Send CathInfo's owner Matthew a gift from his Amazon wish list:
https://www.amazon.com/hz/wishlist/ls/25M2B8RERL1UO

Author Topic: R&R -- why don't you get behind Father Chazal's sede-impoundism?  (Read 41391 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Catholic Knight

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 802
  • Reputation: +238/-82
  • Gender: Male
Re: R&R -- why don't you get behind Father Chazal's sede-impoundism?
« Reply #180 on: May 18, 2023, 09:17:29 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • No, I don't agree with your interpretation of Pope Pius XII. There's the difference. All you have are your opinions.

    "Suapte natura" is the term that Pope Pius XII uses in the Latin.

    Offline Meg

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 6791
    • Reputation: +3467/-2999
    • Gender: Female
    Re: R&R -- why don't you get behind Father Chazal's sede-impoundism?
    « Reply #181 on: May 18, 2023, 09:21:31 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • "Suapte natura" is the term that Pope Pius XII uses in the Latin.

    And it's your interpretation of how that supposedly applies to the Pope that you expect us to accept and adhere to, correct?
    "It is licit to resist a Sovereign Pontiff who is trying to destroy the Church. I say it is licit to resist him in not following his orders and in preventing the execution of his will. It is not licit to Judge him, to punish him, or to depose him, for these are acts proper to a superior."

    ~St. Robert Bellarmine
    De Romano Pontifice, Lib.II, c.29


    Offline Catholic Knight

    • Full Member
    • ***
    • Posts: 802
    • Reputation: +238/-82
    • Gender: Male
    Re: R&R -- why don't you get behind Father Chazal's sede-impoundism?
    « Reply #182 on: May 18, 2023, 09:22:12 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Public heretics (and a fortiori, apostatesare not members of the Church.  They are not members because they separate themselves from the unity of Catholic faith and from the external profession of the faith.  Obviously, therefore, they lack one of the three factors-baptism, profession of the same faith, union with the hierarchy-pointed out by Pius XII as requisite for membership in the Church (see above, p. 238).  The same pontiff has explicitly pointed out that, unlike other sins, heresy, schism, and apostasy, automatically sever a man from the Church. ‘For not every sin, however grave and enormous it be, is such as to sever a man automatically from the Body of the Church, as does schism or heresy or apostasy‘ (MCC 30, italics ours).”
    (Monsignor G. Van Noort, S.T.D., Dogmatic Theology, Volume II, Christ’s Church, 153)


    Read that the sin of heresy "automatically" severs a man from the Church.  Why?  Because the sin of heresy "suapte natura" (by its very nature) does so.

    Offline Meg

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 6791
    • Reputation: +3467/-2999
    • Gender: Female
    Re: R&R -- why don't you get behind Father Chazal's sede-impoundism?
    « Reply #183 on: May 18, 2023, 09:24:05 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Public heretics (and a fortiori, apostates) are not members of the Church.  They are not members because they separate themselves from the unity of Catholic faith and from the external profession of the faith.  Obviously, therefore, they lack one of the three factors-baptism, profession of the same faith, union with the hierarchy-pointed out by Pius XII as requisite for membership in the Church (see above, p. 238).  The same pontiff has explicitly pointed out that, unlike other sins, heresy, schism, and apostasy, automatically sever a man from the Church. ‘For not every sin, however grave and enormous it be, is such as to sever a man automatically from the Body of the Church, as does schism or heresy or apostasy‘ (MCC 30, italics ours).”
    (Monsignor G. Van Noort, S.T.D., Dogmatic Theology, Volume II, Christ’s Church, 153)


    Read that the sin of heresy "automatically" severs a man from the Church.  Why?  Because the sin of heresy "suapte natura" (by its very nature) does so.

    We can go round and round about this, but again, the above does not apply to the Pope. 
    "It is licit to resist a Sovereign Pontiff who is trying to destroy the Church. I say it is licit to resist him in not following his orders and in preventing the execution of his will. It is not licit to Judge him, to punish him, or to depose him, for these are acts proper to a superior."

    ~St. Robert Bellarmine
    De Romano Pontifice, Lib.II, c.29

    Offline Catholic Knight

    • Full Member
    • ***
    • Posts: 802
    • Reputation: +238/-82
    • Gender: Male
    Re: R&R -- why don't you get behind Father Chazal's sede-impoundism?
    « Reply #184 on: May 18, 2023, 09:33:44 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • We can go round and round about this, but again, the above does not apply to the Pope.

    Meg, you are resisting the meaning of "suapte natura".  In your wrong interpretation, "suapte natura" does not apply to the pope in regards to the effect of the sin of public heresy.  You are resisting what is in the very definition of "suapte natura", that is, it applies in ALL cases.  Abortion is "suapte natura" evil (i.e., in ALL cases).  Likewise, the public sin of manifest formal heresy "suapte natura" separates the heretic from the Church (i.e., in ALL cases).


    Offline Meg

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 6791
    • Reputation: +3467/-2999
    • Gender: Female
    Re: R&R -- why don't you get behind Father Chazal's sede-impoundism?
    « Reply #185 on: May 18, 2023, 09:40:40 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Meg, you are resisting the meaning of "suapte natura".  In your wrong interpretation, "suapte natura" does not apply to the pope in regards to the effect of the sin of public heresy.  You are resisting what is in the very definition of "suapte natura", that is, it applies in ALL cases.  Abortion is "suapte natura" evil (i.e., in ALL cases).  Likewise, the public sin of manifest formal heresy "suapte natura" separates the heretic from the Church (i.e., in ALL cases).

    All we really have are our interpretations during this serious Crisis in the Church. Suffice to say that the Catholic Church does not have a specific teaching on how to deal with a heretical pope. Therefore, we are not obligated to accept anyone's personal opinion on the matter. All we can do is to go with what makes the most sense, which obviously differs among trads. 
    "It is licit to resist a Sovereign Pontiff who is trying to destroy the Church. I say it is licit to resist him in not following his orders and in preventing the execution of his will. It is not licit to Judge him, to punish him, or to depose him, for these are acts proper to a superior."

    ~St. Robert Bellarmine
    De Romano Pontifice, Lib.II, c.29

    Offline Catholic Knight

    • Full Member
    • ***
    • Posts: 802
    • Reputation: +238/-82
    • Gender: Male
    Re: R&R -- why don't you get behind Father Chazal's sede-impoundism?
    « Reply #186 on: May 18, 2023, 09:44:29 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Suffice to say that the Catholic Church does not have a specific teaching on how to deal with a heretical pope. 

    Yes.  It does.  Heresy "suapte natura" separates the heretic from the Church, as taught by Pope Pius XII.

    Offline Meg

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 6791
    • Reputation: +3467/-2999
    • Gender: Female
    Re: R&R -- why don't you get behind Father Chazal's sede-impoundism?
    « Reply #187 on: May 18, 2023, 09:45:18 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Yes.  It does.  Heresy "suapte natura" separates the heretic from the Church, as taught by Pope Pius XII.

    Where does it say that it applies to the Pope? 
    "It is licit to resist a Sovereign Pontiff who is trying to destroy the Church. I say it is licit to resist him in not following his orders and in preventing the execution of his will. It is not licit to Judge him, to punish him, or to depose him, for these are acts proper to a superior."

    ~St. Robert Bellarmine
    De Romano Pontifice, Lib.II, c.29


    Offline Catholic Knight

    • Full Member
    • ***
    • Posts: 802
    • Reputation: +238/-82
    • Gender: Male
    Re: R&R -- why don't you get behind Father Chazal's sede-impoundism?
    « Reply #188 on: May 18, 2023, 09:49:19 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • "The Canon Law commentary of the Pontifical Faculty of Canon Law of the University of Salamanca explains that the sole necessary condition for such a loss of office to take place, is that the act be freely committed, and then the loss of office follows necessarily: 'El hecho por el que se presupone la renuncia debe ser puesto voluntariamente, a tenor del canon 185; pero, cuмplida esta condición, la perdida del oficio se produce necesariamente.' That the canon is applicable to all ecclesiastical offices is stated explicitly with the words, 'quælibet officia vacant ipso facto'and therefore necessarily includes the office of the Supreme Pontiff. The Very Rev. H. A. Ayrinhac explained, in his General Legislation in the New Code of Canon Law, on Loss of Ecclesiastical Offices, that such loss of office (Canons 185-191) 'applies to all offices, the lowest and the highest, not excepting the Supreme Pontificate.' (p. 346)"

    Kramer, Paul. To deceive the elect: The catholic doctrine on the question of a heretical Pope . Kindle Edition.

    Offline Meg

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 6791
    • Reputation: +3467/-2999
    • Gender: Female
    Re: R&R -- why don't you get behind Father Chazal's sede-impoundism?
    « Reply #189 on: May 18, 2023, 09:50:00 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • "The Canon Law commentary of the Pontifical Faculty of Canon Law of the University of Salamanca explains that the sole necessary condition for such a loss of office to take place, is that the act be freely committed, and then the loss of office follows necessarily: 'El hecho por el que se presupone la renuncia debe ser puesto voluntariamente, a tenor del canon 185; pero, cuмplida esta condición, la perdida del oficio se produce necesariamente.' That the canon is applicable to all ecclesiastical offices is stated explicitly with the words, 'quælibet officia vacant ipso facto'and therefore necessarily includes the office of the Supreme Pontiff. The Very Rev. H. A. Ayrinhac explained, in his General Legislation in the New Code of Canon Law, on Loss of Ecclesiastical Offices, that such loss of office (Canons 185-191) 'applies to all offices, the lowest and the highest, not excepting the Supreme Pontificate.' (p. 346)"

    Kramer, Paul. To deceive the elect: The catholic doctrine on the question of a heretical Pope . Kindle Edition.

    Again, just someone's opinion. Not actual Church teaching. 
    "It is licit to resist a Sovereign Pontiff who is trying to destroy the Church. I say it is licit to resist him in not following his orders and in preventing the execution of his will. It is not licit to Judge him, to punish him, or to depose him, for these are acts proper to a superior."

    ~St. Robert Bellarmine
    De Romano Pontifice, Lib.II, c.29

    Offline Catholic Knight

    • Full Member
    • ***
    • Posts: 802
    • Reputation: +238/-82
    • Gender: Male
    Re: R&R -- why don't you get behind Father Chazal's sede-impoundism?
    « Reply #190 on: May 18, 2023, 09:50:05 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Where does it say that it applies to the Pope?

    By the term "suapte natura".


    Offline Meg

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 6791
    • Reputation: +3467/-2999
    • Gender: Female
    Re: R&R -- why don't you get behind Father Chazal's sede-impoundism?
    « Reply #191 on: May 18, 2023, 09:51:57 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • By the term "suapte natura".

    I don't see the Latin "Papa" which would refer to the pope in the above Latin text. 
    "It is licit to resist a Sovereign Pontiff who is trying to destroy the Church. I say it is licit to resist him in not following his orders and in preventing the execution of his will. It is not licit to Judge him, to punish him, or to depose him, for these are acts proper to a superior."

    ~St. Robert Bellarmine
    De Romano Pontifice, Lib.II, c.29

    Offline Catholic Knight

    • Full Member
    • ***
    • Posts: 802
    • Reputation: +238/-82
    • Gender: Male
    Re: R&R -- why don't you get behind Father Chazal's sede-impoundism?
    « Reply #192 on: May 18, 2023, 10:03:39 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • I don't see the Latin "Papa" which would refer to the pope in the above Latin text.

    It's in the very definition of "suapte natura". 

    Offline Catholic Knight

    • Full Member
    • ***
    • Posts: 802
    • Reputation: +238/-82
    • Gender: Male
    Re: R&R -- why don't you get behind Father Chazal's sede-impoundism?
    « Reply #193 on: May 18, 2023, 10:06:46 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Again, just someone's opinion. Not actual Church teaching.

    The phrase "quælibet officia vacant ipso facto" is directly from Canon 188 of the 1917 Code of Canon Law.  "Quaelibet" means "any".  Therefore, any office becomes vacant automatically (due to public defection from the Catholic Faith).

    Offline Catholic Knight

    • Full Member
    • ***
    • Posts: 802
    • Reputation: +238/-82
    • Gender: Male
    Re: R&R -- why don't you get behind Father Chazal's sede-impoundism?
    « Reply #194 on: May 18, 2023, 10:16:24 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Certain sins – viz., apostasy, heresy and schism – of their nature cut off the guilty from the living Body of Christ…..It can hardly be denied that those who take up any of these positions – most evidently is this the case with the deliberate apostate – sever themselves by their own act from membership of the Church.”
    (The Teaching of the Catholic Church, Volume II, Arranged and Edited by Canon George Smith, New York, 1961, Fourteenth Printing, p. 708)[Emphases mine]