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

« previous next »
Pages: 1 ... 10 11 [12] 13 14 ... 45

Author Topic: R&R -- why don't you get behind Father Chazal's sede-impoundism?  (Read 41386 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Angelus

  • Supporter
  • ***
  • Posts: 1197
  • Reputation: +507/-99
  • Gender: Male
Re: R&R -- why don't you get behind Father Chazal's sede-impoundism?
« Reply #165 on: May 17, 2023, 04:39:09 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
    • Quote from: DecemRationis on May 17, 2023, 04:10:29 PM
    Key to Fr. Kramer's position was his contention that Vatican I, with its elevating to dogma certain claims about papal supremacy and jurisdiction, made the position of Cajetan,  JST and hence Fr. Chazal untenable. He claims that, post-V1, there is virtual unanimity among theologians in rejecting the Cajetan/JST position.

    Specifically, to quote myself earlier on this issue:


    His  claim in that regard has to be dealt with by proponents of the Cajetan/JST view. I'm not sure Sisco & Salza address it.

    Hi Decem. So, you seem to agree with Fr. Kramer that Fr. Chazal is essentially taking the position in the Fourth Opinion in Bellarmine's list, right? My point, at the moment, is just to identify where exactly Fr. Chazal stands in relation to the other positions out there.

    Both Bp. Des Lauriers, the author of the Cassiciacuм Thesis, (a Dominican, BTW) and Fr. Chazal seem, to me, to be somewhere within the Fourth Opinion discussed by Bellarmine. If we can establish that first, we can then get into why one opinion is better than the other, possibly by using Bellarmine or another respected theologian to guide us.

    Does anyone think that Fr. Chazal is saying something essentially different from that found in the Fourth Opinion (Cajetan/JST)?
    Logged

    Offline Angelus

    • Supporter
    • ***
    • Posts: 1197
    • Reputation: +507/-99
    • Gender: Male
    Re: R&R -- why don't you get behind Father Chazal's sede-impoundism?
    « Reply #166 on: May 17, 2023, 08:33:23 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
    • Quote from: Angelus on May 17, 2023, 04:39:09 PM
    Hi Decem. So, you seem to agree with Fr. Kramer that Fr. Chazal is essentially taking the position in the Fourth Opinion in Bellarmine's list, right? My point, at the moment, is just to identify where exactly Fr. Chazal stands in relation to the other positions out there.

    Both Bp. Des Lauriers, the author of the Cassiciacuм Thesis, (a Dominican, BTW) and Fr. Chazal seem, to me, to be somewhere within the Fourth Opinion discussed by Bellarmine. If we can establish that first, we can then get into why one opinion is better than the other, possibly by using Bellarmine or another respected theologian to guide us.

    Does anyone think that Fr. Chazal is saying something essentially different from that found in the Fourth Opinion (Cajetan/JST)?

    I listened to a video of Fr. Chazal linked to in an earlier post and found the answer to my question. Chazal's position is definitely based on the position of Cardinal Cajetan and John of St. Thomas. You can verify by watching the video (starting at timestamp) below:

    https://youtu.be/VdgM1R0MH-Q?t=1095

    Fr. Chazal presents his position as an answer to a very specific question. He asks, "Is there an obligation in conscience to be a Sedevacantist?" He defines "Sedevacantism" narrowly as the "totalist" variety and with the vacancy beginning around 1958. He also discusses at least the First, Fourth and Fifth opinions noted by Bellarmine.

    But it seems clear that Fr. Chazal takes the position of Cardinal Cajetan (the Dominicans) against the position of St. Robert Bellarmine on whether or not canonically-elected Pope loses his office ipso facto upon teaching Public Manifest Heresy. Chazal's position seems to line up with that of Bp. Des Lauriers and Bp. Sanborn (the Cassiciacuм Thesis), without calling it that, and without seeming to be aware that his position is a common one among "Sedevacantists" more broadly understood. 

    Regardless, Fr. Chazal clearly rejects the typical R&R (SSPX) position that "Pope who is a manifest heretic would not lose his office," which is the Third Opinion discussed (and destroyed) by Bellarmine, who says "that it would be the most miserable condition of the Church, if she should be compelled to recognize a wolf, manifestly prowling, for a shepherd."
    Logged

    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 #167 on: May 18, 2023, 08:15:16 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
    • Quote from: Meg on May 17, 2023, 02:27:14 PM
    Why do you ask?

    Presuming that you reject Vatican II and the New Mass, I would like to know what is the cause that impels you to reject them but not reject Jorge Bergoglio as pope.
    Logged

    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 #168 on: May 18, 2023, 08:23:00 AM »
  • Thanks!1
  • No Thanks!0
    • Quote from: Angelus on May 17, 2023, 02:59:10 PM
    So it would appear that what Catholic Knight is proposing is not just Fr. Paul Kramer's opinion. It is, in fact, the current law of the Catholic Church. And references to the same principles can be found in the 1917 Code (it was just easier to copy/paste from the 1983 Code).

    Yes.  It is the law of the Catholic Church that public defection from the Catholic Faith results in an automatic loss of office.  The doctrinal principle behind this is that the public sin of manifest formal heresy per se (i.e., by its very nature) separates the heretic from the Church.  This applies universally, be he layman, priest, bishop, or pope (if it were, hypothetically speaking, possible for a true pope to become a formal heretic).
    Logged

    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 #169 on: May 18, 2023, 08:26:35 AM »
  • Thanks!1
  • No Thanks!0
    • Quote from: Meg on May 17, 2023, 03:37:58 PM
    It is the interpretation of Fr. Kramer that the code of canon law pertains to the pope, and that the laity are required to believe that it involves the Pope, even when the Pope is not specifically mentioned, and that we are required to be sedevacantists by insisting that we are required to proclaim a heretical pope a manifest heretic. THAT is an interpretation. We are not required to agree with Kramer's interpretation.

    We are also not required to agree with his (or your) interpretation of Ballarmine. Neither you, nor Fr. Kramer, are entitled to force the obedience of Catholics on this forum to your opinions.

    The basis of the Canons in both Codes regarding automatic loss of office due to public defection from the Catholic Faith is the doctrinal principle that the public sin of manifest formal heresy per se (i.e., by its very nature) separates the heretic from the Church.  "Per se" allows for no exceptions. 
    Logged

    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 #170 on: May 18, 2023, 08:32:06 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
    • Quote from: Angelus on May 17, 2023, 08:33:23 PM
    Regardless, Fr. Chazal clearly rejects the typical R&R (SSPX) position that "Pope who is a manifest heretic would not lose his office," which is the Third Opinion discussed (and destroyed) by Bellarmine, who says "that it would be the most miserable condition of the Church, if she should be compelled to recognize a wolf, manifestly prowling, for a shepherd."

    Why do you hold that the typical R&R (SSPX) position is the Third Opinion?  I hold, rather, that they adhere typically to the Fourth Opinion.
    Logged

    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 #171 on: May 18, 2023, 08:36:55 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
    • Quote from: Catholic Knight on May 18, 2023, 08:26:35 AM
    The basis of the Canons in both Codes regarding automatic loss of office due to public defection from the Catholic Faith is the doctrinal principle that the public sin of manifest formal heresy per se (i.e., by its very nature) separates the heretic from the Church.  "Per se" allows for no exceptions.

    You claim that "per se" allows no exceptions, but where in Church teaching does it say that this specifically pertains to the Pope as well? Specifics are important in Catholic theology. Perhaps not in Kramer theology, of course.
    Logged
    "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 #172 on: May 18, 2023, 08:43:01 AM »
  • Thanks!1
  • No Thanks!0
    • Quote from: Angelus on May 17, 2023, 04:39:09 PM
    Does anyone think that Fr. Chazal is saying something essentially different from that found in the Fourth Opinion (Cajetan/JST)?

    I think that Fr. Chazal's position is essentially the same as the Fourth Opinion because even though he claims that Jorge Bergoglio is a public manifest formal heretic, he maintains that Jorge Bergoglio still has title to the papal office.  However, the public sin of manifest formal heresy per se separates all bonds with the Church.













    All the screenshots above are taken from a treatise on the Church by Fr. Joachim Salaverri, S.J., published as part of the dogmatic theology manual called Sacrae Theologiae Summa, which bears an Imprimatur date of August 27, 1955. The Latin original was translated by Fr. Kenneth Baker, S.J.  
    Logged

    Offline AnthonyPadua

    • Supporter
    • ****
    • Posts: 2423
    • Reputation: +1252/-253
    • Gender: Male
    Re: R&R -- why don't you get behind Father Chazal's sede-impoundism?
    « Reply #173 on: May 18, 2023, 08:54:26 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
    • Quote from: Catholic Knight on May 18, 2023, 08:23:00 AM
    Yes.  It is the law of the Catholic Church that public defection from the Catholic Faith results in an automatic loss of office.  The doctrinal principle behind this is that the public sin of manifest formal heresy per se (i.e., by its very nature) separates the heretic from the Church.  This applies universally, be he layman, priest, bishop, or pope (if it were, hypothetically speaking, possible for a true pope to become a formal heretic).
    What about 'Pope' Honorius?
    Logged

    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 #174 on: May 18, 2023, 08:54:54 AM »
  • Thanks!1
  • No Thanks!0
    • Quote from: Meg on May 18, 2023, 08:36:55 AM
    You claim that "per se" allows no exceptions, but where in Church teaching does it say that this specifically pertains to the Pope as well? Specifics are important in Catholic theology. Perhaps not in Kramer theology, of course.

    The very meaning of "per se" is exactly that, no exceptions.  For example, abortion is intrinsically (i.e., per se or in itself or by its very nature) evil. There are no circuмstances or ends that can justify abortion because the act itself, abortion, is evil.  Likewise, the public sin of manifest formal heresy is such that it per se (or in itself or by its very nature) separates the heretic (regardless of his office) from the Church.  Pope Pius XII in Mystici Corporis uses the term "suapte natura" to indicate that heresy (and schism and apostasy) by its nature separates the heretic from the Church:

    "Siquidem non omne admissum, etsi grave scelus, eiusmodi est ut — sicut schisma, vel haeresis, vel apostasia faciunt — suapte natura hominem ab Ecclesiae Corpore separet."    
    Logged

    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 #175 on: May 18, 2023, 08:56:33 AM »
  • Thanks!1
  • No Thanks!0
    • Quote from: AnthonyPadua on May 18, 2023, 08:54:26 AM
    What about 'Pope' Honorius?

    He was not a heretic in the strict sense of the term.  St. Robert Bellarmine says the same.
    Logged

    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 #176 on: May 18, 2023, 08:57:31 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
    • Quote from: Catholic Knight on May 18, 2023, 08:54:54 AM
    The very meaning of "per se" is exactly that, no exceptions.  For example, abortion is intrinsically (i.e., per se or in itself or by its very nature) evil. There are no circuмstances or ends that can justify abortion because the act itself, abortion, is evil.  Likewise, the public sin of manifest formal heresy is such that it per se (or in itself or by its very nature) separates the heretic (regardless of his office) from the Church.  Pope Pius XII in Mystici Corporis uses the term "suapte natura" to indicate that heresy (and schism and apostasy) by its nature separates the heretic from the Church:

    "Siquidem non omne admissum, etsi grave scelus, eiusmodi est ut — sicut schisma, vel haeresis, vel apostasia faciunt — suapte natura hominem ab Ecclesiae Corpore separet."   

    I do not agree. Joachim Salaverri's opinion (as posted on your website) does not include the Pope. And it only an opinion. It is not Church teaching. 
    Logged
    "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 #177 on: May 18, 2023, 09:05:25 AM »
  • Thanks!1
  • No Thanks!0
    • Quote from: Meg on May 18, 2023, 08:57:31 AM
    I do not agree. Joachim Salaverri's opinion (as posted on your website) does not include the Pope. And it only an opinion. It is not Church teaching.

    Then you don't agree with Pope Pius XII.
    Logged

    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 #178 on: May 18, 2023, 09:14:49 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
    • Quote from: Catholic Knight on May 18, 2023, 09:05:25 AM
    Then you don't agree with Pope Pius XII.

    No, I don't agree with your interpretation of Pope Pius XII. There's the difference. All you have are your opinions, which we are not bound or obligated to accept.
    Logged
    "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 #179 on: May 18, 2023, 09:15:02 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
    • Quote from: Catholic Knight on May 18, 2023, 08:54:54 AM
    The very meaning of "per se" is exactly that, no exceptions.  For example, abortion is intrinsically (i.e., per se or in itself or by its very nature) evil. There are no circuмstances or ends that can justify abortion because the act itself, abortion, is evil.  Likewise, the public sin of manifest formal heresy is such that it per se (or in itself or by its very nature) separates the heretic (regardless of his office) from the Church.  Pope Pius XII in Mystici Corporis uses the term "suapte natura" to indicate that heresy (and schism and apostasy) by its nature separates the heretic from the Church:

    "Siquidem non omne admissum, etsi grave scelus, eiusmodi est ut — sicut schisma, vel haeresis, vel apostasia faciunt — suapte natura hominem ab Ecclesiae Corpore separet."   


    Logged
    Pages: 1 ... 10 11 [12] 13 14 ... 45
    « previous next »