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

« previous next »
Pages: 1 ... 17 18 [19]

Author Topic: Sede - Zero upsides, nothing but downsides  (Read 23737 times)

0 Members and 2 Guests are viewing this topic.

Offline Catholic Knight

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 802
  • Reputation: +238/-82
  • Gender: Male
Re: Sede - Zero upsides, nothing but downsides
« Reply #270 on: January 13, 2024, 01:23:10 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
    • Quote from: Angelus on January 13, 2024, 01:01:10 PM
    CK, in your email exchange with Fr. Chazal, I think there is some imprecision in the language used on both sides when considered in the context of 1917 Canon Law. But Fr. Chazal said that his comments were "off the cuff," which I take to mean not precisely worded.

    I think Fr. Chazal's position is the same one I have been trying to convey, which is contained in Canons 188.4, 2314, and 2257-67 (and other Canons I'm sure).

    A heretic is "ipso facto excommunicated" (level 1) upon manifesting heresy publicly. And faithful Catholics are required to avoid submission to all heretics in religious matters (including ipso facto excommunicates who are excommunicated for heresy). There doesn't need to be an official "declaration" (level 2 excommunication) or "condemnation" (level 3 excommunication) for a faithful Catholic to be under the obligation to avoid the public heretic.

    The SSPX seems to think that faithful Catholics "cannot judge" a Pope's actions, which in the strict sense of that word ("judge") is true. But the kind of judgment being referred to in the Canon 1556 ("the First See is judge by no one") is in the section "on trials." The "judgement" in a "trial" would happen at the level 2 or level 3 of the excommunication process. There is no "trial" required for a faithful Catholic to recognize an "ipso facto heretic" as such. The faithful Catholic need only compare the erring proposition of the heretic to perennial Catholic teaching on the matter.

    At that point, the fact of the manifestation of heresy is in the external forum and this fact speaks for itself. And that public manifestation is enough for a faithful Catholic to have moral certainty (i.e., certainty in the world of action) that the heretic in question must be avoided.

    The public sin of manifest formal heresy causes one to lose office.  This is Divine Law.  After that, Ecclesiastical Law kicks in and the heretic is excommunicated.  Supplied jurisdiction makes the heretic's actions valid but not licit until the Church declares him officially to be a heretic.  This I believe is the substance of Fr. Chazal's argument.
    Logged

    Offline Angelus

    • Supporter
    • ***
    • Posts: 1174
    • Reputation: +497/-96
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Sede - Zero upsides, nothing but downsides
    « Reply #271 on: January 13, 2024, 02:57:35 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
    • Quote from: Catholic Knight on January 13, 2024, 01:23:10 PM
    The public sin of manifest formal heresy causes one to lose office.  This is Divine Law.  After that, Ecclesiastical Law kicks in and the heretic is excommunicated.  Supplied jurisdiction makes the heretic's actions valid but not licit until the Church declares him officially to be a heretic.  This I believe is the substance of Fr. Chazal's argument.

    https://cdn.restorethe54.com/media/pdf/1917-code-of-canon-law-english.pdf

    Yes, the public sin of heresy causes an automatic "vacancy" (Canon 188.4). But the person "loses the office" in stages, according to the Church (Canons 2314 and 2257-67). First, by the fact [ipso facto], he loses the power to exercise his office. Next, after he is "declared" a heretic, he loses the fruits of the office. And after he is "condemned," he loses the office per se, ontologically. It is the somewhat academic debate over those stages of excommunication that is confusing everyone.

    The first stage "ipso facto excommunication for heresy" is enough for the faithful Catholic to know he must avoid "submission" and "communion" with the heretic former officeholder.

    The "ipso facto vacancy" and "the ipso facto excommunication" are not, as you suggest, two separate events. Rather, the "public defection from the faith" (Canon 188.4) that causes the office to "become vacant upon the fact [ipso facto]" is the same event that causes "all apostates from the Christian faith and each and every heretic or schismatic" to "incur by that fact [ipso facto] excommunication" (Canon 2314). In other words, the removal the cleric from office and the personal excommunication are two different effects of the same cause, the same event: the manifestation of "ipso facto heresy."

    For practical purposes, we can stop the analysis there. The unrepentant, public ipso facto heretic cannot legally act in any official capacity in the Church. His actions are "impounded" until he repents. So his actions and dictates have no force for any Catholic. Not only do we not have to follow his dictates while he is in the state of illegitimacy, but we have the moral obligation to avoid "communication" with that heretic, as Canon 2316 states:

    Quote
    Whoever in any manner willingly and knowingly helps in the promulgation of heresy, or who
    communicates in things divine with heretics against the prescription of Canon 1258, is suspected of
    heresy.

    It is not enough that we just say we disagree with the heretic on his heretical teachings. No, we must not give the impression that we are in any way "in communion" with that heretic. Otherwise, we are "consenting" to his heresies. This is what the SSPX does when they say that they are "in communion" with a heretic Pope. Their position flies in the face of Canon Law.

    Logged

    Offline Ladislaus

    • Supporter
    • *****
    • Posts: 46893
    • Reputation: +27752/-5161
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Sede - Zero upsides, nothing but downsides
    « Reply #272 on: January 13, 2024, 04:13:50 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
    • Quote from: Angelus on January 13, 2024, 02:57:35 PM
    Yes, the public sin of heresy causes an automatic "vacancy" (Canon 188.4). But the person "loses the office" in stages, according to the Church (Canons 2314 and 2257-67). First, by the fact [ipso facto], he loses the power to exercise his office. Next, after he is "declared" a heretic, he loses the fruits of the office. And after he is "condemned," he loses the office per se, ontologically. It is the somewhat academic debate over those stages of excommunication that is confusing everyone.

    It's "confusing everyone" except evidently you, because they're complete made up.

    What the heck is a "fruit of the office"?  And then he loses the office "ontologically"?  You said that happened in the first step.  If anything, the last step would be that he lost it quoad nos, to use John of St. Thomas' distinction ... whereas he would have lost it quoad se in the first step, aka "ontologically".  Canon Law doesn't really apply to a Pope anyway, as he could abrogate it ... except for those aspects of Canon Law that are Divine Law, and that's precisely the debate.
    Logged

    Offline Angelus

    • Supporter
    • ***
    • Posts: 1174
    • Reputation: +497/-96
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Sede - Zero upsides, nothing but downsides
    « Reply #273 on: January 13, 2024, 04:58:24 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
    • Quote from: Ladislaus on January 13, 2024, 04:13:50 PM
    It's "confusing everyone" except evidently you, because they're complete made up.

    What the heck is a "fruit of the office"?  And then he loses the office "ontologically"?  You said that happened in the first step.  If anything, the last step would be that he lost it quoad nos, to use John of St. Thomas' distinction ... whereas he would have lost it quoad se in the first step, aka "ontologically".  Canon Law doesn't really apply to a Pope anyway, as he could abrogate it ... except for those aspects of Canon Law that are Divine Law, and that's precisely the debate.


    You asked about the "fruit of the office." And you asked about losing the office "ontologically." Both of these concepts are dealt with in the same Canon.

    Canon 2266 (1983 CIC 1331, 1335)
    After a condemnatory or declaratory sentence, one excommunicated remains deprived of the
    fruits of dignity, office, benefice, pension, and duty if he had one in the Church; and a banned
    [excommunicate is deprived] of the dignity, office, benefice, pension, and duty itself [ipsamet].


    Canon 2266 
    Post sententiam condemnatoriam vel declaratoriam excommunicatus manet privatus fructibus dignitatis, officii, beneficii, pensionis, muneris, si quod habeat in Ecclesia; et vitandus ipsamet dignitate, officio, beneficio, pensione, munere.

    Latin: fructibus = fruits
    Latin: ipsamet = itself = per se = ontologically

    The excommunication process for heresy (outlined in Canon 2314) derives from the Epistle to Titus 3:10-11. That basic concept is grounded in divine law. Bellarmine mentions it in his discussion of the 5 opinions. The Pope cannot change that.


    Logged
    Pages: 1 ... 17 18 [19]
    « previous next »