aspects of the papacy and the role of CHURCH AUTHORITY.  I find his distinction to be quite VALID because it helps resolve the shortcomings of both the DEPONENDUS and the IPSO FACTO DEPOSITUS schools.  Bishop Guerard des Lauriers was RIGHT in this regard, and you know-nothing bozos are completely wrong.

I'll be very honest that it's bitter, uncharitable, haughty, know-nothing people like you who were the biggest reason I began to reconsider sedevacantism and to question why it might be mistaken.

And you're just the epitome of humility declaring that BOTH SV and Sedeplenism are WRONG!  Or shall I say, the only Catholic view is your view: sede-doubtist.

I have certainly followed both sides since joining this forum. I have taken the time to follow both sides and I have come to a decision that makes the most sense to me.  For you to say to me the things you've said here and in the other post is just plain horseshit.