-
https://www.ecclesiamilitans.com/2019/10/15/benedict-xvi-is-the-true-pope/ (https://www.ecclesiamilitans.com/2019/10/15/benedict-xvi-is-the-true-pope/)
Benedict XVI Is the True Pope!
OCTOBER 15, 2019 (https://www.ecclesiamilitans.com/2019/10/15/benedict-xvi-is-the-true-pope/)
POSTED BY TONY LA ROSA (https://www.ecclesiamilitans.com/author/ecclesia-militans/)
Dear Friends,
I now hold that Benedict XVI is the true pope. Please download here (https://ecclesiamilitans.com/Benedict_XVI_True_Pope.pdf) a paper I wrote to defend this position.
I thank Fr. Paul Kramer, Br. Alexis Bugnolo, Veri Catholici, Eric GaJєωski, and others who have helped me understand this. They have publicly acknowledged that Benedict XVI is the true pope for quite some time and have persistently defended this position despite the strong opposition.
Yours in Jesus, Mary, and Joseph,
Tony La Rosa
-
https://www.ecclesiamilitans.com/2019/10/16/diagram-of-the-office-of-the-papacy-in-relation-to-the-february-11-2013-declaratio-of-pope-benedict-xvi/ (https://www.ecclesiamilitans.com/2019/10/16/diagram-of-the-office-of-the-papacy-in-relation-to-the-february-11-2013-declaratio-of-pope-benedict-xvi/)
Diagram of the Office of the Papacy in Relation to the February 11, 2013 Declaratio of Pope Benedict XVI
OCTOBER 16, 2019 (https://www.ecclesiamilitans.com/2019/10/16/diagram-of-the-office-of-the-papacy-in-relation-to-the-february-11-2013-declaratio-of-pope-benedict-xvi/)
POSTED BY TONY LA ROSA (https://www.ecclesiamilitans.com/author/ecclesia-militans/)
This post is related to the paper I wrote that may be downloaded from this link (https://www.ecclesiamilitans.com/2019/10/15/benedict-xvi-is-the-true-pope/).
l have drawn up a diagram, which you can see below and download here (https://ecclesiamilitans.com/Diagram_Office_Papacy_Declaratio_Benedict_XVI.pdf), to assist people in obtaining a better understanding of the office of the papacy and its relation to the February 11, 2013 Declaratio of Pope Benedict XVI. I hope it helps.
-
[Bishop Tissier de Mallerais]: "Well, for instance, that this Pope [Benedict XVI] has professed heresies in the past! He has professed heresies! I do not know whether he still does."
Source: https://www.remnantnewspaper.com/Archives/archive-2006-0430-tissier.htm
-
I won't say that Archbishop Lefebvre hated Ratzinger but let's just say that Ratzinger was his nemesis. It's ironic that anyone who loves the archbishop would look to Ratzinger for comfort.
-
Ah, now someone can start a new topic, which, I speculate may run to around 7000 views and 500 comments. That topic would deal with the question of who is really the true anti-pope, Ratzinger or Bergoglio. LOL. ;)
-
https://www.ecclesiamilitans.com/2019/10/15/benedict-xvi-is-the-true-pope/ (https://www.ecclesiamilitans.com/2019/10/15/benedict-xvi-is-the-true-pope/)
I now hold that Benedict XVI is the true pope. Please download here (https://ecclesiamilitans.com/Benedict_XVI_True_Pope.pdf) a paper I wrote to defend this position.
I thank Fr. Paul Kramer, Br. Alexis Bugnolo, Veri Catholici, Eric GaJєωski, and others who have helped me understand this. They have publicly acknowledged that Benedict XVI is the true pope for quite some time and have persistently defended this position despite the strong opposition.
Tony La Rosa
I can understand following this or that great personage (especially a bishop, several intelligent and holy priests, a Trad religious order, etc.) but GaJєωski? He's a complete nobody!
GaJєωski has NO seminary training, no competence in canon law, theology, Vatican II, the Trad movement, etc. and is literally living in his parents' home because he has no gainful employment or career. Even as a layman Trad blogger he's at the bottom of the barrel, having been caught buying "popularity" on the black market to boost the appearance of his Social Media "empire". He's a complete fraud.
He is practically a homeless bum. In a photo I saw of him a few years ago, he was unshaved, wore a sweatshirt "hoodie", and has been long-term unemployed with no marketable skills or experience even though he is middle age (in his late 30's at least).
Not exactly a horse I'd hitch my wagon up to, but to each his own I guess!
And who adheres to the unpopular, much disputed opinion of a pure choleric like Fr. Kramer? Cholerics make good leaders sometimes, but they often go off course (see: Fr. Joseph Pfeiffer). They generally don't make good administrators, thinkers, or planners. They have strong emotions. Cholerics aren't known for their careful, objective reasoning and clear thinking!
If the only person I could point to for "why I follow this position" had a fiery, pure choleric temperament, I'd be a bit uneasy to say the least.
I've never heard of the others, but considering Tony La Rosa's standard for credibility -- it's logical to at least SUSPECT they're in the same "class" or category as Eric GaJєωski.
-
I forgot to add, Eric GaJєωski thinks he's literally the Great Catholic Monarch who will appear during the End Times and fight the Antichrist.
Funny how one of the greatest kings in history is currently an unemployed bum living in the proverbial "mom's basement". Ha!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AzNZwkmSyhI (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AzNZwkmSyhI)
-
As for the position itself (Benevacantism -- the belief that Pope Benedict is still pope), I can only say
1. It's fringe
2. It has been adopted by NO great minds of our present day. The men you listed are NOT great minds!
3. Benedict very publicly resigned the papacy, and even if the didn't use the right words, he obviously intended to resign -- he has never spoken up that "what happened" wasn't legitimate, etc. He has de-facto resigned the papacy at least.
4. Benedict wasn't exactly an awesome pope -- he was no Pope Francis, but he was as bad as any Post-Vatican II pope. So Benevacantism changes nothing regarding the Crisis in the Church.
5. I heard the Pope Emeritus was in bad health, and he is certainly getting very old. Many (most? all?) news organizations have an obituary written up for him already. In a few years, we won't have to have this argument -- but will all the Benevacantists become sedevacantist at that point?
6. If Tony la Rosa did become sedevacantist in a few years, it would suit his modus operandi -- namely, his head spinning around like a top. I hope when it stops spinning it's facing forwards (to quote a great Catholic movie)
-
The simplest refutation of so-called Bene-Vacantism is that H.H. Pope Emeritus Benedict XVI has himself often openly stated that Pope Francis is Pope. E.g. elsewhere we saw "The Pope is one, it is Francis,” Pope Emeritus Benedict XVI said in an interview with an Italian magazine published byCorriere Della Sera June 28."
The second refutation comes from universal acceptance. Fr. Boulet had used it to refute the so-called Siri Thesis, very much like this idea, and the same applies here: " the most important reason why we must discard the "Pope Siri" theory is the fundamental principle that a peaceful acceptance of a pope by the Universal Church is the infallible sign and effect of a valid election. All theologians agree on that point. Cardinal Billot says: "God may allow that a vacancy of the Apostolic See last for a while. He may also permit that some doubt be risen about the legitimacy of such or such election. However, God will never allow the whole Church to recognize as Pontiff someone who is not really and lawfully. Thus, as long as a pope is accepted by the Church, and united with her like the head is united to the body, one can no longer raise any doubt about a possible defective election… For the universal acceptance of the Church heals in the root any vitiated election."21 (http://fsspx.com/Communicantes/Dec2004/Is_That_Chair_Vacant.htm#21B)
There is a third reason, which will become evident in 5 years or so, but we will leave it at that fir now.
-
3. Benedict very publicly resigned the papacy, and even if the didn't use the right words, he obviously intended to resign -- he has never spoken up that "what happened" wasn't legitimate, etc. He has de-facto resigned the papacy at least.
Benedict has repeatedly affirmed that he has resigned ... in no uncertain terms. This theory is just utter hogwash. When he said that he was retaining a function, he was clearly talking about hanging around the Vatican and supporting the pope, mostly through prayer. Some speculate that he has stayed in the Vatican to continue to enjoy the diplomatic immunity of living there, since there were some attempts to charge him for the abuse scandals. But there is zero indication that he meant to retain anything of the actual papacy. He clearly stated in his resignation, to make sure there was no uncertainty, that he was vacating the office to the point that a new conclave would need to be held. Assuming, for a second, that he did somehow in his own brain mean to bifurcate the papacy, it's not possible to do so. So if he said for there to be a new conclave, then he was clearly handing off the papacy.
Conspiracy Theorists: "You really meant in your own mind not to completely give up the papacy."
Benedict: "No, I did not."
Conspiracy Theorists: "Yes, you did."
Look, IF there is something like this going on in his head, the Church can only go by what's evident in the external forum. If he SAYS he resigned, then he resigned. Period. End of story. Speculation about something in his brain is meaningless.
All this talk about him wanting to continue the munus ... he was talking about the "service or prayer" ...
where I could retire to continue in my way the service of prayer
He was saying that he could continue to serve the Church by prayer, and not saying that he would retain the service/office of the papacy.
-
Benedict EXPLICITLY debunked the notion that there are two popes or that the papacy was divided:
https://catholicherald.co.uk/magazine/overlooked-benedict-reaffirms-that-francis-is-pope/ (https://catholicherald.co.uk/magazine/overlooked-benedict-reaffirms-that-francis-is-pope/)
The Pope is one; [he] is Francis.
We can only go by what he says. Here he's clearly debunking the two popes theories or the split papacy theory.
In 2014, Benedict said “There is absolutely no doubt regarding the validity of my renunciation of the Petrine ministry.” It was “simply absurd” to think otherwise, Benedict said in a blunt statement.
Yet he felt the need to state it again – showing that, at least in Italy, conspiracy theories continue to swirl over his resignation.
He's explicitly addressing and rejecting the conspiracy theories.
-
As was discussed on the other recent thread, it's a mortal sin against the Faith, to refuse to recognize, once one has full knowledge of dogmatic fact teaching, that Pope Benedict XVI truly was Pope in April 2005.
"Second: Pope Benedict XVI was validly elected Roman Pontiff on April 19, 2005 A. D., just three days after his 78th birthday.
This is a dogmatic fact, which cannot be denied."
That much is true, but that much and that much only. The above also means that sedes who reject His Holiness Pope Benedict XVI necessarily commit a mortal sin ipso facto in doing so. If God judged them as they presume rashly to judge God's Vicar, they would be "manifest heretics outside the Church" themselves. However much or little their subjective culpability may be, denying that Pope Benedict XVI was Pope in 2005 is objectively a mortal sin, and therefore, once known, should be explicitly confessed and repented of.
But by and for a similar reason, all can know, with solid certainty, Pope Francis surely was Pope in March 2013.
-
As was discussed on the other recent thread, it's a mortal sin against the Faith, to refuse to recognize, once one has full knowledge of dogmatic fact teaching, that Pope Benedict XVI truly was Pope in April 2005.
"Second: Pope Benedict XVI was validly elected Roman Pontiff on April 19, 2005 A. D., just three days after his 78th birthday.
This is a dogmatic fact, which cannot be denied."
That much is true, but that much and that much only. The above also means that sedes who reject His Holiness Pope Benedict XVI necessarily commit a mortal sin ipso facto in doing so. If God judged them as they presume rashly to judge God's Vicar, they would be "manifest heretics outside the Church" themselves. However much or little their subjective culpability may be, denying that Pope Benedict XVI was Pope in 2005 is objectively a mortal sin, and therefore, once known, should be explicitly confessed and repented of.
But by and for a similar reason, all can know, with solid certainty, Pope Francis surely was Pope in March 2013.
I am still inclined to endorse this opinion.
While having conceded the point regarding Archbishop Lefebvre and his tolerance of people privately entertaining the possibility of sedevacantism, the authority I spoke with was less certain on the matter of dogmatic facts and the pope.
I got the impression from his sudden interjection when I raised the issue that he himself had not yet internalized that issue, and when he said he would have to go back and study the manuals, it rather confirmed that opinion.
Yet, I also concede Ladislaus’s argument:
If in fact the identity of Francis (or JPII) is a dogmatic fact, and therefore binding, how could Archbishop Lefebvre say things which implied sedevacantism was a possibility here and now?
The authority I spoke with seemed to think -while still wanting to review, and not coming to a definitive judgment in the matter- that the theologians unanimously erred (ie., “they could not have foreseen the possibility of a crisis of this magnitude.”). Against this explanation is a quote from QVD in my apology/retraction thread which shows that at least one of them did.
My conclusion is that although I am persuaded by the unanimous consent argument, and cannot see how such consent could not have existed for the conciliar popes, nevertheless, I am uncomfortably trapped by Ladislaus’s observation, for which I have no good response:
If I say Francis’ papacy is not a dogmatic fact, I reject the unanimous opinion of minds much greater than mine, but if I say it is a dogmatic fact then I would appear to be at odds with Lefebvre (who I would have to acknowledge implicitly rejected a dogmatic fact by acknowledging the possibility of sedevacantism, and privately tolerating that opinion).
The only solutions I can conceive of (none of which are particularly persuasive) are:
1) There is some yet to be explained reason why the pre-conciliar popes were dogmatic facts, and the conciliar and post-conciliar popes were/are not;
2) Archbishop Lefebvre was wrong;
3) The unanimous consent of theologians was wrong.
I sense the solution lies somewhere within #1?
-
The only solutions I can conceive of (none of which are particularly persuasive) are:
1) There is some yet to be explained reason why the pre-conciliar popes were dogmatic facts, and the conciliar and post-conciliar popes were/are not;
2) Archbishop Lefebvre was wrong;
3) The unanimous consent of theologians was wrong.
I sense the solution lies somewhere within #1?
Agree, the solution is regarding #1. Firstly, it is often argued that John XXIII and Paul VI might have been freemasons. There is circuмstantial evidence for this accusation, yet considering that freemasons are the only ones who could provide DIRECT confirmation, such confirmation is a pipe dream. Further, we know that in the early 1900s, when Pope St Pius X was pope, that the Church was infiltrated. How much more so was there infiltration in the 1960s, which V2 proved was a sizable %, being that the orthodox cardinals were outmaneuvered and outvoted many times? The % then was probably close to 40-50%. (It is now probably 80-90%).
.
Being that a normally-functioning Vatican, of the past ages, would be filled with 99-100% of orthodox officials (Cardinals and all others), then such "rumors" concerning John XXIII and Paul VI would have come to light long before the conclave, and they wouldn't have even been considered as papal candidates (probably would've been excommunicated just based on the rumors/scandal). So, it is easy to say that the circuмstantial evidence and persistent rumors of masonic connections gives way to a doubt about these popes.
.
In regards to JPII and Benedict and Francis, while the rumors of masonic connections are less, the evidence for heresy and unorthodox beliefs/act BEFORE they were elected is just as high. You can go pull up pictures of Francis having public prayer services with Jєωs and protestants while in Argentina. Benedict confirmed his heresy by his own hand, in the many books he wrote. JPII left all kinds of pictures and anecdotes from his priestly "hippie" days of the 70s. So it is easy to say that none of these men were 100% orthodox even long before they were elected pope. A normal, orthodox church would've put these men on the "unelectable" list (or again, they would've been excommunicated long ago...or better, never been allowed to enter a seminary).
.
Conclusion - The communist/masonic infiltration since the late 1800s, has watered-down the orthodoxy of the Vatican. Thus, the normally orthodox clergy is outnumbered, and so the internal "self regulating" aspect of the Church is compromised. Since the infiltration, the Church has experienced a cινιℓ ωαr against truth. All those infiltrators stick together and lie to protect their own, while the orthodox officials are left to try to protect and preach what Truth is still uncompromised. But as in all wars, the hardest aspect is to figure out what is true and what is disinformation. Without proof, without a functioning orthodox church, the evidence needed to convict and punish heretics/evil men is gone. Such is how the infiltrators have succeeded (for the time being) at gaining the high places of control. But this situation gives much doubt about the papacy for the last 60 years. Such doubts and such a "lack of institutional control" have never existed in the Church's history, til now. This is the difference imo.
-
Benedict EXPLICITLY debunked the notion that there are two popes or that the papacy was divided:
https://catholicherald.co.uk/magazine/overlooked-benedict-reaffirms-that-francis-is-pope/ (https://catholicherald.co.uk/magazine/overlooked-benedict-reaffirms-that-francis-is-pope/)
We can only go by what he says. Here he's clearly debunking the two popes theories or the split papacy theory.
He's explicitly addressing and rejecting the conspiracy theories.
This is the main argument why I don't believe Benedict is still pope.
-
I am still inclined to endorse this opinion.
While having conceded the point regarding Archbishop Lefebvre and his tolerance of people privately entertaining the possibility of sedevacantism, the authority I spoke with was less certain on the matter of dogmatic facts and the pope.
I got the impression from his sudden interjection when I raised the issue that he himself had not yet internalized that issue, and when he said he would have to go back and study the manuals, it rather confirmed that opinion.
Yet, I also concede Ladislaus’s argument:
If in fact the identity of Francis (or JPII) is a dogmatic fact, and therefore binding, how could Archbishop Lefebvre say things which implied sedevacantism was a possibility here and now?
The authority I spoke with seemed to think -while still wanting to review, and not coming to a definitive judgment in the matter- that the theologians unanimously erred (ie., “they could not have foreseen the possibility of a crisis of this magnitude.”). Against this explanation is a quote from QVD in my apology/retraction thread which shows that at least one of them did.
My conclusion is that although I am persuaded by the unanimous consent argument, and cannot see how such consent could not have existed for the conciliar popes, nevertheless, I am uncomfortably trapped by Ladislaus’s observation, for which I have no good response:
If I say Francis’ papacy is not a dogmatic fact, I reject the unanimous opinion of minds much greater than mine, but if I say it is a dogmatic fact then I would appear to be at odds with Lefebvre (who I would have to acknowledge implicitly rejected a dogmatic fact by acknowledging the possibility of sedevacantism, and privately tolerating that opinion).
The only solutions I can conceive of (none of which are particularly persuasive) are:
1) There is some yet to be explained reason why the pre-conciliar popes were dogmatic facts, and the conciliar and post-conciliar popes were/are not;
2) Archbishop Lefebvre was wrong;
3) The unanimous consent of theologians was wrong.
I sense the solution lies somewhere within #1?
1) Could the solution be that, despite both the pre and post-conciliar pope’s having received universal consent, the former were not suspected of heresy (and were therefore dogmatic facts) whereas the conciliar/post conciliar popes were/are suspected of heresy (and therefore are not dogmatic facts)?
2) Moreover, the theologians did not discuss universal consent and dogmatic fact within the context of an heretical pope?
3) Moreover, that universal consent and dogmatic fact concerns the acceptance by the Church as an infallible sign regarding election only, but not as regards MAINTAINING the papacy (which would shift the conversation to the Bellarmine-Suarez-Cajetan-John of St Thomas discussion?
But then, if dogmatic fact only concerns election, and not exercise of the papacy over time, does this rule out #1 above?
Am I on the right track here?
-
"Second: Pope Benedict XVI was validly elected Roman Pontiff on April 19, 2005 A. D., just three days after his 78th birthday.
This is a dogmatic fact, which cannot be denied."
So am I a heretic if I don't believe that his birthday was 3 days later?
-
Yet, I also concede Ladislaus’s argument:
If in fact the identity of Francis (or JPII) is a dogmatic fact, and therefore binding, how could Archbishop Lefebvre say things which implied sedevacantism was a possibility here and now?
What I draw from this is that the Archbishop did not consider their legitimacy to be dogmatic fact. I don't either. According to XavierSem's position, then, +Lefebvre was a heretic ... right alongside me. Now, you could say that he was mistaken or confused and therefore only a material heretic, but the logic of the syllogism is pretty airtight. If it's dogmatic fact, then to doubt it is heresy. So either it's not actually dogmatic fact or else +Lefebvre was a heretic (whether material or formal is entirely in God's judgment). You can't have it both ways, XavierSem.
Because of their atrocities committed against the faith, due to it being questionable that these men were even Catholic, there's positive doubt regarding their legitimacy. I feel that +Lefebvre believed this as well. That is why I have said in the past that +Lefebvre is a "sede-doubtist" like myself, or, at the very least a non-dogmatic-factist. I know that it might sound like I just make things up, but I think through every thing I write or say or think with strict logical rigor; I do not like to just pull gratuitous statements out of thin air.
-
XavierSem, you at least have to state: "Archbishop Lefebvre was wrong on this matter." If you admit this, then I'll concede that at least you're being intellectually honest. If you continue to insist that the legitimacy of the V2 papal claimants is dogmatic fact and at the same time that +Lefebvre was not wrong, then you are exposed as being of bad will ... due to maintaining two logically-contradictory positions at the same time. Now, I have also repeatedly accused people of being bad-willed. That too is something I think through before I write it. I do not say that lightly. And I am not somehow privy to the internal forum regarding their sincerity. It's an external-forum judgment based on the fact that a person holds contradictory positions at the same time and then, when shown that they're contradictory, refuses to budge from either proposition or conclusion.
-
What I draw from this is that the Archbishop did not consider their legitimacy to be dogmatic fact. I don't either. According to XavierSem's position, then, +Lefebvre was a heretic ... right alongside me. Now, you could say that he was mistaken or confused and therefore only a material heretic, but the logic of the syllogism is pretty airtight. If it's dogmatic fact, then to doubt it is heresy. So either it's not actually dogmatic fact or else +Lefebvre was a heretic (whether material or formal is entirely in God's judgment). You can't have it both ways, XavierSem.
Because of their atrocities committed against the faith, due to it being questionable that these men were even Catholic, there's positive doubt regarding their legitimacy. I feel that +Lefebvre believed this as well. That is why I have said in the past that +Lefebvre is a "sede-doubtist" like myself, or, at the very least a non-dogmatic-factist. I know that it might sound like I just make things up, but I think through every thing I write or say or think with strict logical rigor; I do not like to just pull gratuitous statements out of thin air.
This is another brain-boggler for me:
I think Xavier produced a quote in the old thread of Lefebvre making the universal consent argument (which might -??- be taken to show him making the dogmatic fact argument).
Yet he also permitted the entertainment of the possibility that the see was vacant (which would contradict the above).
What is the explanation?
1) Too much is made of the quote interpreted to argue he saw the conciliar popes as dogmatic facts?
2) Too much is made of the quotes permitting sedevacantist opinion?
3) Incoherence?
4) Change of opinion (practical vs systematic thinker)?
5) Other?
-
My wife has chided me at times for being excessively "analytical". By nature I tend to subject everything to logical rigor. It's just the way my brain naturally. And then once I was armed with the scholastic logic I learned at seminary, well, that greatly amplified the natural tendency that was already there.
-
This is another brain-boggler for me:
I think Xavier produced a quote in the old thread of Lefebvre making the universal consent argument (which might -??- be taken to show him making the dogmatic fact argument).
Yet he also permitted the entertainment of the possibility that the see was vacant (which would contradict the above).
What is the explanation?
1) Too much is made of the quote interpreted to argue he saw the conciliar popes as dogmatic facts?
2) Too much is made of the quotes permitting sedevacantist opinion?
3) Incoherence?
4) Change of opinion (practical vs systematic thinker)?
5) Other?
For me it's not difficult to understand. Universal Acceptance is a very real principle that has in fact been held by nearly all theologians. But the question is whether that applies in this case and whether such Universal Peaceful Acceptance exists. That is the real question, but we needn't necessarily go through it here. That's where one's mind could go back and forth.
Now, another poster brought up a great historical example, that of one Pope who was legitimately elected and universally accepted, but then hauled off and jailed by an impious emperor. After he was removed, there was the election of another, who in turn was universally accepted as the new pope. But how can that be? So perhaps the principle needs to include legitimate election + universal acceptance. Let's say the Cardinal Siri incident actually happened as theorized. Siri was legitimately elected, then pushed aside by the conclave, illegitimately, and the conclave then trots out an illegitimately elected person. In that case, the Church would have universally accepted him. Does that acceptance overrule or overturn an illegitimate election? I don't think it can. To your point, I doubt that any of the universal acceptance proponents among the theologians could possibly have envisioned this type of crisis.
So, to the point, this is an extremely difficult and confusing time in the history of the Church, and it's easy to see how one might be conflicted and have their mind go back and forth from, at one time, considering one probability to be more likely, and, at another time, another one more probable. That's what we saw with the Archbishop. When Wojtyla was elected, he was more hopeful. But then Assisi happened, and that atrocity against the faith caused +Lefebvre to consider it more and more likely that the man was not even a Catholic. It was around the time of that blasphemy that he came a hair's breadth from himself openly coming out as sedevacantist. Bishop de Castro Mayer did in fact become a sedevacantist.
-
To imagine the notion of Universal Acceptance, I pretend that I'm a Catholic during the reign of Pius XII. It has not entered anyone's wildest fancy that Pius XII might not be the pope. As far as everyone is concerned, it's as sure as the dogma he defined. Now THAT is true universal peaceful acceptance.
Once I imagine that for a while, is today's situation anywhere NEAR the same thing? There's nothing but confusion and doubt among TRUE Catholics, those who still hold the faith (mostly to be equated with Traditional Catholics), as to ... just who ARE these men? and what is this thing called Vatican II and the New Mass? We do not recognize these as Catholic. Do we recognize these V2 papal claimants as a rule of faith? Not even close; we might even call them an anti-rule. Theologians derived universal acceptance from the proposition that the Church cannot accept a false rule of faith. But we do not accept these men as rules of faith ... even if we might quibble about the technicalities of what their legal status might be.
-
Now, another poster brought up a great historical example, that of one Pope who was legitimately elected and universally accepted, but then hauled off and jailed by an impious emperor. After he was removed, there was the election of another, who in turn was universally accepted as the new pope. But how can that be?
When I read Billot and others on universal acceptance, they seem not to care that a pope could gain office by unsavory means (simony, etc), but are only concerned that he gained that universal consent.
IF that is true, then it would seem not to matter if a reigning pope were hauled off and jailed, and a usurper put in place:
If that usurper has gained universal consent, he becomes a legitimate pope, despite the intrigue, they seem to say.
-
Again, I encourage everyone interested in the question to read or re-read Apologia Pro Marcel +Lefebvre fully for themselves. Cekada openly rebelled against +ABL in 1983, and admitted he would have done so again 1988, if he had not already done so in 1983. Cekada also admitted he used to play this game of trying to pit the Archbishop's own words against himself, while the Archbishop was still alive. So why are we taking Cekada's word for it again, or relying on a few out of context quotes he strung together, to discern +ABL's view? Read as many of Archbishop Lefebvre's own words, in their full context, and then try to come to a balanced outlook on the matter.
http://www.sspxasia.com/Docuмents/Archbishop-Lefebvre/Apologia/index.htm (http://www.sspxasia.com/Docuмents/Archbishop-Lefebvre/Apologia/index.htm) Here are some of the statements, among many others, that I base my understanding of +ABL's approach on:
I. "I may make so bold as to reaffirm my consistent position.1. I have no reservation whatsoever concerning the legitimacy and validity of your election, and consequently I cannot tolerate there not being addressed to God the prayers prescribed by Holy Church for Your Holiness." http://www.sspxasia.com/Docuмents/Archbishop-Lefebvre/Apologia/Vol_two/Chapter_41.htm (http://www.sspxasia.com/Docuмents/Archbishop-Lefebvre/Apologia/Vol_two/Chapter_41.htm)
II. Does not the exclusion of the cardinals of over eighty years of ages, and the secret meetings which preceded and prepared the last two Conclaves, render them invalid? Invalid: no, that is saying too much. Doubtful at the time: perhaps. But in any case, the subsequent unanimous acceptance of the election by the Cardinals and the Roman clergy suffices to validate it. That is the teaching of the theologians.
III. The visibility of the Church is too necessary to its existence for it to be possible that God would allow that visibility to disappear for decades. The reasoning of those who deny that we have a Pope puts the Church in an inextricable situation. Who will tell us who the future Pope is to be? ... Consequently, the Society of St. Pius X, its priests, brothers, sisters, and oblates, cannot tolerate among its members those who refuse to pray for the Pope or affirm that the Novus Ordo Missae is per se invalid." http://www.sspxasia.com/Docuмents/Archbishop-Lefebvre/Apologia/Vol_two/Chapter_40.htm (http://www.sspxasia.com/Docuмents/Archbishop-Lefebvre/Apologia/Vol_two/Chapter_40.htm)
IV. Also, "Why do I maintain relations with Rome? Why do I keep going to Rome? Because I think that Rome is the center of Catholicism, because I think that there cannot be any Catholic Church without Rome. Consequently, if our purpose is to find a way of setting the Church straight again, it is by turning to Rome that maybe, with the grace of God, we may perhaps manage to set the situation straight ...It is very important that there should always be the bond with Rome if we wish to remain Catholic; even if we do not agree with everything being done in Rome, I think the bond is absolutely indispensable." http://www.sspxasia.com/Docuмents/Archbishop-Lefebvre/Apologia/Vol_two/Chapter_41.htm (http://www.sspxasia.com/Docuмents/Archbishop-Lefebvre/Apologia/Vol_two/Chapter_41.htm)
Most of these statements were in the late 70s and early 80s. The last one was in 1983. In the other thread, Sean showed about 5 statements, mostly in 88-91 I believe, where +ABL again said sede-vacantism was not a solution.
In the middle years, especially near the Assisi events, you will find a few statements where Archbishop Lefebvre (1) wonders if the Pope may have lost his office, or if (2) it is incuмbent on H.G. and his brother Bishops to declare it. But ultimately, +ABL decided against it.
I believe Archbishop Lefebvre was a Saint, and specially raised up by God in His Merciful Providence to help us deal with this crisis. Of course, even a Saint need not be infallible, but generally speaking, a Saint is a safe guide in the right approach like 99% of the time.
I believe the way to solve it as follows (1) The validity and legitimacy of the election itself (as evinced by quote 1 above) is certainly a fact established beyond doubt, otherwise His Grace Archbishop Lefebvre would not have said that, he himself, personally had no doubt on the matter of the election. (2) The possibility of a Pope validly elected later losing his pontificate cannot a priori be ruled out. It may even have to be judged on by the Bishops, such as Archbishop Lefebvre was. We are not Bishops, so we don't have to concern ourselves with it, unless, at the least, like 1% of Bishops at least say it is time to declare the Pope deposed for heresy. (3) The question of Archbishop Lefebvre privately tolerating, or even less, making allowance for limited subjective culpability and possible good faith on the part of some non-dogmatic sedevacantists, seems even less of an issue. Even Bishop Fellay told an Svist, he didn't agree with him on that, but he understood why he was one, yet I don't think anyone would accuse His Excellency of being a Sedevacantist. With the above 3 principles, I believe, most of the statements of +ABL are explained. I also want to point out PBXVI's status in 2005 has naught to do with +ABL. The simple question before us is, was Pope Benedict XVI's valid election in 2005 a dogmatic fact? +ABL wasn't alive then. So why the appeal then? My answer is, yes it was. So, then, is everyone who says otherwise automatically a heretic? I didn't say that. I said it is an objective mortal sin against the Faith to deny that Pope Benedict XVI was validly elected in 2005, and I stand by it. Subjective culpability we leave to God.
-
When I read Billot and others on universal acceptance, they seem not to care that a pope could gain office by unsavory means (simony, etc), but are only concerned that he gained that universal consent.
IF that is true, then it would seem not to matter if a reigning pope were hauled off and jailed, and a usurper put in place:
If that usurper has gained universal consent, he becomes a legitimate pope, despite the intrigue, they seem to say.
I have a bit of a problem with that, since it seems to savor of Conciliarism. Everybody concedes the principles that ...
1) a man who's legitimately accepted becomes pope immediately after he accepts the election
2) no human power can strip the pope of his papacy once he has it
So, once he HAS it, how can he have it taken from him by any human agency? ... well, apart from actually killing him.
This just doesn't seem right.
-
To imagine the notion of Universal Acceptance, I pretend that I'm a Catholic during the reign of Pius XII. It has not entered anyone's wildest fancy that Pius XII might not be the pope. As far as everyone is concerned, it's as sure as the dogma he defined. Now THAT is true universal peaceful acceptance.
Once I imagine that for a while, is today's situation anywhere NEAR the same thing? There's nothing but confusion and doubt among TRUE Catholics, those who still hold the faith (mostly to be equated with Traditional Catholics), as to ... just who ARE these men? and what is this thing called Vatican II and the New Mass? We do not recognize these as Catholic. Do we recognize these V2 papal claimants as a rule of faith? Not even close; we might even call them an anti-rule. Theologians derived universal acceptance from the proposition that the Church cannot accept a false rule of faith. But we do not accept these men as rules of faith ... even if we might quibble about the technicalities of what their legal status might be.
I think I am starting to agree with this.
It seems also to coincide with my question earlier about how to explain why pre-conciliar papacies could be dogmatic facts, but conciliar papacies not be (ie., because pre-conciliar papacies we’re not suspect of heresy, but the conciliar papacies are).
-
I have a bit of a problem with that, since it seems to savor of Conciliarism. Everybody concedes the principles that ...
1) a man who's legitimately accepted becomes pope immediately after he accepts the election
2) no human power can strip the pope of his papacy once he has it
So, once he HAS it, how can he have it taken from him by any human agency? ... well, apart from actually killing him.
This just doesn't seem right.
Well, I’m still thinking it all through, but my initial thought would be the Cajetan/JST explanation (ie., the bishops cannot depose the pope, but they can declare the fact of his heresy, and if Bellarmine is correct that an heretical pope is ipso facto deposed -by Christ- then a 2nd declaration by the bishops could declare that fact as well. This would rid us of the heretical pope).
-
I think I am starting to agree with this.
It seems also to coincide with my question earlier about how to explain why pre-conciliar papacies could be dogmatic facts, but conciliar papacies not be (ie., because pre-conciliar papacies we’re not suspect of heresy, but the conciliar papacies are).
Yes, this is where I've landed also. Let's say that a hypothetical man is elected pope. He has universal acceptance ... for a time. But then he starts blurting out all kinds of heretical things. Soon a handful of people start questioning him. What if, then, a significant number of Catholics start questioning him. At what point is that acceptance no longer universal? I believe that the process of the Church becoming aware of a man being a non-Catholic could be very progressive and gradual ... especially where 95%+ of the material Church hold the very same errors that the man in question does. When 95%+ of Novus Ordo Catholics have wholeheartedly embraced, say, religious indifferentism, then what does their judgment of Francis' orthodoxy even mean? Traditional Catholics have been questioning their orthodoxy for a very long time now, but they are merely outnumbered by heretics. But at one point the Arians greatly outnumbered orthodox Catholics. What would their opinion have meant if they had "accepted" some Arian pope as a true Catholic? Nothing, IMO. So I do not consider the opinion of the Conciliar establishment as having a great deal of weight when it comes to defining "universal acceptance". I look at Traditional Catholics, and the vast majority of them have serious questions in their minds about who these men are, because we do not recognize them, in the final analysis, as fellow Catholics but as being alien to us. That to me is more what Universal Acceptance means, recognizing the man as Catholic, as a rule of faith and not just saying, "well, I don't really think these guys are Catholic, or at the most they're barely Catholic, but they were elected, you know." Resignation to their material occupancy of the positions of authority does not constitute true acceptance.
So long as we're in a position that we're asking these exact questions, as +Lefebvre did, we are most certainly not dogmatic about their legitimacy by any stretch, and don't even come close to the condition of acceptance had by the pre-Conciliar popes.
-
Well, I’m still thinking it all through, but my initial thought would be the Cajetan/JST explanation (ie., the bishops cannot depose the pope, but they can declare the fact of his heresy, and if Bellarmine is correct that an heretical pope is ipso facto deposed -by Christ- then a 2nd declaration by the bishops could declare that fact as well. This would rid us of the heretical pope).
I'm undecided. And the good thing is that I, as a layman, will never be called upon God to make this decision. I can only go about the business of trying to save my own soul. Now, the only reason I care about their status is to inform my own conscience, to determine whether my resistance to the V2 hierarchy is justified before God.
Here's the thing, if it weren't for Vatican II and the New Mass, and all these other abominations, if we had a Pope still offering the Traditional Mass, not teaching error to the Church, but just blurting out heretical things in private, I could hardly care less and would consider it "not my problem". Let the Cardinals and hierarchy sort that out. The ONLY reason I care is because they have taught things and promulgated disciplines that seem to militate against the salvation of my soul and which, in my judgment, displease and offend God.
-
When I read Billot and others on universal acceptance, they seem not to care that a pope could gain office by unsavory means (simony, etc), but are only concerned that he gained that universal consent.
IF that is true, then it would seem not to matter if a reigning pope were hauled off and jailed, and a usurper put in place:
If that usurper has gained universal consent, he becomes a legitimate pope, despite the intrigue, they seem to say.
I remember Fr. Hesse had a conference in which he mentioned a case in which two Popes alternated between being Pope and Anit-Pope depending onw who was sitting in the Chair of Peter. Fr. Hesse even went to the Vatican Library to look up the official "Papal yearbook" and confirmed it was true, both Popes went from being Pope and Anti-Poe in the same year depending on which faction managed to put their Pope in the Vatican. BUT that was a time when heresy or apostasy was not an issue.
-
5. I heard the Pope Emeritus was in bad health, and he is certainly getting very old. Many (most? all?) news organizations have an obituary written up for him already. In a few years, we won't have to have this argument -- but will all the Benevacantists become sedevacantist at that point?
YES, in the same way as we are all sedevanctist between the time of JPII death and B16's election, and NO they will not be what we normally refer to sedevacantist (those who believe Piux XII was the last Pope).
If I remember correctly, Fr. Kramer said if Pope Benedict dies then we will not have a Pope until the next conclave after Pope Francis death. (Assuming Pope Francis dies and not resigns).
-
Was there Universal Acceptance of Benedict IX?
Benedict IX vs. Everyone Else
Benedict IX had the most confusing papacy, or the most confusing three papacies, in the history of the Catholic Church. Benedict was forcibly removed from office in 1044 and Sylvester II was elected to take his place. In 1045 Benedict seized control again, and again he was removed — but this time he resigned as well. He was succeeded first by Gregory VI and then by Clement II, after which he returned once again for a few months before being ejected. It's not clear that any of the times Benedict was removed from office was canonically valid, which would mean that the other three mentioned here were all antipopes, but the Annuario Pontificio continues to list them as genuine popes.
-
For the sake of hearing out a less polemical Bene-Vacantist before judging the case. I still don't think Pope Benedict XVI is still Pope. But here's a question to BVs, supposing he is, then approves all of Pope Francis' acts anyway? What difference does it make in any way? They would still then be effectively from the Pope, right?
"
How and why Pope Benedict XVI’s resignation is invalid by the law itself (https://vericatholici.wordpress.com/2018/12/19/how-and-why-pope-benedict-xvis-resignation-is-invalid-by-the-law-itself/)
(https://vericatholici.files.wordpress.com/2018/12/Ben-Resign.jpg?w=500)
Here we offer a calm reasoned canonical argument for the invalidity of Pope Benedict’s resignation, for any Catholic who wants to know the truth.
[font={defaultattr}]
Why should any Catholic defend the validity of Pope Benedict XVI’s resignation?
Are we obliged by canon law to do so? —No.
Is it a sin not to do so when there is evidence that it is invalid? — No.
Is there a presumption of law that it is valid? — No.
Is there evidence that it was invalid? — Yes.
Why is Pope Benedict XVI’s resignation invalid?
To understand this, lets us refer to the original texts of the resignation and Canon Law:
Here is the text of the renunciation (http://w2.vatican.va/content/benedict-xvi/la/speeches/2013/february/docuмents/hf_ben-xvi_spe_20130211_declaratio.html) in the Latin original:[/font]
Quapropter bene conscius ponderis huius actus plena libertate declaro me ministerio Episcopi Romae, Successoris Sancti Petri, mihi per manus Cardinalium die 19 aprilis MMV commisso renuntiare…
What are the requirements for a valid Papal resignation? — These are found in the 1983 Code of Canon Law (http://www.vatican.va/archive/cod-iuris-canonici/latin/docuмents/cic_liberII_lt.html#SECTIO_I), Canon 332 §2;
§ 2. Si contingat ut Romanus Pontifex muneri suo renuntiet, ad validitatem requiritur ut renuntiatio libere fiat et rite manifestetur, non vero ut a quopiam acceptetur.
What is the first condition or requirement, then, according to Canon 332 §2 for a valid papal resignation? — That it happens that the Roman Pontiff renounce his munus (muneri suo renuntiet).
Does the text of Pope Benedict renounce the munus? — No, it says clearly declaro me ministerio … renuntiare.
If the renunciation does not regard the munus, does canon 332 §2 even apply? — Yes and no. Yes, because since it does not fulfill the condition of a resignation within the term (in this case, munus) of Canon 332 §2, its not valid. And no, inasmuch as being a juridic act which is outside the terms of Canon 332 §2 it does not regard a papal resignation, but merely a retirement from active ministry.
Can the resignation of Pope Benedict XVI be construed as valid?
Some say and seem to hold, that a Pope can resign his munus by resigning his ministerium. Is that a valid argument? — It is not, because its not a matter of mere assertion, the Law itself must declare it. Remember, there can be no innovation in Church Law without a positive act of a competent superior.
But is not the act of the resignation a juridic act which establishes a new way of resigning? — No. Juridical acts are not tyrannical acts, they cannot justify themselves, but must be in accord with Church Law. This is because as Vatican I declared, even the Pope has no authority to invent novelties.
But if one were to sustain that ministerium can supposit or be understood as munus, how would he have to prove it? — As canon 17 declares, when there is a doubt as to the signification of the law, one must have recourse to other parts of the law, and if there is no clarity there, then to the mind of the legislator.
Does the Code of Canon Law sanction the supposition of ministerium for munus? — No. In no part of the Code is a ministerium ever said to be a munus, or a munus to be a ministerium. In fact, according to Canon 17, you must accept the definitions of terms contained in the Code itself as the AUTHENTIC expression of the Mind of the Legislator (Pope John Paul II) in promulgating the code of Canon Law. Now in canon 145 §1, the Code defines every ecclesiastical office (officium) as a munus, not a ministerium!
What about canonical tradition, does it require a renunciation of munus for a valid resignation of papal office? — Yes, this is clear. Because in all previous renunciations there is not only a mention of munus (or its synonyms: onus, honor, dignitas, or proper names: papatus or episcopatus) but there is also no mention of ministerium. Nor is there any canonical tradition that one can suppose terms which do not mean munus according to canonical tradition for munus. The pope is not the creator or inventor of language or linguistic forms of signification, otherwise nothing would be certain or objective in the Church. Nay, as canon 38 says, if a Pope acts in any way contrary to the terms of Canon 332 §2, his act is only valid if he expressly mentions his intent to act with a derogation of its terms.
If both the text of the Code of Canon Law and canonical tradition require the mention of munus in a papal resignation, then in virtue of Canon 17, do those who claim Benedict’s renunciation of ministerium is valid, have any ground to stand upon? — No, none at all.
Then, must all Catholics recognize that in virtue of the law itself, the resignation is invalid? — Yes.
Does not the fact that the Cardinals all act as if it were valid, mean anything? — No, because according to canon 332 §2, even if the whole world held it to be valid, if it does not meet the conditions of Canon 332 §2, it is not valid. There is no wiggle room here.
But does not the very fact a Conclave was held in March of 2013 to elect a new pope make the resignation of Benedict XVI valid? Does not his tacit consent to this make it valid? — No on both accounts. First of all, because nothing makes a resignation valid except its conformity to canon 332 §2. Second, because by Divine Institution, the Petrine Munus cannot be shared by more than one individual. Ergo, if Benedict did not renounce it, he retains it. If he retains it, its contrary to divine law to elect another pope so long as he lives. And in his act of renunciation he never ordered a Conclave to be called in his lifetime. That he consented to such a thing may be either because of fear or of substantial error as regards what is necessary to resign his office. If it is fear, it does not make it valid. If he is in substantial error, then in accord with Canon 188, its expressly invalid by the law itself.
[font={defaultattr}]
From: https://vericatholici.wordpress.com/2018/12/19/how-and-why-pope-benedict-xvis-resignation-is-invalid-by-the-law-itself/ (https://vericatholici.wordpress.com/2018/12/19/how-and-why-pope-benedict-xvis-resignation-is-invalid-by-the-law-itself/)[/font]
-
I have absolutely no idea how to reconcile the quote of ABL provided by XS saying “I have absolutely no reservation about the legitimacy of your papacy” to JPII, vs the same ABL saying “I do not say you can’t say the pope is not the pope.”
Either ABL’s position vacillated, or, what?
I’m sure there is an explanation beyond incoherence and/or vacillation, but it eludes me.
So I remain patient and wait. In God’s good time, perhaps He will give me a proper understanding, and if He should not, glory be to God!
I have no problem accepting mystery.
-
I’m sure there is an explanation beyond incoherence and/or vacillation, but it eludes me.
Vacillation is too negative to describe it. Changing circuмstances can alter one's application of Catholic principles to them. Someone who may have had no doubt about Wojtyla might have doubts about Bergoglio. Based on what JP2 says one day, one might think he's Catholic, but then based on what he says the next, you might reconsider. You'll find that +Lefebvre's greatest sympathy with sedevacantism came right after the suspension of the SSPX by Paul VI and then right around the time of Assisi.
-
When I read Billot and others on universal acceptance, they seem not to care that a pope could gain office by unsavory means (simony, etc), but are only concerned that he gained that universal consent.
IF that is true, then it would seem not to matter if a reigning pope were hauled off and jailed, and a usurper put in place:
If that usurper has gained universal consent, he becomes a legitimate pope, despite the intrigue, they seem to say.
Except that the clergy who were responsible for publishing the Roman Pontifical didn't see it that way. They have Pope Martin as still being pope over a year after Pope Eugene was elected.
Pope St. Eugene I:
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/05598a.htm (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/05598a.htm)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pope_Eugene_I (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pope_Eugene_I)
https://archive.org/details/thelivesofthepop01platuoft/page/n181 (https://archive.org/details/thelivesofthepop01platuoft/page/n181)
So the authors of the Roman Pontifical certainly saw a problem with having Pope St. Eugene ascending to the Roman See while Pope Martin was in prison without having resigned.
-
Except that the clergy who were responsible for publishing the Roman Pontifical didn't see it that way. They have Pope Martin as still being pope over a year after Pope Eugene was elected.
Pope St. Eugene I:
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/05598a.htm (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/05598a.htm)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pope_Eugene_I (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pope_Eugene_I)
https://archive.org/details/thelivesofthepop01platuoft/page/n181 (https://archive.org/details/thelivesofthepop01platuoft/page/n181)
So the authors of the Roman Pontifical certainly saw a problem with having Pope St. Eugene ascending to the Roman See while Pope Martin was in prison without having resigned.
I do understand your point.
But I also have to believe men of the caliber of Billot must also have been familiar with the event you reference.
Unfortunately, Billot is no longer here to explain how universal consent makes a pope a dogmatic fact, in light of this historical event.
One of the things that has been on my list for a long time was to restart the study of Latin so that I could read works like this.
Anyway, this is another one of those areas where I am forced to accept a bit of mystery as regards the harmonization of seeming contradictions. Yet I am sure the mystery is only on account of my subjective ignorance, and not because such harmonization does not exist.
Somehow, I sense the matter of the doctrine of dogmatic facts not being developed until centuries after this incident is relevant.
I wonder what the earliest references to the term “dogmatic fact are?
I think before then (1850 +/-), the concept of dogmatic facts was merely implicit as a theological deduction?
-
I don’t think the definition of dogmatic fact was ever intended to apply to men who cast doubt on their own legitimacy. When tens of thousands of Catholics are having doubts about the legitimacy of the Conciliar popes, it is already long past the window of applicability for that particular doctrine. And it’s not just a few cranky laymen. Hundreds of clergy are having doubts too if they haven’t already come to the conclusion that the see is empty.
-
So, the best argument Matthew can come up with is a blustering ad hominem rant. His comments about me demonstrate that he knows next to nothing about me: "And who adheres to the unpopular, much disputed opinion of a pure choleric like Fr. Kramer? Cholerics make good leaders sometimes, but they often go off course (see: Fr. Joseph Pfeiffer). They generally don't make good administrators, thinkers, or planners. They have strong emotions. Cholerics aren't known for their careful, objective reasoning and clear thinking!"
First, I am not a "choleric" at all, but the test results always indicate that I am a "melancholic". According to Wikipedia, "Melancholic individuals tend to be analytical and detail-oriented, and they are deep thinkers and feelers." Yep, that's me! Cholerics don't respond to libellous attacks by sitting at a computer for three years and composing a 676 page systematic, in-depth, critical refutation of the theological and doctrinal errors of the heretical attackers. Not only did I refute the theological errors of Salza & Siscoe, but I put together a critical, analytical examination of the questions on heresy, defection from the faith and the Church; the question of a heretical pope and his removal, etc.; and I formulated several original theological arguments not advanced before by any theologians; and I cited copious texts of many eminent scholars and authorities. So, Fr. Kramer a choleric? As the Duke of Wellington said to the man who approached him in the Bank of England asking, "Mr. Smith I presume?" ; to whom Lord Wellington replied, "If you can believe that, you can believe anything."
-
So, the best argument Matthew can come up with is a blustering ad hominem rant. His comments about me demonstrate that he knows next to nothing about me: "And who adheres to the unpopular, much disputed opinion of a pure choleric like Fr. Kramer? Cholerics make good leaders sometimes, but they often go off course (see: Fr. Joseph Pfeiffer). They generally don't make good administrators, thinkers, or planners. They have strong emotions. Cholerics aren't known for their careful, objective reasoning and clear thinking!"
First, I am not a "choleric" at all, but the test results always indicate that I am a "melancholic". According to Wikipedia, "Melancholic individuals tend to be analytical and detail-oriented, and they are deep thinkers and feelers." Yep, that's me! Cholerics don't respond to libellous attacks by sitting at a computer for three years and composing a 676 page systematic, in-depth, critical refutation of the theological and doctrinal errors of the heretical attackers. Not only did I refute the theological errors of Salza & Siscoe, but I put together a critical, analytical examination of the questions on heresy, defection from the faith and the Church; the question of a heretical pope and his removal, etc.; and I formulated several original theological arguments not advanced before by any theologians; and I cited copious texts of many eminent scholars and authorities. So, Fr. Kramer a choleric? As the Duke of Wellington said to the man who approached him in the Bank of England asking, "Mr. Smith I presume?" ; to whom Lord Wellington replied, "If you can believe that, you can believe anything."
Greetings Fr. Kramer-
How do you respond to Sisco/Salza’s use of Billot (et al), that a universally accepted pope is in fact pope, and that whatever vice or defect may have led to his election, it is healed in the root upon such universal acceptance, and such a pope possesses every quality of legitimacy, rendering said papacy a dogmatic fact?
If I understand your argument, you are saying exactly the opposite:
Francis’ papacy does NOT fully possess the
office, and the universal consent of the Church (ie., Bishops) does NOT heel this defect.
And at a more pedestrian level, what do you make of the repeated denials of BXVI himself regarding the suggestion that he has not fully relinquished his papacy?
-
An invalid election can be healed at the root if the chair is vacant. Universal acceptance of a pope-elect while the chair is occupied does not unseat a reigning pontiff. Secondly, under certain specified conditions the universal acceptance of a claimant establishes the dogmatic fact that the individual in question is the valid pope. Such a dogmatic fact is a matter of divine law, which cannot be nullified by the mere legislation any human power. (If it did not pertain to divine law, it could not establish a dogmatic fact.) Therefore, the ruling of Paul IV (cuм Ex Apostolatus Officio), confirmed by Pius V (Inter Multiplices), which sets forth the nullity of an election of a pope who is subsequently discovered to be a heretic, is not a nerely ecclesiastical law, but is an application of divine law which establishes that universal acceptance does not heal at the root the invalid election of a heretic.
-
One cannot partially vacate the office or partially occupy it. God confers the pontificate on one man who has no power to divide it. Benedict XVI never expressed an intention to renounce the office, but carefully distinguished between the munus and the exercise of the ministry, and explicitly renounced only the latter. In his subsequent clarifications, he repeatedly stated that he had renounced the "exercise of the ministry". To date, he has never stated that he renounced the munus, which is required ad validitatem for a valid papal resignation.
-
Greetings Fr. Kramer-
Is it possible that you have read too much into BXVI's use of the words resigning the "exercise of the ministry?" He did say: "The Pope is one, it is Francis.” (Corriere Della Sera, June 28). How is that statement compatible with one still possessing the munus of Pope? If your response will be that it matters not what BXVI has to say to a secular newspaper, but only what words he used in the official declaration of resignation, then my question would be to wonder why BXVI's reference of the exercise of the ministry must be read as retaining the munus? Doesn't such a statement as that made to Corriera Della Sera imply such was not the case (i.e., that he did not wish to signify by those words that he was retaining the munus)?
As regards universal consent being incapable of validating the papacy of a claimant while it is occupied by another, I note that Billot says:
"However, God will never allow the whole Church to recognize as Pontiff someone who is not really and lawfully. Thus, as long as a pope is accepted by the Church, and united with her like the head is united to the body, one can no longer raise any doubt about a possible defective election… For the universal acceptance of the Church heals in the root any vitiated election."
But in fact, for you to be correct in your thesis, we are still forced to admit that Billot (et al) were wrong: God did in fact allow the whole Church to recognize as Pontiff someone who is not really and lawfully Pope. It is precisely the lawfulness o Francis which you are challenging in saying that BXVI still retains the office.
Which is all another way of saying that if the whole Church is recognizing Francis as Pope, it is not possible that a legal defect could exist by which BXVI would still retain the office.
The alternative is to believe the most common opinion of the theologians on this point was wrong.
Is this not correct?
-
I don’t think the definition of dogmatic fact was ever intended to apply to men who cast doubt on their own legitimacy. When tens of thousands of Catholics are having doubts about the legitimacy of the Conciliar popes, it is already long past the window of applicability for that particular doctrine. And it’s not just a few cranky laymen. Hundreds of clergy are having doubts too if they haven’t already come to the conclusion that the see is empty.
Exactly right. Many good serious Catholics are having grave doubts about who these men are. There's hardly a universal peaceful acceptance such as one found during the reign of Pius XII. In fact, the more orthodox and serious one is as a Catholic, the more one is inclined to have doubts about them. I find that 95%+ of these universal acceptors are Novus Ordites who likely no longer have the faith, and that this fails to qualify for this universal acceptance. Among Traditional Catholics, very few indeed have no doubts or questions or uncertainties regarding the V2 papal claimants.
-
I don’t think the definition of dogmatic fact was ever intended to apply to men who cast doubt on their own legitimacy. When tens of thousands of Catholics are having doubts about the legitimacy of the Conciliar popes, it is already long past the window of applicability for that particular doctrine. And it’s not just a few cranky laymen. Hundreds of clergy are having doubts too if they haven’t already come to the conclusion that the see is empty.
Hi CM-
In another thread, I offered as a possible explanation the post that the pre-conciliar popes were dogmatic facts, but the conciliar popes were not, because these latter were suspect of heresy.
But that’s just me trying to make sense of how Lefebvre could have countenanced the possibility of sedevacantism, in light of the teaching of Billot which he himself quoted on another occasion, making the universal consent argument.
But I am not sure that I can find any theologians making the same argument.
To be honest, I think I would be more inclined to accept the common teaching of the pre-conciliar over a contrary Lefebvre (preferring to believe the latter sometimes said things in the heat of the moment which ran contrary to his more common teachings/positions, as Michael Davies said the Archbishop admitted to doing in Apologia (Vol. II, Ch. 40).
Obviously, I could be off base here, and am still trying to make sense of all this .
-
In another thread, I offered as a possible explanation the post that the pre-conciliar popes were dogmatic facts, but the conciliar popes were not, because these latter were suspect of heresy.
Sure, and they're suspect of heresy by many good serious Catholics ... for some very real and serious reasons. This isn't just the case of one or two crackpots floating a theory, like the guy I knew who said that Pius IX wasn't a legitimate pope.
I was just watching the +Williamson conference posted by Matthew where His Excellency outright states that Vatican II is apostasy, that Paul VI was a wicked man who imposed it on the Church with an iron fist (contrary to the theories of some that V2 was entirely optional).
-
Sure, and they're suspect of heresy by many good serious Catholics. This isn't just the case of one or two crackpots floating a theory, like the guy I knew who said that Pius IX wasn't a legitimate pope.
I was just watching the +Williamson conference posted by Matthew where His Excellency outright states that Vatican II is apostasy, that Paul VI was a wicked man who imposed it on the Church with an iron fist (contrary to the theories of some that V2 was entirely optional).
Well yes, but most people would lump someone saying Pius IX wasn’t pope in the same group as those who say the conciliar popes aren’t popes.
Also, if there are 25-30k sedes in the world, out of 1.2 billion self-described/material Catholics (0.00009%), it still amounts to your “couple crackpots.”
I do realize those same people are unwitting modernists.
I just don’t think the various sede theories are anywhere near gaining a proportionately large enough following to challenge universal consent (especially as I think this term pertains to the bishops, and not laymen, in which case there are no bishops possessing office endorsing them).
Again, still trying to make sense of it all; I could be off.
-
I just don't feel that those "material" Catholics factor into the equation. Novus Ordo has taken polls themselves where 95%+ of self-described "Catholics" are heretics, and we're not talking about being in material error about some detail. They knew Church teaching and refused it or doubted it on some core dogmas ... papal infallibility, the real presence, use of artificial birth control. In other words, since they felt they could pick and choose from Church teaching, they did not hold the Church to be their formal rule of faith, and are therefore formal heretics.
-
Let's take the recent case where about a half dozen Cardinals correctly called out Bergoglio for heresy in his "Joy of Sex" encyclical. They are absolutely correct, and this is not rocket science. But where's the outrage from the rest of the 99.999% of the Cardinals, bishops, and lay people? Those who have issues with this Encyclical are also in the extreme minority. But does that make Bergoglio's teaching universally accepted by the Church?
-
Again, still trying to make sense of it all; I could be off.
That's where we're all at, Sean, trying (often in vain) to make sense of this whole mess. That's where Archbishop Lefebvre was too, and that's why he sometimes changed his mind or his opinion, because this is incredibly confusing.
-
I was just watching the +Williamson conference posted by Matthew where His Excellency outright states that Vatican II is apostasy, that Paul VI was a wicked man who imposed it on the Church with an iron fist (contrary to the theories of some that V2 was entirely optional).
Well yes, but BW doesn’t actually believe V2 is binding, despite it being enforced de facto as though it were conciliar teaching like previous councils.
He also does not share the sede ecclesiology which says since the Church or pope cannot promulgate evil, the pope is not the pope.
Instead, he says in the sermon that it is the ordinary magisterium (universality in time) which makes teaching binding.
Since conciliar teaching is not found in the OUM, being instead relegated to the authentic magisterium, it does not bind, and being tantamount to personal opinion as private doctors, does not cost the popes their offices.
Of course, I fully recognize sedes reject this (even though I can show the authentic magisterium in pre-conciliar teaching (eg., Don Paul Nau in “Pope or Church”), and also recognize that despite himself holding this position, recognizes that Lefebvre acknowledged, at least st certain points, sedevacantism was a possibility...somehow.
-
I just don't feel that those "material" Catholics factor into the equation. Novus Ordo has taken polls themselves where 95%+ of self-described "Catholics" are heretics, and we're not talking about being in material error about some detail. They knew Church teaching and refused it or doubted it on some core dogmas ... papal infallibility, the real presence, use of artificial birth control. In other words, since they felt they could pick and choose from Church teaching, they did not hold the Church to be their formal rule of faith, and are therefore formal heretics.
I understand this argument.
Very possibly, you are correct.
I’m just trying to get all the arguments out on the table, in order to work through it all.
-
The quotation attributed to Benedict XVI ("the pope is one, etc.") has been exposed as not authentic; and in the original article in the Corriere, it was presented in such a manner that already raised suspicions to that effect. The words of Benedict XVI in his Declaratio of renunciation have been very carefully analyzed by Canon Law professor Stefano Violi, and have been demonstrated to be defective in manifesting the intention to renounce the Petrine munus, as I have amply explained in my book. What Billot and many other authors say on the point of universal acceptance is not applicable to the present situation, as I have explained in my book. Bergoglio's acceptance is not exclusive, because Benedict XVI's claim on the munus has never been rejected.
-
Peter DeLoca : In the passage you cite, St. Alphonsus speaks of one who is exclusively accepted by the whole Church, after an election to fill a certain vacancy. Nowhere does St. Alphonsus say a heretic elected while the chair is still occupied would be a valid pope if universally accepted. An invalid election can be healed at the root if the chair is vacant. Universal acceptance of a pope-elect while the chair is occupied does not unseat a reigning pontiff. Secondly, under certain specified conditions the universal acceptance of a claimant establishes the dogmatic fact that the individual in question is the valid pope. Such a dogmatic fact is a matter of divine law, which cannot be nullified by the mere legislation of any human power. (If it did not pertain to divine law, it could not establish a dogmatic fact.) Therefore, the ruling of Paul IV (cuм Ex Apostolatus Officio), confirmed by Pius V (Inter Multiplices), which sets forth the nullity of an election of a pope who is subsequently discovered to be a heretic, even if he receives universal acceptance (adorationem, seu ei praestitam ab omnibus obedientiam), is not a nerely ecclesiastical law enacted by a pope, but is an application of divine law which establishes that universal acceptance does not heal at the root the invalid election of a heretic.
-
Also, if there are 25-30k sedes in the world, out of 1.2 billion self-described/material Catholics (0.00009%), it still amounts to your “couple crackpots.”
Your math is off by two orders of magnitude.
1 % is 1 in 100 people.
30,000 divided by 1.2 billion is 0.000025
But then you need to multiply by 100 to get the percentage.
It is 0.0025 %
-
Sure, and they're suspect of heresy by many good serious Catholics ... for some very real and serious reasons. This isn't just the case of one or two crackpots floating a theory, like the guy I knew who said that Pius IX wasn't a legitimate pope.
I was just watching the +Williamson conference posted by Matthew where His Excellency outright states that Vatican II is apostasy, that Paul VI was a wicked man who imposed it on the Church with an iron fist (contrary to the theories of some that V2 was entirely optional).
Lad, what are your thoughts on passive infallibility of the Faithful?
-
I have Mr Giuffre's permission to post this email response. He is making a lot of sense to me- filling in the puzzle pieces that are so confusing about this situation.
The comparison you make between the outside interference that blocked Giuseppe Siri's taking physical control of the papal office while he was still inside the conclave, and Josef Ratzinger's abdication (apparently) due to pending litigation over the Vatican's sheltering of pedophile "priests" and "bishops" is interesting, but I don't think the two situations are analogous. True, it can be argued that Ratzinger's abdication was not a voluntary act, thereby casting doubt upon Jorge Bergoglio's ascent to the Chair of Peter. But before we even address that issue, we must point out that Bergoglio's public embrace of the тαℓмυdic Jєωιѕн religion by his active participation in the ceremonies of a Jєωιѕн ѕуηαgσgυє while "Archbishop" of Buenos Aires (as docuмented here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=92oEEdpwYVI (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=92oEEdpwYVI)) would have necessarily precluded his eligibility to be elected head of the Catholic Church. Moreover his "consecration" as "bishop" in June 1992 was long after the dismantling of the rite of episcopal orders by Paul VI in July 1968, thereby preventing Bergoglio from becoming the Bishop of Rome, since, as far as we know, he has never been conditionally consecrated according to the immemorial and apostolic rite of episcopal consecration after going through the motions of becoming a bishop 27 years ago. In fact, his ordination as a priest is even open to question since it did not take place until after Paul VI had imposed his new rite of priestly orders upon the "official church," (although it is now known that, for a while, a few older bishops refused to ordain priests with the new rite.) So, at best, Bergoglio is only a priest, and quite likely, is just a layman. The timing of the suppression of valid sacerdotal and episcopal orders during the late 1960s profoundly impacted the entire election process in 2013, since almost none of Bergoglio's peers at the conclave were valid bishops either (much less, "cardinals"), and many also were not even priests and therefore could not have been legitimate electors of a pope. Incredibly, the crucial issue of the invalidity of novus ordo priests and bishops has been swept under the rug at Latin Mass centers run by the alphabet soup groups - but not at our church, Saint Jude Shrine, in Stafford, Texas, near Houston, where this subject has been definitively explained to the people multiple times (please see the attached transcript of Father Louis Campbell's sermon, A Kingdom Brought to Desolation.)
Now returning to Ratzinger, we may assume that he was a valid priest since he was ordained in 1951, but his "consecration" did not occur until 1977, again, long after Montini had invalidated the rite of episcopal orders in 1968. So, also, that one factor would have precluded his being the "Bishop of Rome," since, as far as we know, he was never consecrated again in the old rite. But Ratzinger had another major impediment to his claim to the See of Peter, namely, he has not believed as a Catholic for most of his adult life. If one does not believe as a Catholic, he is not a member of the Catholic Church and therefore, cannot be head of the Catholic Church, as clearly stated in the 1917 Code of Canon Law. A prolific writer for decades, Ratzinger has made no effort to hide his non-belief.
When, in April 2005, Ratzinger made his first appearance on the papal balcony as "Benedict XVI," I put together a very brief, 8-page synopsis of his public defections from the Catholic faith, entitled, What are Traditional Catholics to think of Joseph Ratzinger - a.k.a. - "Pope" Benedict XVI?, and handed out copies at Saint Jude's on the following Sunday. (Things like that have a life of their own, and before I knew it, somebody in India had picked it up, modified it and sent it out worldwide. So, perhaps you have already seen it, but if not, I have also attached the original version below for your review.)
In my view, Ratzinger's most monstrous assault on the Christian Faith was his nod to the ѕуηαgσgυє of Satan when, as "cardinal" and President of the Pontifical Biblical Commission, he admonished Catholics not to insist upon the Christian interpretation of the central prophecy of the Old Testament sages, regarding the then future Messiah, Redeemer and Savior of the world, which Catholics believe was perfectly fulfilled in the Sacred Person of Jesus Christ - the very foundation of the Christian religion. Rather, Ratzinger said that Christians should be open to the Jєωιѕн interpretation of the Old Testament, which insists that there is another "messiah" who is yet to come, and who will - this time - be acceptable to the Jєωs! This devilish concept was first rolled out in 2001, with Ratzinger's publication of, The Hebrew people and Their Sacred Scriptures in the Christian Bible, and a second time in Ratzinger's book, Jesus of Nazareth, Part 2, in 2011. It is hard to imagine any greater blasphemy than for the man pretending to be first, a cardinal and head of the Holy Office, then the Pope, to put out this outrageous insult against Jesus Christ twice, and not be called out from every Christian pulpit in the world! It was a clear signal that Ratzinger was preparing Catholics, not for the return of Jesus Christ in glory and majesty, but for His satanic counterfeit, the man of sin! I have attached below a pdf copy of the whole docuмent from 2001, directly from the Vatican's website, with the most incriminating passages in yellow. There was at least one church in North America where Ratzinger was publicly denounced for his role as advance man for the Antichrist, and that was, again, our own Saint Jude's, here in Texas. (I have also attached a transcript of the sermon that was read that day from our pulpit, also by Father Louis Campbell, The New Wine and the Old.)
The blocking of the election of any true pontiff during Giuseppe Siri's virtual imprisonment for 31 years wrecked havoc upon the Church and the entire Christian world. After the four vitiated conclaves at which Siri was elected and suppressed each time, there were by 1991 no longer any valid cardinals to hold an election of the Pope, and today, almost no valid bishops remain to function as the back-up electors of the Pope. There is a mechanism to elect a Pope still in place - a potential conclave to be organized by the senior clergy of Rome. But we are a long way from alerting those elderly priests to what they must do, and that they must do it soon, while there is still a handful of valid (and possibly lawful) Catholic bishops left in the world who could consecrate a new Pope, if necessary. Perhaps our information put out through I.S.O.C. will create an international awareness that will motivate the octogenarian clergy in Rome in a way not seen before. Some Roman priests are now openly denouncing Bergoglio, and the momentum for his ouster could snowball. Yet, they will have to be made to understand that the solution is not to bring about the return of Ratzinger - who in many ways is even worse - but to elect a truly Catholic Pope who will restore all things in Christ.
God help us!
Gary Giuffré
-
I have Mr Giuffre's permission to post this email response. He is making a lot of sense to me- filling in the puzzle pieces that are so confusing about this situation.
The comparison you make between the outside interference that blocked Giuseppe Siri's taking physical control of the papal office while he was still inside the conclave, and Josef Ratzinger's abdication (apparently) due to pending litigation over the Vatican's sheltering of pedophile "priests" and "bishops" is interesting, but I don't think the two situations are analogous. True, it can be argued that Ratzinger's abdication was not a voluntary act, thereby casting doubt upon Jorge Bergoglio's ascent to the Chair of Peter. But before we even address that issue, we must point out that Bergoglio's public embrace of the тαℓмυdic Jєωιѕн religion by his active participation in the ceremonies of a Jєωιѕн ѕуηαgσgυє while "Archbishop" of Buenos Aires (as docuмented here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=92oEEdpwYVI (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=92oEEdpwYVI)) would have necessarily precluded his eligibility to be elected head of the Catholic Church. Moreover his "consecration" as "bishop" in June 1992 was long after the dismantling of the rite of episcopal orders by Paul VI in July 1968, thereby preventing Bergoglio from becoming the Bishop of Rome, since, as far as we know, he has never been conditionally consecrated according to the immemorial and apostolic rite of episcopal consecration after going through the motions of becoming a bishop 27 years ago. In fact, his ordination as a priest is even open to question since it did not take place until after Paul VI had imposed his new rite of priestly orders upon the "official church," (although it is now known that, for a while, a few older bishops refused to ordain priests with the new rite.) So, at best, Bergoglio is only a priest, and quite likely, is just a layman. The timing of the suppression of valid sacerdotal and episcopal orders during the late 1960s profoundly impacted the entire election process in 2013, since almost none of Bergoglio's peers at the conclave were valid bishops either (much less, "cardinals"), and many also were not even priests and therefore could not have been legitimate electors of a pope. Incredibly, the crucial issue of the invalidity of novus ordo priests and bishops has been swept under the rug at Latin Mass centers run by the alphabet soup groups - but not at our church, Saint Jude Shrine, in Stafford, Texas, near Houston, where this subject has been definitively explained to the people multiple times (please see the attached transcript of Father Louis Campbell's sermon, A Kingdom Brought to Desolation.)
Now returning to Ratzinger, we may assume that he was a valid priest since he was ordained in 1951, but his "consecration" did not occur until 1977, again, long after Montini had invalidated the rite of episcopal orders in 1968. So, also, that one factor would have precluded his being the "Bishop of Rome," since, as far as we know, he was never consecrated again in the old rite. But Ratzinger had another major impediment to his claim to the See of Peter, namely, he has not believed as a Catholic for most of his adult life. If one does not believe as a Catholic, he is not a member of the Catholic Church and therefore, cannot be head of the Catholic Church, as clearly stated in the 1917 Code of Canon Law. A prolific writer for decades, Ratzinger has made no effort to hide his non-belief.
When, in April 2005, Ratzinger made his first appearance on the papal balcony as "Benedict XVI," I put together a very brief, 8-page synopsis of his public defections from the Catholic faith, entitled, What are Traditional Catholics to think of Joseph Ratzinger - a.k.a. - "Pope" Benedict XVI?, and handed out copies at Saint Jude's on the following Sunday. (Things like that have a life of their own, and before I knew it, somebody in India had picked it up, modified it and sent it out worldwide. So, perhaps you have already seen it, but if not, I have also attached the original version below for your review.)
In my view, Ratzinger's most monstrous assault on the Christian Faith was his nod to the ѕуηαgσgυє of Satan when, as "cardinal" and President of the Pontifical Biblical Commission, he admonished Catholics not to insist upon the Christian interpretation of the central prophecy of the Old Testament sages, regarding the then future Messiah, Redeemer and Savior of the world, which Catholics believe was perfectly fulfilled in the Sacred Person of Jesus Christ - the very foundation of the Christian religion. Rather, Ratzinger said that Christians should be open to the Jєωιѕн interpretation of the Old Testament, which insists that there is another "messiah" who is yet to come, and who will - this time - be acceptable to the Jєωs! This devilish concept was first rolled out in 2001, with Ratzinger's publication of, The Hebrew people and Their Sacred Scriptures in the Christian Bible, and a second time in Ratzinger's book, Jesus of Nazareth, Part 2, in 2011. It is hard to imagine any greater blasphemy than for the man pretending to be first, a cardinal and head of the Holy Office, then the Pope, to put out this outrageous insult against Jesus Christ twice, and not be called out from every Christian pulpit in the world! It was a clear signal that Ratzinger was preparing Catholics, not for the return of Jesus Christ in glory and majesty, but for His satanic counterfeit, the man of sin! I have attached below a pdf copy of the whole docuмent from 2001, directly from the Vatican's website, with the most incriminating passages in yellow. There was at least one church in North America where Ratzinger was publicly denounced for his role as advance man for the Antichrist, and that was, again, our own Saint Jude's, here in Texas. (I have also attached a transcript of the sermon that was read that day from our pulpit, also by Father Louis Campbell, The New Wine and the Old.)
The blocking of the election of any true pontiff during Giuseppe Siri's virtual imprisonment for 31 years wrecked havoc upon the Church and the entire Christian world. After the four vitiated conclaves at which Siri was elected and suppressed each time, there were by 1991 no longer any valid cardinals to hold an election of the Pope, and today, almost no valid bishops remain to function as the back-up electors of the Pope. There is a mechanism to elect a Pope still in place - a potential conclave to be organized by the senior clergy of Rome. But we are a long way from alerting those elderly priests to what they must do, and that they must do it soon, while there is still a handful of valid (and possibly lawful) Catholic bishops left in the world who could consecrate a new Pope, if necessary. Perhaps our information put out through I.S.O.C. will create an international awareness that will motivate the octogenarian clergy in Rome in a way not seen before. Some Roman priests are now openly denouncing Bergoglio, and the momentum for his ouster could snowball. Yet, they will have to be made to understand that the solution is not to bring about the return of Ratzinger - who in many ways is even worse - but to elect a truly Catholic Pope who will restore all things in Christ.
God help us!
Gary Giuffré
The problem with this response, for me, is:
1) That it is partially predicated upon the FACT of the invalidity of the new Rite of episcopal consecration (which I consider only doubtful)
and
2) Even if it could be demonstrated definitively that the new Rite was invalid (how, barring a declaration from a recovered heirarchy?), the argument ignores the whole universal acceptance issue.
Is that because the author, as a sedevacantist, considers there is no heirarchy to render consent (ecclesiavacantism)?
-
Well yes, but BW doesn’t actually believe V2 is binding, despite it being enforced de facto as though it were conciliar teaching like previous councils.
No Traditional Catholic believes that V2 is binding ... for varying reasons. One of the typical arguments has been that Paul VI never intended to bind, but +Williamson takes that one off the table. Paul VI was clearly intending and attempting to bind the Church to V2 and the New Mass.
-
Universal acceptance of a pope-elect while the chair is occupied does not unseat a reigning pontiff.
See, I agree with this. It cannot ... without entailing the error of Conciliarism. This speaks to the examples brought up by Clemens where this kind of thing happened in the past.
But what's interesting is that the theologians who promote the notion of Universal Acceptance claim that the principle derives from the notion that the Universal Church cannot accept a false rule of faith. Yet in this case, if there were Universal Acceptance of a non-pope as pope, well, that would seem to completely undermine this argument. I would have to say that MATERIAL error on the part of the Universal Church might be possible, even if formal error is not.
What do you say to that, Father?
-
The words of Benedict XVI in his Declaratio of renunciation have been very carefully analyzed by Canon Law professor Stefano Violi, and have been demonstrated to be defective in manifesting the intention to renounce the Petrine munus, as I have amply explained in my book.
Sorry, but this sounds like technicalities, semantics, and word-smithing. Popes can't play these mind games where they say one thing, almost as if it were a mental reservation, allow the entire Church to think he's resigned, and then come out and say, "ah, I tricked you." Either that is what's happening or the alleged misuse of language by Benedict is nothing but a technicality that does not reflect his actual intention. In another context, he stated that the function he wished to hold on to was simply that of praying for the Pope and the Church. I don't see any real, concrete indication that he intended to remain Pope while merely delegating away some of his functions.
Besides that, if Bergoglio cannot be Pope due to manifest heresy, then the same thing holds for Ratzinger, who's only marginally less hereticaler than Bergoglio. Have you even studied the manifest heresy present in his books, heresies that he has never renounced?
-
One of the typical arguments has been that Paul VI never intended to bind, but +Williamson takes that one off the table. Paul VI was clearly intending and attempting to bind the Church to V2 and the New Mass.
Oh, yes, I think there is no doubt at all on that issue, in light of Paul VI’s concluding speech at Vatican II:
[color=rgba(0, 0, 0, 0.870588)]“We decided moreover that all that has been established synodally is to be religiously observed by all the faithful, for the glory of God and the dignity of the Church and for the tranquillity and peace of all men. We have approved and established these things, decreeing that the present letters are and remain stable and valid, and are to have legal effectiveness, so that they be disseminated and obtain full and complete effect, and so that they may be fully convalidated by those whom they concern or may concern now and in the future; and so that, as it be judged and described, all efforts contrary to these things by whomever or whatever authority, knowingly or in ignorance be invalid and worthless from now on.[/color]
[color=rgba(0, 0, 0, 0.870588)]Given in Rome at St. Peter’s, under the [seal of the] ring of the fisherman, Dec. 8, on the feast of the Immaculate Conception of the Blessed Virgin Mary, the year 1965, the third year of our pontificate.“[/color]
https://www.papalencyclicals.net/paul06/p6closin.htm (https://www.papalencyclicals.net/paul06/p6closin.htm)
-
Sorry, but this sounds like technicalities, semantics, and word-smithing. Popes can't play these mind games where they say one thing, almost as if it were a mental reservation, allow the entire Church to think he's resigned, and then come out and say, "ah, I tricked you."
This.^^^
-
Secondly, under certain specified conditions the universal acceptance of a claimant establishes the dogmatic fact that the individual in question is the valid pope.
Greetings Fr Kramer-
Could you please explain what, precisely, those specified conditions are?
I think this brings us to the heart of the universal acceptance issue (ie., when it applies, and when it does not apply).
-
Oh, yes, I think there is no doubt at all on that issue, in light of Paul VI’s concluding speech at Vatican II:
[color=rgba(0, 0, 0, 0.870588)]“We decided moreover that all that has been established synodally is to be religiously observed by all the faithful, for the glory of God and the dignity of the Church and for the tranquillity and peace of all men. We have approved and established these things, decreeing that the present letters are and remain stable and valid, and are to have legal effectiveness, so that they be disseminated and obtain full and complete effect, and so that they may be fully convalidated by those whom they concern or may concern now and in the future; and so that, as it be judged and described, all efforts contrary to these things by whomever or whatever authority, knowingly or in ignorance be invalid and worthless from now on.[/color]
[color=rgba(0, 0, 0, 0.870588)]Given in Rome at St. Peter’s, under the [seal of the] ring of the fisherman, Dec. 8, on the feast of the Immaculate Conception of the Blessed Virgin Mary, the year 1965, the third year of our pontificate.“[/color]
https://www.papalencyclicals.net/paul06/p6closin.htm (https://www.papalencyclicals.net/paul06/p6closin.htm)
Incidentally, this is one of my objections to the SSPX ralliement, which attempts to calm nerves every so often by declaring that not all conciliar docuмents are binding:
Paul VI says otherwise.
The real problem with this whole line of argumentation is that it implies some of the docuмents ARE binding (so it is a double error).
Of course, as stated above, none of it is binding (except insofar as it achieved binding status by repeating some previously defined or traditional doctrine).
-
If we read Cardinal Billot, we see that there is no doubt that it excludes a universally accepted Pope from being a heretic. "But whatever you finally think about the possibility or impossibility of the aforementioned hypothesis [of a Pope ever becoming a heretic], at least one point must be maintained as completely unshaken and firmly placed beyond all doubt: the adherence alone of the universal Church will always be of itself an infallible sign of the legitimacy of the person of the Pontiff, and, what is more, even of the existence of all the conditions requisite for legitimacy itself." https://novusordowatch.org/billot-de-ecclesia-thesis29/ (https://novusordowatch.org/billot-de-ecclesia-thesis29/) Thus, we know with absolute certainty His Holiness Pope Benedict XVI was truly elected Pope in April 2005, and therefore is not a heretic.
But I don't think Cardinal Billot speaks about the possibility of a "second man being while elected while the reigning Pope sits. That is admittedly a little more complicated. But here's the thing for sede-doubtists, sede-impedists, sede-privationsts, or Bene-vacantists. Can you show us at least 1% of the Bishops, like just some 50 out of 5000, who believe and profess Pope Benedict XVI is still the Pope.
In Ex Quo, Pope Benedict XIV says "it suffices Us to be able to state that a commemoration of the supreme pontiff and prayers offered for him during the sacrifice of the Mass is considered, and really is, an affirmative indication which recognizes him as the head of the Church, the vicar of Christ, and the successor of blessed Peter" https://www.papalencyclicals.net/ben14/b14exquo.htm (https://www.papalencyclicals.net/ben14/b14exquo.htm) As far as I know, there are hardly even 10 Bishops with jurisdiction who do not do name the Pope as Pope in the canon. Can anyone show evidence to the contrary?
Fr. Hunter is clear that when Bishops all recognize the Pope, he is certainly Pope. Van Noort says this is an example of the OUM making a judgment on a dogmatic fact. If someone wants to make a case that Pope Francis is not the Pope, can he show at least 50 Bishops wit jurisdiction who are still "una cuм" Pope Benedict XVI? The same would be needed to be shown by any competing sede-theorists. It is the acceptance of the Bishops of the Teaching Church that declares it infallibly; Fr. Connell also makes this plain in a 1965 AER article.
-
Oh, yes, I think there is no doubt at all on that issue, in light of Paul VI’s concluding speech at Vatican II:
[color=rgba(0, 0, 0, 0.870588)]“We decided moreover that all that has been established synodally is to be religiously observed by all the faithful, for the glory of God and the dignity of the Church and for the tranquillity and peace of all men. We have approved and established these things, decreeing that the present letters are and remain stable and valid, and are to have legal effectiveness, so that they be disseminated and obtain full and complete effect, and so that they may be fully convalidated by those whom they concern or may concern now and in the future; and so that, as it be judged and described, all efforts contrary to these things by whomever or whatever authority, knowingly or in ignorance be invalid and worthless from now on.[/color]
[color=rgba(0, 0, 0, 0.870588)]Given in Rome at St. Peter’s, under the [seal of the] ring of the fisherman, Dec. 8, on the feast of the Immaculate Conception of the Blessed Virgin Mary, the year 1965, the third year of our pontificate.“[/color]
https://www.papalencyclicals.net/paul06/p6closin.htm (https://www.papalencyclicals.net/paul06/p6closin.htm)
I disagree. There is only doubt on that issue.
Pope Paul VI is saying they decided that all that has been established synodally is to be religiously observed by the faithful. The only way to say that that is binding us, is if you read into it what he does not say. Reading what he actually says, he is not binding us to anything at all.
If one believes that his decree is binding us, then they must believe that it only binds "those whom they concern or may concern now and in the future", whatever that means.
-
If we read Cardinal Billot, we see that there is no doubt that it excludes a universally accepted Pope from being a heretic. "But whatever you finally think about the possibility or impossibility of the aforementioned hypothesis [of a Pope ever becoming a heretic], at least one point must be maintained as completely unshaken and firmly placed beyond all doubt: the adherence alone of the universal Church will always be of itself an infallible sign of the legitimacy of the person of the Pontiff, and, what is more, even of the existence of all the conditions requisite for legitimacy itself." https://novusordowatch.org/billot-de-ecclesia-thesis29/ (https://novusordowatch.org/billot-de-ecclesia-thesis29/) Thus, we know with absolute certainty His Holiness Pope Benedict XVI was truly elected Pope in April 2005, and therefore is not a heretic.
But I don't think Cardinal Billot speaks about the possibility of a "second man being while elected while the reigning Pope sits. That is admittedly a little more complicated. But here's the thing for sede-doubtists, sede-impedists, sede-privationsts, or Bene-vacantists. Can you show us at least 1% of the Bishops, like just some 50 out of 5000, who believe and profess Pope Benedict XVI is still the Pope.
In Ex Quo, Pope Benedict XIV says "it suffices Us to be able to state that a commemoration of the supreme pontiff and prayers offered for him during the sacrifice of the Mass is considered, and really is, an affirmative indication which recognizes him as the head of the Church, the vicar of Christ, and the successor of blessed Peter" https://www.papalencyclicals.net/ben14/b14exquo.htm (https://www.papalencyclicals.net/ben14/b14exquo.htm) As far as I know, there are hardly even 10 Bishops with jurisdiction who do not do name the Pope as Pope in the canon. Can anyone show evidence to the contrary?
Fr. Hunter is clear that when Bishops all recognize the Pope, he is certainly Pope. Van Noort says this is an example of the OUM making a judgment on a dogmatic fact. If someone wants to make a case that Pope Francis is not the Pope, can he show at least 50 Bishops wit jurisdiction who are still "una cuм" Pope Benedict XVI? The same would be needed to be shown by any competing sede-theorists. It is the acceptance of the Bishops of the Teaching Church that declares it infallibly; Fr. Connell also makes this plain in a 1965 AER article.
I don’t think Billot’s (et al) argument is impeded by Fr. Kramer’s argument regarding universal acceptance being unable to unseat a reigning pope, because such a situation does not exist (for the reason Ladislaus adduced: Fr. Kramer has gotten to far down into the weeds regarding the minutiae and wording of BXVI’s resignation, and, with all respect, lost his common sense: Fr. Kramer is making more of the words than are there. Popes cannot partially resign in a way which leads the whole Church to follow an antipope).
-
I disagree. There is only doubt on that issue.
Pope Paul VI is saying they decided that all that has been established synodally is to be religiously observed by the faithful. The only way to say that that is binding us, is if you read into it what he does not say. Reading what he actually says, he is not binding us to anything at all.
If one believes that his decree is binding us, then they must believe that it only binds "those whom they concern or may concern now and in the future", whatever that means.
Sorry for the misunderstanding, but as my follow-up post mentioned, I DO NOT believe it is binding. I only meant that Paul VI considered it binding.
-
Sorry for the misunderstanding, but as my follow-up post mentioned, I DO NOT believe it is binding. I only meant that Paul VI considered it binding.
Good then. Just reading that paragraph a few times in the last few days gives me a headache.
-
Is that because the author, as a sedevacantist, considers there is no heirarchy to render consent (ecclesiavacantism)?
No , I think he said there was a remnant of the hierarchy in his response:
they must do it soon, while there is still a handful of valid (and possibly lawful) Catholic bishops left in the world who could consecrate a new Pope, if necessary. Perhaps our information put out through I.S.O.C. will create an international awareness that will motivate the octogenarian clergy in Rome in a way not seen before.
-
The evidence of history seems to indicate that material errors in the realm of opinions on open questions have at times gained widespread, and even general acceptance; but the whole Church has certainly never unanimously professed such errors to be Church doctrine, nor in matters of doctrine on closed questions decided by the universal magisterium, has the whole Church erred by holding a contrary opinion on such questions. This point merits further study IMHO.
-
Secondly, under certain specified conditions the universal acceptance of a claimant establishes the dogmatic fact that the individual in question is the valid pope. Such a dogmatic fact is a matter of divine law, which cannot be nullified by the mere legislation of any human power. (If it did not pertain to divine law, it could not establish a dogmatic fact.) Therefore, the ruling of Paul IV (cuм Ex Apostolatus Officio), confirmed by Pius V (Inter Multiplices), which sets forth the nullity of an election of a pope who is subsequently discovered to be a heretic, even if he receives universal acceptance (adorationem, seu ei praestitam ab omnibus obedientiam), is not a nerely ecclesiastical law enacted by a pope, but is an application of divine law which establishes that universal acceptance does not heal at the root the invalid election of a heretic.
Yes (de jure). But he’s still, de facto, occupying the seat in Rome and the one selected by the cardinals to be pope. Neither our minds nor eyes are wrong here - putting aside the current two pope situation and not touching that; let us say the situation of, for example, JPII.
Which is why I allow the opinions of both Sedevacantists and R & R and and consider them both brothers united in the true, saving faith, and am not dogmatic about it.
-
Matthew says, 《GaJєωski? He's a complete nobody!》 But what about Matthew? (Matthew WHO???) There is something of an incongruity here, in that a complete nobody says someone else is a "complete nobody".
-
In 2,000 years of Church history, has anyone ever been pope without knowing it, and even while positively denying it? As far as I know, the answer is no. ::)
-
Matthew says, 《GaJєωski? He's a complete nobody!》 But what about Matthew? (Matthew WHO???) There is something of an incongruity here, in that a complete nobody says someone else is a "complete nobody".
GaJєωski is an extremely deranged man who is in the habit of using disgusting foul language, threatening physical violence, lying about his purchasing views and followers, and assuming an outlandish position of spiritual authority to carve out a meager living for his miserable soul. And you Father Kramer have the great honor of being called his "spiritual director." Thanks but no thanks for your worthless opinions. "The blind leading the blind" has never been more appropriate!
Pope Francis' current levels of apostasy and open idolatry would not have been possible but for the prolonged and consistent efforts of his VII predecessors. After all, it wasn't Bergog-Magog in plain clothes during that council. But let us consider for just one moment that Benedict is still Pope, does that make things better or worse? Well, if the singing rat does nothing but sing the praises of his parasite anti-pope who then goes on to spread the same black death that the host-Pope himself spread with only comparative tepidity, then how can he be held blameless? He can't! The Benedict option is really Francis in Benedict's zucchetto, which is to say a dire wolf in a wolf mask wearing sheep's clothing. At every single opportunity, Benedict has poured public adulation upon Francis' actions and after everything we've seen Benedict capable of, why should anyone start assuming now that he is secretly being held against his will? It's not consistent with his personality, but it is completely understandable that he is fully in cooperation with the powers that be, coming from a Vatican that has long since adopted Hegelian tactics to further its goals.
-
Croixalist is a bold-faced liar. He falsely states, 《And you Father Kramer have the great honor of being called his "spiritual director." 》I am not his spiritual director. Being exposed as a liar, only a fool would uncritically believe the venom "Croixalist" spews against someone he clearly despises.
-
Q. 《 In 2,000 years of Church history, has anyone ever been pope without knowing it, and even while positively denying it?》
A. No. No pope has ever done so; and certainly Benedict XVI has not done so.
-
Croixalist is a bold-faced liar. He falsely states, 《And you Father Kramer have the great honor of being called his "spiritual director." 》I am not his spiritual director. Being exposed as a liar, only a fool would uncritically believe the venom "Croixalist" spews against someone he clearly despises.
He's called you his spiritual director many times, he's had you on his show almost as many times and never once have you corrected him, nor have you discussed his very disgraceful behavior. Who's fooling who, "Don Paolo?" Get real and do what needs to be done first! You words will carry no weight until you do so.
-
You are lying again. On his radio program he never says I am his spiritual director, LIAR!
-
You are lying again. On his radio program he never says I am his spiritual director, LIAR!
He's hidden alot of stuff behind a website subscription paywall , but this one slipped through in an introduction to one of your discussions:
https://gloria.tv/post/TtNM82Wn17gE4RaihEMBHGskG (https://gloria.tv/post/TtNM82Wn17gE4RaihEMBHGskG)
Then there is his own introduction he submitted to this very website before his goose was cooked:
https://www.cathinfo.com/general-discussion/introduce-yourself!/645/ (https://www.cathinfo.com/general-discussion/introduce-yourself!/645/)
Greetings,
Beloved brethren I am Eric GaJєωski founder and owner of TradCatKnight the largest traditional catholic page on the Internet (over 100,000 followers worldwide) which happens to be pro-Resistance. You will notice pro-Resistance forums such as this advertised at the bottom of my website's page. My spiritual director is Fr. Paul Kramer and I email the Resistance priests including His Lordship on a daily basis keeping in contact with our latest news. Further, we are starting a Resistance community here in the Ohio Valley if anyone is interested. To the moderator please consider starting a thread or forum entitled TradcatKnight blogs to where I or you could post my daily blogs for further commenting. Here are TradCatKnight's social media outlets for those interested, Ave Maria!
Eric GaJєωski, B.S., MBA
apostleofmary@hotmail.com
www.facebook.com/tradcatknights
tradcatknight.tumblr.com
pinterest.com/ericgaJєωski71/
TradCatKnight(Gloria.tv)
twitter.com/eric_gaJєωski
google.com/+EricGaJєωski
youtube.com/user/tradcatknights
myspace.com/eric_gaJєωski
tinychat.com/tradcatknight
stumbleupon.com/stumbler/TradCatKnight
The website for daily blogs!(please bookmark and check in daily)
tradcatknight.blogspot.com
So I'm not about to pour through every 2-3 hour video of his, but the point is that he has in fact stated on video and written online how you were his spiritual director.
Fr. Kramer, your lack of judgement follows you wherever you go. Your ignorance and lack of research only builds upon it, and it has set you up for a round of false recrimination. You're the one who was supposed to know better, and you're just as culpable as he is! Don't come back until you make this right.
-
What you are quoting is practically ancient history -- some five years ago I was briefly his spiritual director. You are blowing this up way out of proportion for the desperate and cowardly purpose of defaming a Catholic priest. You, Crioxalist, are beneath contempt.
-
What you are quoting is practically ancient history -- some five years ago I was briefly his spiritual director. You are blowing this up way out of proportion for the desperate and cowardly purpose of defaming a Catholic priest. You, Crioxalist, are beneath contempt.
Rogue priest, you've helped Eric get where he is today, that's all we need to know about you.
-
GaJєωski is an extremely deranged man who is in the habit of using disgusting foul language, threatening physical violence, lying about his purchasing views and followers, and assuming an outlandish position of spiritual authority to carve out a meager living for his miserable soul. And you Father Kramer have the great honor of being called his "spiritual director." Thanks but no thanks for your worthless opinions. "The blind leading the blind" has never been more appropriate!
Pope Francis' current levels of apostasy and open idolatry would not have been possible but for the prolonged and consistent efforts of his VII predecessors. After all, it wasn't Bergog-Magog in plain clothes during that council. But let us consider for just one moment that Benedict is still Pope, does that make things better or worse? Well, if the singing rat does nothing but sing the praises of his parasite anti-pope who then goes on to spread the same black death that the host-Pope himself spread with only comparative tepidity, then how can he be held blameless? He can't! The Benedict option is really Francis in Benedict's zucchetto, which is to say a dire wolf in a wolf mask wearing sheep's clothing. At every single opportunity, Benedict has poured public adulation upon Francis' actions and after everything we've seen Benedict capable of, why should anyone start assuming now that he is secretly being held against his will? It's not consistent with his personality, but it is completely understandable that he is fully in cooperation with the powers that be, coming from a Vatican that has long since adopted Hegelian tactics to further its goals.
Hear, here!
-
Fr. Kramer says:
Matthew says, 《GaJєωski? He's a complete nobody!》 But what about Matthew? (Matthew WHO???) There is something of an incongruity here, in that a complete nobody says someone else is a "complete nobody".
The Virgin Mary was a "nobody", too. In fact, St. Louis De Montfort wrote in his book "True Devotion .." about angels asking "who is that?" regarding Mary because God kept her so hidden, and she was so humble and anti-worldly.
Matthew doesn't manifest grandiose delusions nor does he engage in deceptive tactics like GaJєωski to make himself appear as somebody formiddable. You fail to see the difference. At least Matthew has the best trad website in the world. Arguably, he has had a far more positive impact on the trad community and prospective converts than you have done, Kramer. When Matthew mentions the fact that GaJєωski is a nobody it's because he portrays himself as something grand when he's the exact opposite.
-
Fr. Kramer says:
The Virgin Mary was a "nobody", too. In fact, St. Louis De Montfort wrote in his book "True Devotion .." about angels asking "who is that?" regarding Mary because God kept her so hidden, and she was so humble and anti-worldly.
Matthew doesn't manifest grandiose delusions nor does he engage in deceptive tactics like GaJєωski to make himself appear as somebody formiddable. You fail to see the difference. At least Matthew has the best trad website in the world. Arguably, he has had a far more positive impact on the trad community and prospective converts than you have done, Kramer. When Matthew mentions the fact that GaJєωski is a nobody it's because he portrays himself as something grand when he's the exact opposite.
To God and to The Word Incarnate, the Blessed Virgin Mary surpasses even the Cherubim, the Seraphim, and all the saints.
She was and is definitely not a "nobody" for she bore God the Word in her womb. In fact, St. John the Baptist leap for joy
in his mother's womb, St. Elizabeth who the cousin of the Blessed Virgin Mary. In her visitation to St. Elizabeth, the Theotokos
effected the redemption of St. John the Baptist through her Son, our Lord and our God.
From the Paracleisis:
Held in higher honor than the Cherubim,
Far surpassing in glory even the Seraphim;
Remaining inviolate, thou gavest birth to the Logos.
Truly the Theotokos, we magnify thee.
-
Like an idiot, you uncritically believe every fake quotation you hear, "Maria Regina". I never said any such thimg, you fool.
-
Maria Regina says:
To God and to The Word Incarnate, the Blessed Virgin Mary surpasses even the Cherubim, the Seraphim, and all the saints.
She was and is definitely not a "nobody" for she bore God the Word in her womb. In fact, St. John the Baptist leap for joy
in his mother's womb, St. Elizabeth who the cousin of the Blessed Virgin Mary. In her visitation to St. Elizabeth, the Theotokos
effected the redemption of St. John the Baptist through her Son, our Lord and our God.
Maria Regina, you fail to use critical thinking skills and you don't consider the whole theology regarding the BVM. In the world, she was a nobody. She was the antithesis of a worldling and its vain achievements & accolades. God uses the most lowly in a worldly sense to be His purveyor.
-
Like an idiot, you uncritically believe every fake quotation you hear, "Maria Regina". I never said any such thimg, you fool.
Dear Father Paul,
I apologize. Since the quote system on this board can easily skew the results, one must carefully recheck one's post after posting it. Unfortunately, I received an unexpected phone call from abroad, so I did not have time to edit my post.
I have read your writings, and respect your research.
I realize that you honor the Theotokos, but Endoplasmic Reticulum has placed words in your mouth, and dishonors you, a priest. He should be ashamed for his careless words that dishonor the Blessed Virgin Mary.
In Christ,
Maria
From the Paraclesis to the Theotokos:
Eagerly we sing to thee now this ode,
Joyfully offered to the Virgin who is all-praised.
With the Forerunner and all ye Saints,
Implore Him, Theotokos, to be merciful to us.
Let the lips of the impious be struck dumb,
Those who will not honor thy great icon so august,
Painted by the hand of the Apostle Luke,
Called the “Guiding Virgin,” the “O-de-ge-tri-a.”
-
Maria Regina says:
I realize that you honor the Theotokos, but Endoplasmic Reticulum has placed words in your mouth, and dishonors you, a priest. He should be ashamed for his careless words that dishonor the Blessed Virgin Mary.
Learn to read. I didn't place any words in Kramer's mouth. Any comment I made was in response to his comments to another person.
-
Maria Regina, you are so ignorant of theology.
Even Jesus Christ was a NOBODY in worldly sense, just as His mother. The Bible tells us so:
[1] (http://www.drbo.org/cgi-bin/d?b=drb&bk=27&ch=53&l=1-#x) Who hath believed our report? and to whom is the arm of the Lord revealed? [2] (http://www.drbo.org/cgi-bin/d?b=drb&bk=27&ch=53&l=2-#x) And he shall grow up as a tender plant before him, and as a root out of a thirsty ground: there is no beauty in him, nor comeliness: and we have seen him, and there was no sightliness, that we should be desirous of him: [3] (http://www.drbo.org/cgi-bin/d?b=drb&bk=27&ch=53&l=3-#x) Despised, and the most abject of men, a man of sorrows, and acquainted with infirmity: and his look was as it were hidden and despised, whereupon we esteemed him not. [4] (http://www.drbo.org/cgi-bin/d?b=drb&bk=27&ch=53&l=4-#x) Surely he hath borne our infirmities and carried our sorrows: and we have thought him as it were a leper, and as one struck by God and afflicted. [5] (http://www.drbo.org/cgi-bin/d?b=drb&bk=27&ch=53&l=5-#x) But he was wounded for our iniquities, he was bruised for our sins: the chastisement of our peace was upon him, and by his bruises we are healed.
- Isaias 53:1-5
In Luke chapter 1, the humility of the BVM isn't only in regard to her soul, but it's about her worldly position, too. One of the reasons she was so blessed was because she accepted her humble temporal conditions for the glory of God. She lived only for God, not worldly comfort, promotion or recognition. Because she did this, God elevated her to be His mother and the most blessed among women, and all generations are to call her blessed.
-
Apology accepted.
-
Lol. Regina misunderstands ER and thinks he is trying to denigrate Our Lady when he was simply referring to her initial obscurity, matched only by Our Lord's, when Fr. Kramer mistakes her opinion for ER's , which was perfectly sound if not for the fact that it was used to discern a nobody who thinks they're far more than they are with a truly important person who happens to be relatively unknown (GaJєωski vs Matthew), and Regina apologizes... to the rogue priest and not to ER.
Well Fr. Kramer, you were Eric's spiritual director 5 years ago and it was 5 years ago Eric started to exhibit the behaviors which would later discredit him in a big way to the trad community. He has not shown to have a single shred of remorse for his actions, nor has he appeared to have grown past any one of his delusions. Yes it was 2014 he was blathering about the "core of his apostolate" consisting of calling female escorts to tell them about the Catholic Church with his history of living a "playboy" lifestyle. Sounds ill advised to me. Then he started claiming he was the head of an Order of Eagles and that he would "give the commands" and that he would "announce the restoration." In fact he was calling you his spiritual director all the way up until he came on to these forums in 2015 to spam links for his website when he decided it was better to threaten and to belittle and to use foul language instead of addressing the valid concerns regarding his work online. Has he changed since then? He's only gotten worse.
All the while I thought he must be exaggerating about his connection to you, but now I see he was perfectly accurate. You certainly were his spiritual director and so far the only spiritual director he's ever mentioned. The whole point was that a decent priest wouldn't have anything to do with such a man if he was properly informed. How could the aforementioned priest continue to associate with such a public scandal without a public and formal correction? As of now, it's clear you can't claim ignorance. You continue to be a frequent guest on his "show", and continue to visit the forum that first exposed him for who he is, and still have the gall to belittle and insult others for criticizing him. You crawled on your belly pretending you could distract from the point that you actually were his spiritual director by saying Eric never mentioned it on his show, (which is itself a big flat lie).
So maybe you two used each other for your own purposes: he used you for your notoriety and you used him to proliferate your Benedict theory, a theory which only serves to create a worse Pope than Francis. Maybe it was completely innocent at first but then you'd rather slit your wrists than concede one point to your critics, even if it means turning a blind eye (or two) to Eric's cartoonishly vile buffoonery. Or perhaps you have an even darker agenda and here you are lurking again on this website plying a Hegelian dialectic to (further) fracture the community. In the end it doesn't matter who you work for, I know whom you serve.
-
Croixalist has an unhealthy obsession about GaJєωski which manifests his mental derangement; and which leads him into the sacrilege of denigrating and defaming a Catholic priest.
-
Croixalist has an unhealthy obsession about GaJєωski which manifests his mental derangement; and which leads him into the sacrilege of denigrating and defaming a Catholic priest.
I just don't like liars and con-artists. You defame your own priesthood when you lie, bloviate and throw names around. You can't dispute what I've posted so all you have now are ad hominems. Coming from a priest, you're even worse than GaJєωski. Keep coming back, Father Backward Remark.
-
Your abusive and gratuitous ad hominems are malicious and defamatory; yet in your delusional hysteria you accuse me of "ad hominems" which I can't dispute! Quod gratis asseritur gratis negatur.
-
What no one can legitimately dispute is that Croixalist is guilty of inexcusabe and grave public sacrilege. To publicly denigrate a priest with insulting expressions of contempt is morally inexcusable; because it is a mortal sin, ex toto genere suo.
-
What cannot be disputed without falling into heresy is that a pope, while validly holding office, possesses full and universal jurisdiction. He is solemnly defined to be the "supreme judge", to whose jurisdiction all questions of faith and morals pertain. Therefore no council, synod, or the college of cardinals my pronounce a sentence of heresy on a reigning pontiff. This is the de fide teaching of the Church which St. Robert Bellarmine demonstrated theoligically more than two centuries before Pastor Æternus. The logical inconsistencies in the opinions of Bellarmine, St. Alphonsus, Cajetan, John of St. Thomas, Suárez, Bordoni, (and others), is rooted in the problematic nature of the notion itself of a heretic pope. They all recognized that a heretic is an "incapable subject" of the papacy; and accordingly they all held the "first opinion" listed by Bellarmine, to be at least the most probable. An "incapable subject" lacks the "necessary disposition to preserve the form of the pontificate", as Bellarmine explained. Such a one is incapable of validly assuming the papacy, and therefore, if one elected is later discovered to have been a heretic, his election is null & void, even if he has received universal acceptance, according to the ruling of Paul IV confirmee by Pius V. The constant teaching of the popes since St. Gelasius is that the pope absolutely cannot be judged by anyone. A true pope cannot be deposed because he cannot become a formal heretic. It is only in the realm of a purely abstract hypothesis with no applicability in the real world that it can be said that a pope who falls into even occult formal heresy would cease automatically to be pope, because heresy would make him an intrinsically incapable subject. Although it would be of strict metsphysical necessity that he cease by himself immediately to be pope; it would be impossible for that to actually happen in reality; not for any intrinsic reason, but because of the effect: such a loss of office would result in the defection of the wole Church. For this reason, Bellarmine and the others mentioned, formulated opinions on how the Church would proceed in deposing a heretic pope. The fatal defect of all the arguments involving a judgment to be pronounced on a validly reigning pontiff is that no one possesses the jurisdiction to pronounce the pope guilty of formal heresy. John of St. Thomas explicitly concedes this difficulty. For the same reason, Bordoni held that by way of exception, a council would have jurisdiction, but his argument for such jurisdiction is logically inconsistent -- and since Pastor Æternus, is inadmissible. The constant doctrinal and canonical tradition of the Church, (as I demonstrate in volume one), presupposes that a pope cannot be a heretic, and that if a man is indeed a manifest heretic, or is proven to be a heretic, then he is not a true pope. This comment is only a brief abstract. The full expisition is set forth in Volume One of To Deceive the Elect.
-
What cannot be disputed without falling into heresy is that a pope, while validly holding office, possesses full and universal jurisdiction. He is solemnly defined to be the "supreme judge", to whose jurisdiction all questions of faith and morals pertain. Therefore no council, synod, or the college of cardinals my pronounce a sentence of heresy on a reigning pontiff. This is the de fide teaching of the Church which St. Robert Bellarmine demonstrated theologically more than two centuries before Pastor Æternus. The logical inconsistencies in the opinions of Bellarmine, St. Alphonsus, Cajetan, John of St. Thomas, Suárez, Bordoni, (and others), is rooted in the problematic nature of the notion itself of a heretic pope. They all recognized that a heretic is an "incapable subject" of the papacy; and accordingly they all held the "first opinion" listed by Bellarmine, to be at least the most probable. An "incapable subject" lacks the "necessary disposition to preserve the form of the pontificate", as Bellarmine explained. Such a one is incapable of validly assuming the papacy, and therefore, if one elected is later discovered to have been a heretic, his election is null & void, even if he has received universal acceptance, according to the ruling of Paul IV confirmed by Pius V. The constant teaching of the popes since St. Gelasius is that the pope absolutely cannot be judged by anyone. A true pope cannot be deposed because he cannot become a formal heretic. It is only in the realm of a purely abstract hypothesis with no applicability in the real world that it can be said that a pope who falls into even occult formal heresy would cease automatically to be pope, because heresy would make him an intrinsically incapable subject. Although it would be of strict metaphysical necessity that he cease by himself immediately to be pope; it would be impossible for that to actually happen in reality; not for any intrinsic reason, but because of the effect: such a loss of office would result in the defection of the whole Church. For this reason, Bellarmine and the others mentioned, formulated opinions on how the Church would proceed in deposing a heretic pope. The fatal defect of all the arguments involving a judgment to be pronounced on a validly reigning pontiff is that no one possesses the jurisdiction to pronounce the pope guilty of formal heresy. John of St. Thomas explicitly concedes this difficulty. For the same reason, Bordoni held that by way of exception, a council would have jurisdiction, but his argument for such jurisdiction is logically inconsistent -- and since Pastor Æternus, is inadmissible. The constant doctrinal and canonical tradition of the Church, (as I demonstrate in volume one), presupposes that a pope cannot be a heretic, and that if a man is indeed a manifest heretic, or is proven to be a heretic, then he is not a true pope. This comment is only a brief abstract. The full exposition is set forth in Volume One of To Deceive the Elect.
-
Here's the introduction to a study written by the 17th century theologian named John of St. Thomas, O.P. This is provided on the Dominicans of Avrille website. The study is titled, 'On the Deposition of the Pope.' John of St. Thomas believed that a Pope can be deposed for heresy or infidelity. The Forward, which precedes the Introduction, provides a good overview about who John of St. Thomas was. I'll only provide the introduction in this post. More of the study will follow.
Link to study:
http://www.dominicansavrille.us/on-the-deposition-of-the-pope-part-1-of-2/
Introduction:
"I affirm that the Pope can lose the pontificate in three ways: through natural death, by voluntary renunciation, and by deposition.
About the first case, there is no difficulty.
About the second case, there is an express provision [in Canon Law] where it is established that the Pontiff may resign, as it was the case with Celestine V, at the Council of Constance, the resignation was asked to the doubtful Pontiffs in order to finish with the schism as did Gregory XXll and John XXlll […].
About the third case of losing the pontificate, many difficulties arise: to make this brief, we reduce all these problems to two main headers: [1] under what circuмstances a deposition can be made? [2] And by which power this deposition should be made?
On the first point we will mention three main cases in which a deposition can take place. The first is the case of heresy or infidelity. The second is perpetual madness. The third case is doubt about the validity of the election. "
[Comment]: Here we are only interested in the first case dealt with by John of St. Thomas: the deposition for cases of heresy or infidelity, as it is the case currently concerning us with Pope Francis.
-
In "De Auctoritate Summi Pontificis” Disputatio III, Articulus II, XVII De Depositione Papae & Seq. (translated by Fr. François Chazal), John of St. Thomas admits that his opinion is problematic on the point of jurisdiction: “Concerning the second point, namely by whose authority the declaration and deposition is to be made, there is dissent among theologians, and it does not appear by whom such a deposition is to be made, because it is an act of judgment, and jurisdiction, which can be exercised by no one over the pope.” Since the solemn definition of the universal primacy of jurisdiction of the Roman Pontiff, it is heresy for anyone to say that anyone or any synod, council, or body can ever pronounce a judgment on a reigning pontiff, who is the supreme judge of all questions of doctrine; and, upon assuming office acquires directly from God the absolute power of jurisdiction over the whole world - ("plenam absolutamque iurisdictionem supra totum orbem acquirit" - Pius XII, Vacantis Apostolicae Sedis)
-
In "De Auctoritate Summi Pontificis” Disputatio III, Articulus II, XVII De Depositione Papae & Seq. (translated by Fr. François Chazal), John of St. Thomas admits that his opinion is problematic on the point of jurisdiction: “Concerning the second point, namely by whose authority the declaration and deposition is to be made, there is dissent among theologians, and it does not appear by whom such a deposition is to be made, because it is an act of judgment, and jurisdiction, which can be exercised by no one over the pope.” Since the solemn definition of the universal primacy of jurisdiction of the Roman Pontiff, it is heresy for anyone to say that anyone or any synod, council, or body can ever pronounce a judgment on a reigning pontiff, who is the supreme judge of all questions of doctrine; and, upon assuming office acquires directly from God the absolute power of jurisdiction over the whole world - ("plenam absolutamque iurisdictionem supra totum orbem acquirit" - Pius XII, Vacantis Apostolicae Sedis)
Haven't you said that all of the theologians have been unanimous in the view that a Pope cannot be a heretic? Obviously, John of St. Thomas isn't one of them.
-
Again, Meg, you manifest your total incompetence in theological matters. John of St. Thomas, like Bellarmine, Cajetan, and all the others listed by Da Silveira as adhering to the first opinion, was of the belief that a pope cannot be a heretic. He treats of the question on deposing a heretic pope as a mere HYPOTHESIS, as does Bellarmine.
-
Again, Meg, you manifest your total incompetence in theological matters. John of St. Thomas, like Bellarmine, Cajetan, and all the others listed by Da Silveira as adhering to the first opinion, was of the belief that a pope cannot be a heretic. He treats of the question on deposing a heretic pope as a mere HYPOTHESIS, as does Bellarmine.
Nonsense.
-
Haven't you said that all of the theologians have been unanimous in the view that a Pope cannot be a heretic? Obviously, John of St. Thomas isn't one of them.
Meg,
If "Don Paolo" has said or implied that, he is either lying or he's entirely ignorant about what the theologians teach.
None deny the possibility that a Pope can fall into heresy. What they disagree on is the likelihood of it actually happening. Some say the opinion that a Pope cannot fall into heresy is probably, or more probable, some say it is less probable. None say it is certain. Here's several quotes that show this:
Bellarmine: “The first is of Albert Pighius, who contends that the Pope cannot be a heretic, and hence would not be deposed in any case: such an opinion is probable, and can easily be defended (as we will show in its proper place), but it is not certain and the common opinion is to the contrary…” De Romano Pontifice, liv II, cap. xxx).
Bellarmine: ‟It is probable and may piously be believed that the Sovereign Pontiff not only cannot err ‘as Pope,’ but that he cannot even be a heretic as a particular person, by pertinaciously believing something false contrary to the faith.” (Bellarmine, De Romano Pontifice, lib. iv, ch.vii).
Fr. Paul Laymann, S.J. (1625): “It is more probable that the Supreme Pontiff, as concerns his own person, can fall into heresy, even a notorious one…” (Moral Theology, bk. 2, tract 1, ch. 7).
Suarez (1622): Though many may hold, with verisimilitude (that the Pope can fall into heresy), to me however, in a few words, it appears more pious and more probable to affirm that the Pope, as a private person, can err by ignorance but not contumaciously.” (Suarez, De Fide, disp. X, sact. VI. n 11, p. 319).
M. Coronata (1950): “It cannot be proven however that the Roman Pontiff, as a private teacher, cannot become a heretic — if, for example, he would contumaciously deny a previously defined dogma. Such impeccability was never promised by God. Indeed, Pope Innocent III expressly admits such a case is possible.”
A. Vermeersch, I. Creusen (1949): “At least according to the more common teaching, the Roman Pontiff as a private teacher can fall into manifest heresy.” (Epitome Iuris Canonici, Rome: Dessain, 1949, 340)
Cardinal Camillo Mazzella (1905): “It is one thing that the Roman Pontiff cannot teach a heresy when speaking ex cathedra (what the council of the Vatican defined); and it is another thing that he cannot fall into heresy, that is become a heretic as a private person. On this last question the Council said nothing; and the theologians and canonists are not in agreement among themselves concerning it.” (Card. C. Mazzella, De Religione et Ecclesia, 1905, n. 1045)
Cardinal Stickler, 1974: “First of all it is necessary to say that the prerogative of infallibility of office does not prevent the pope as a person from sinning and therefore from becoming personally even a heretic. In fact, no theologian today, even if he accepts unconditionally the infallibility of the Roman pontiff, asserts thereby that the pope, speaking in the abstract, cannot personally become a heretic [.]” (The Catholic Historical Review, Vol. 60, No. 3.)
-
Don Paolo is neither lying nor ignorant -- he simply never said that; and PaxChristi2 is a fool for believing someone so ignorant as Meg.
-
I think that the confusion is this ...
MAJOR: Legitimate Pope cannot become a heretic.
MINOR: Bergoglio is a heretic.
CONCLUSION: Therefore, Bergoglio was never a legitimate pope.
-
Don Paolo first wrote: Croixalist is a bold-faced liar. … I am not his spiritual director.
Then Don Paolo later wrote : -- some five years ago I was briefly his spiritual director.
Fr. Carl Pulvermacher OFM Cap, R.I.P, used to say to us that “You cannot lie, even to save the world”. If people would follow that teaching, no matter the repercussion, they would not get into messes like the above.
Don Paulo,
Some advise from an older man: Speak truth only, and never lose your composure by resorting personal insults. If one is truly superior, an authority on a subject, they will regard all derogatory remarks as they regard the remarks of little children.
I thought this thread was about B16 Being the True Pope?.
-
(https://www.cathinfo.com/index.php?topic=53675.msg674469#msg674469)
A. Don Paolo first wrote: … I am not his spiritual director.
B. Then Don Paolo later wrote : -- some five years ago I was briefly his spiritual director.
Fr. Carl Pulvermacher OFM Cap, R.I.P, used to say to us that “You cannot lie, even to save the world”. If people would follow that teaching, no matter the repercussion, they would not get into messes like the above.
Don Paulo,
Some advise from an older man: Speak truth only, and never lose your composure by resorting personal insults. If one is truly superior, an authority on a subject, they will regard all derogatory remarks as they regard the remarks of little children.
I thought this thread was about B16 Being the True Pope?
Basic English
A. "I am not his spiritual director." is written in the present tense.
B. "Some five years ago, I was briefly his spiritual director." is written in the past tense.
Thus, Father Paul is being truthful.
There are many members of the laity who do not have a spiritual director. Instead they go to the priest who is in the confessional, and this could be a different priest especially if they happen to be visiting relatives or are on a business trip.
Could we please return to the topic of this thread?
Is Benedict XVI a valid and true pope?
-
"Last Tradhican" is a consummate hypocrite who resorts to the mendacity of deceptive innuendos which suggest the falsehood that I am lying, while ostensibly exhorting me to be truthful.
-
I think that the confusion is this ...
MAJOR: Legitimate Pope cannot become a heretic.
MINOR: Bergoglio is a heretic.
CONCLUSION: Therefore, Bergoglio was never a legitimate pope.
Yes, you are correct, that is the confusion.
OTOH, reality washes away all confusion:
MAJOR: Legitimate Pope can be a heretic.
MINOR: Bergoglio and all the conciliar popes have been heretics.
CONCLUSION: Therefore, pope Francis is a heretic.
This is simple reality, no need for theological opinion based syllogisms - unless one wishes to remain trapped in their confusion that is.
-
Fr. Carl Pulvermacher OFM Cap, R.I.P, used to say to us that “You cannot lie, even to save the world”. If people would follow that teaching, no matter the repercussion, they would not get into messes like the above.
Don Paulo,
Some advise from an older man: Speak truth only, and never lose your composure by resorting personal insults. If one is truly superior, an authority on a subject, they will regard all derogatory remarks as they regard the remarks of little children.
I thought this thread was about B16 Being the True Pope?.
It's not about BXVI, he has never told anyone to do anything, so whether he's the pope or not makes no difference. Come to think of it, the same goes for all the conciliar popes.
-
In "De Auctoritate Summi Pontificis” Disputatio III, Articulus II, XVII De Depositione Papae & Seq. (translated by Fr. François Chazal), John of St. Thomas admits that his opinion is problematic on the point of jurisdiction: “Concerning the second point, namely by whose authority the declaration and deposition is to be made, there is dissent among theologians, and it does not appear by whom such a deposition is to be made, because it is an act of judgment, and jurisdiction, which can be exercised by no one over the pope.” Since the solemn definition of the universal primacy of jurisdiction of the Roman Pontiff, it is heresy for anyone to say that anyone or any synod, council, or body can ever pronounce a judgment on a reigning pontiff, who is the supreme judge of all questions of doctrine; and, upon assuming office acquires directly from God the absolute power of jurisdiction over the whole world - ("plenam absolutamque iurisdictionem supra totum orbem acquirit" - Pius XII, Vacantis Apostolicae Sedis)
Not surprisingly, Don Paolo entirely misrepresented this quotation from John of St. Thomas as well. JST is not "admit[ting] that his own opinion is problematic." All he's saying is theologians disagree amongst themselves about how a Pope can be declared a heretic and deposed, since the Church cannot exercise any juridical authority over the Pope. He is pointing to the difficulty that the theologians have attempted to resolve, and which has resulted in the various theological opinions concerning how an heretical Pope can be "deposed". He then goes on to list the four theological opinions that Cajetan commented on - two extreme opinions and two middle opinions - as well as the opinion held by Bellarmine and Saurez, which, in reality, Cajetan himself only briefly mentioned in a sentence or two in his entire book (the ipso facto loss of office theory that Cajetan refuted was what Bellarmine lists as the 2nd Opinion, not the 5th Opinion).
Here is the sentence that Don Paolo took entirely out of context, followed by the next two paragraphs:
John of St. Thomas: "However, concerning the second point—namely, by whose authority the declaration and deposition are to be accomplished—there is disagreement among theologians, for it is not apparent who should effect the deposition, since it is an act of judgment and jurisdiction, and no one can exercise these in relation to the Pope. Cajetan (in opusculo de potestate papae, capite 20) relates two explanations that are extreme opposites, and two others that are in the middle. One of the extremes is that the Pope, by the very fact that he is a heretic [i.e. has lost the virtue of faith], is deposed without any human judgment [this is what Bellarmine lists as the 2nd Opinion]. The other extreme is that there is a power that is superior to the Pope without any qualification, and this power is able to judge him [i.e., Conciliarism]. Of the two intermediate opinions, the one holds that the pope does not recognize anyone as superior absolutely, but only in the case of heresy [Semi-Conciliarism]. The other holds that there is no power on earth that is superior to the Pope, whether absolutely or in the case of heresy; but there is a ministerial power [i.e., the opinion of Cajetan].
"Even as the Church has a ministerial power in the election of a Pope—not as to the conferring of power, since this is done immediately by Christ, as we have said in the first article; but in the designation of the person—so, too, in the deposition (which is the destruction of the bond by which the papacy is joined to this particular person) the Church has a ministerial power and deposes the Pope ministerially, while it is Christ who deprives him of the papacy authoritatively.
"Of these two [intermediate] explanations, Azorius (2, tom. 2, cap. 7) adopts the first, which holds that the Church is superior to the Pope in the case of heresy; while Cajetan adopts the latter and treats of it at length. Bellarmine, however, reports his opinion and attacks it in his work De Romano Pontifice, bk. 2, ch. 30, objecting especially to these two points: namely, that Cajetan says that the Pope who is a manifest heretic is not ipso facto deposed; and also that the Church deposes the Pope in a real and authoritative manner. Suarez also, in the disputation that we have frequently cited, sect. 6, num. 7, attacks Cajetan for saying that, in the case of heresy, the Church is superior to the Pope, not insofar as he is Pope, but insofar as he is a private individual. Cajetan, however, did not say this; he only said that, even in the case of heresy, the Church is not absolutely superior to the Pope, but instead is superior to the bond between the papacy and the person, dissolving it in the same way that she forged it at his election; and this power of the Church is ministerial, for only Christ our Lord is superior to the Pope without qualification. Hence, Bellarmine and Suarez are of the opinion that, by the very fact that the Pope is a manifest heretic and declared to be incorrigible, he is deposed [ipso facto] by Christ our Lord without any intermediary, and not by any authority of the Church."
Comment: In context, it is quite obvious that JST is not saying that his own opinion is problematic, as Fr. Kramer claimed.
What else is noteworthy is that JST correctly points out that both Bellarmine and Suarez objected to Cajetan's opinion. Suarez attempted to refute it in De Fide, disp x, and mentions Cajetan by name when doing so. What this obviously proves is that Suarez did not hold the opinion of Cajetan (which Bellarmine lists as the 4th Opinion), as many people today mistakenly believe. They reason they believe he did is because they lack a clear understanding of the difference between the 2nd and 5th Opinions (both of which involve an ipso facto loss of office), and between the 5th and 4th Opinions (which both require human judgment before the loss of office occurs). As a result, they conclude that Bellarmine believes an heretical Pope is ipso facto deposed without antecedent human judgment (2nd Opinion), if he manifest his heresy by external acts (i.e., if his heresy is externally occult), and then conclude that Suarez held the 4th Opinion, since he explicitly says human judgment and a declaration is required before the ipso facto loss of office takes place.
-
Meg: Haven't you said that all of the theologians have been unanimous in the view that a Pope cannot be a heretic? Obviously, John of St. Thomas isn't one of them.
Pax Christi: Meg, If "Don Paolo" has said or implied that, he is either lying or he's entirely ignorant about what the theologians teach.
Don Paolo Don Paolo is neither lying nor ignorant -- he simply never said that; and PaxChristi2 is a fool for believing someone so ignorant as Meg.
Don Paolo: The constant doctrinal and canonical tradition of the Church, (as I demonstrate in volume one), presupposes that a pope cannot be a heretic...
-
The utterly dishonest "PaxChristi2" juxtaposes quotations which assert different things in such a manner as to make them appear contradictory. In the first I asserted that I have not stated that all theologians have been unanimous in the view that a pope cannot be a heretic. This proposition refers to opinions of theologians. In the second I asserted that the constant doctrinal and canonical tradition of the Church presupposes that a pope cannot be a heretic. This proposition refers not to opinions, but to canon law and magisterium. While theologians have speculated on the possibility of a pope being a heretic, and whether or not such a one can be deposed; the papal magisterium has constantly taught that the pope can never be judged by anyone. From this premise it follows strictly and absolutely that no power on earth may ever depose a validly reigning pope. Thus, the doctrinal and canonical tradition of the Roman Church presupposes that the pope cannot be a heretic.
Since the opinion of John of St. Thomas on the deposition of a heretic pope calls for a JUDGMENT OF HERESY to be made by a COUNCIL on the POPE, there exists the problem of JURISDICTION, not only for other theologians' opinions, but for his own as well. No council can ever declare a reigning pontiff to be a heretic, because that judgment pertains absolutely to the pope's own jurisdiction. No council can ever bind the whole Church with a vitandus order against the pope, because the pope possesses the full and absolute jurisdiction over the whole Church, and over the council. In order to exercise power over the conjunction between the papacy and the pope, a council would first have to exercise the necessary jurisdiction to judge the pope guilty of heresy, and to exercise a jurisdiction over the whole Church. Such jurisdiction belongs to the pope alone in virtue of his universal primacy of jurisdiction, which is his to freely exercise fully and absolutely; and therefore cannot be suspended by any council, which cannot validly exist without his consent. Since it is of divine law that heretics are to be shunned and cast out; and no provision exists in divine or canonical law to cast out a heretic pope; it is evident that the doctrine and discipline of the Church presupposes that a true pope cannot be a heretic, because in virtue of Christ's prayer that Peter's faith not fail, the pope's faith cannot fail.
-
Basic English
A. "I am not his spiritual director." is written in the present tense.
B. "Some five years ago, I was briefly his spiritual director." is written in the past tense.
Thus, Father Paul is being truthful.
There are many members of the laity who do not have a spiritual director. Instead they go to the priest who is in the confessional, and this could be a different priest especially if they happen to be visiting relatives or are on a business trip.
Could we please return to the topic of this thread?
No, no, let's go back. It matters whether you're talking to a charlatan or not.
He does in fact have the dubious honor of being called Eric's spiritual director every time someone hears hear him say it on youtube, or see it posted. Apparently he now introduces Father as his former spiritual director, but nothing has changed in how Fr. Kramer relates to Eric and vice versa since Eric started acting like a failed cult leader. That's the real point. It is a matter of pride for Eric to keep referring to Don Paolo as his spiritual director past or present. But Fr. Kramer would rather lie and say Eric never said it on his show (he most certainly did) and when he couldn't deny that he has actually been called that on various posts from Eric, he started trying to make a big deal about it being 5 years ago. It's a distinction without a difference. Fr Kramer never challenged Eric on any of the major incidents that have sprung up over the years and keeps actively associating with him and actively defending him from just criticism. He then proceeds to act almost as obnoxiously as GaJєωski the minute anyone has a problem with his ideas... or Eric as it turns out. Pretty slimey moves, Father.
Again, Meg, you manifest your total incompetence in theological matters.
Like an idiot, you uncritically believe every fake quotation you hear, "Maria Regina". I never said any such thimg, you fool.
The utterly dishonest "PaxChristi2"
You don't get a free pass as a priest to behave like this. You come in here and fly off the handle at the slightest perceived critique. You called Regina an idiot when she was trying to support your argument, Meg asks you a question and you call her ignorant. You tell me I'm obsessed with the Eagle, yet you come in here to defend him from big bad Matthew when your devoted associate has threatened to beat a man in front of his children and you said nothing. You call me a liar, then immediately get it stuffed back in your face.
You are truly a rogue priest, and you need to be identified and avoided as such. A considerable part of this crisis was generated by laity falling over themselves to protect bad priests while they're behaving badly, and helping them get away with it. I'm not going to be one of those people.
-
Croixalist is incorrigible in his sacrilege; this time falsely accusing me of lying. He is clearly pathologically obsessive about Eric GaJєωski and myself. How boring his own life must be to be constantly driven by his sick obsession about Fr. Kramer and Eric GaJєωski.
-
Croixalist is incorrigible in his sacrilege; this time falsely accusing me of lying. He is clearly pathologically obsessive about Eric GaJєωski and myself. How boring his own life must be to be constantly driven by his sick obsession about Fr. Kramer and Eric GaJєωski.
You definitely lied about Eric not calling you his spiritual director on his show, and you called me a liar because I said you are called his spiritual director, which you are in those links I provided to you (it still counts if it's written.) Nice try with your crack psychological profile, but maybe one day you'll find something you're good at besides projection.
-
[...]for the desperate and cowardly purpose of defaming a Catholic priest.[...]
Hello Father,
It's common knowledge that you attended Holy Apostles Seminary in Cromwell, CT. Could you please enlighten us as to your ordination details?
Were you ordained in the new or traditional rite? If traditional, was your ordaining bishop consecrated in the new or traditional rite? And finally, if your ordination was in the new rite and/or the ordaining bishop was consecrated in the new rite, did you receive or are you considering ordination sub conditione by a traditional bishop in the traditional rite?
-
Can a deposition occur in cases of heresy or infidelity?
John of St. Thomas wrote:
"Concerning the case of heresy, theologians and Canon Lawyers have disputed very much. It is not necessary to dwell at length; however, there is an agreement among the Doctors on the fact that a Pope may be deposed in case of heresy: we will mention them in the discussion of the difficulty.
Arguments from authority
+ A specific text is found in the Decree of Gratian, Distinction 40, chapter "Si Papa," where it is said: "On earth, no mortal should presume to reproach (redarguere) any faults in the Pontiff, because he who has to judge (judicaturus) others, should not be judged (judacandus) by anyone, unless he is found deviating from the Faith." (Pars 1, D40, c.6) This exception obviously means that in case of heresy, a judgment could be made of the Pope.
+ The same thing is confirmed by the letter of Hadrian ll, reported in the eighth General Council [ lV Constantinople, 869-870] in the 7th session, where it is said that the Roman Pontiff is judged by no one, but the anathema was made by the Orientals against Honorius because he was accused of heresy, the only cause for which it is lawful for inferiors to judge superiors. (MANSI, Sacorum Conciliorum nova collection amplissima, Venice, 1771, vol. 16, col. 126)
+ Also Pope St. Clement says in his first epistle that St. Peter taught that a heretical Pope must be deposed."
http://www.dominicansavrille.us/on-the-deposition-of-the-pope-part-1-of-2/
-
Hello Father,
It's common knowledge that you attended Holy Apostles Seminary in Cromwell, CT. Could you please enlighten us as to your ordination details?
Were you ordained in the new or traditional rite? If traditional, was your ordaining bishop consecrated in the new or traditional rite? And finally, if your ordination was in the new rite and/or the ordaining bishop was consecrated in the new rite, did you receive or are you considering ordination sub conditione by a traditional bishop in the traditional rite?
Father Paul Kramer is an Irish-American native of Bristol, Connecticut, USA, who studied philosophy and theology in Rome at the Pontifical University of St. Thomas Aquinas during the 1970s, and was ordained to the priesthood on April, 20, 1980 by Bishop Vittorio M. Costantini O.F.M. Conv. in the Cathedral of Sessa Aurunca (CA) Italy. Fr. Kramer served in parish ministry in Germany, Philippines, USA, and has carried out various missions in other countries, including Canada, Italy, Brazil, India, Ireland, Portugal, Spain, and England. Fr. Kramer is currently retired, and is living in Ireland. Fr. Kramer was a close collaborator with the world famous “Fatima Priest”, Fr. Nicholas Gruner from 1986 until the latter’s untimely death in April 2015; at whose request this book has been written, and to whose memory it is dedicated. - Source (https://www.cathinfo.com/crisis-in-the-church/'to-deceive-the-elect'-by-fr-paul-kramer-now-available/msg669229/#msg669229)
-
The utterly dishonest "PaxChristi2" juxtaposes quotations which assert different things in such a manner as to make them appear contradictory. In the first I asserted that I have not stated that all theologians have been unanimous in the view that a pope cannot be a heretic. This proposition refers to opinions of theologians. In the second I asserted that the constant doctrinal and canonical tradition of the Church presupposes that a pope cannot be a heretic. This proposition refers not to opinions, but to canon law and magisterium. While theologians have speculated on the possibility of a pope being a heretic, and whether or not such a one can be deposed; the papal magisterium has constantly taught that the pope can never be judged by anyone.
Pope Innocent III: Truly, he [the Pope] should not flatter himself about his power, nor should he rashly glory in his honor and high estate, because the less he is judged by man, the more he is judged by God. Still the less can the Roman Pontiff glory because he can be judged by men, or rather, he 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. In such a case it should be said of him: ‘If salt should lose its savor, it is good for nothing but to be cast out and trampled underfoot by men’.” (Pope Innocent III, Sermon 2 on the Consecration of a Supreme Pontiff.)
Pope Innocent III: “For faith is so necessary for me that, while for other sins I have only God as my judge, only for that sin which is committed against faith could I be judged by the Church.” (Pope Innocent III, Sermon 2 on the Consecration of a Supreme Pontiff).
Don Paolo: Since the opinion of John of St. Thomas on the deposition of a heretic pope calls for a JUDGMENT OF HERESY to be made by a COUNCIL on the POPE, there exists the problem of JURISDICTION, not only for other theologians' opinions, but for his own as well. No council can ever declare a reigning pontiff to be a heretic, because that judgment pertains absolutely to the pope's own jurisdiction.
The Pope can be judged with a discretionary judgment, which is a legitimate judgement, but one that lacks any juridical or coercive power over the Pope. If you deny that a Pope can be judged by a discretionary judgement, not only are you in manifest disagreement with Bellarmine, St. Alphonsus, and countless other theologians I could cite, but you are disagreement with the Popes who willingly submitted to a discretionary judgment of an Emperor or council, such as Popes Sixtus III, Leo III, Leo IX, and others.
Don Paolo: No council can ever bind the whole Church with a vitandus order against the pope, because the pope possesses the full and absolute jurisdiction over the whole Church, and over the council.
So says Fr. Kramer, but the real theologians have taught otherwise. here's how they explain it.
According to divine law, a heretic is to be avoided (vitandus) after two warnings (Titus 3:10-11), and divine law makes no exceptions for the case of an heretical Pope. Therefore, if the Pope remains hardened in heresy after being warned twice by the ecclesia docens, the same ecclesia docens can, in accord with divine law, command the faithful that the heretic must be avoided. The authority, in this case, is being exercised by the ecclesia docens over the ecclesia discens (the faithful), not over the Pope. Now, since a Pope that must be avoided is unable to govern those who are legally obliged to avoid him, the vitandus declaration induces a disposition into the matter (the person of the Pope) that renders him incapable of exercising the office - that is, the disposition is incompatible with the exercise of the form (authority of the Pontificate.) Consequently, according to the 4th Opinion, God freely responds to the legitimate commend to avoid the Pope, which is based on divine law itself, by withdrawing the form from the matter, and thereby authoritatively deposing the Pope. Nothing about that opinion entails the Church exercising jurisdiction or any coercive power over the Pope, and nothing about that opinion contradicts anything that was taught by Vatican I.
Don Paolo: In order to exercise power over the conjunction between the papacy and the pope, a council would first have to exercise the necessary jurisdiction to judge the pope guilty of heresy, and to exercise a jurisdiction over the whole Church.
No it wouldn't. The judgement of heresy is a discretionary judgment, not a juridical or coactive judgment. It exercises no more jurisdiction or authority over a Pope than you did on April 30th, when you judged Pope Benedict to be a heretic. Then, after you judged the Pope (or the one you thought was Pope while you were arriving at your judgement), you publicly stated that the Papal See is to be presumed vacant and "exhort[ed] the few remaining Catholic prelates and clergy" to accept your judgment by presuming that same.
The difference between a discretionary judgment and your private judgment, is that the former is a legitimate public judgment by members of the ecclesi docens who have a right to render it, whereas yours is an illicit judgment by usurpation. What the two have in common is that neither exercise jurisdiction or authority over the Pope.
Don Paolo: ... a true pope cannot be a heretic, because in virtue of Christ's prayer that Peter's faith not fail, the pope's faith cannot fail.
The Church has never taught that Christ’s promise of unfailing faith means a successor of Peter is unable to lose his personal faith.
Christ’s prayer contained two distinct promises: one that St. Peter would never lose his personal faith, and another that prevented him from err when he taught ‘As Pope,” by defining a doctrine for the universal Church. According to tradition, only the second privilege was passed on to St. Peter’s Successors.
Bellarmine: “… the promise of the Lord in Luke XXII, as we find it in the Greek: ‘Simon, Simon, behold, Satan has asked for you that he might sift you like wheat, yet I have prayed for thee that thy faith would not fail…’ (...) the true exposition is that the Lord asked for two privileges for Peter. One, that he could not ever lose the true faith insofar as he was tempted by the Devil (…) The second privilege is that he, as Pope, could never teach something against the faith, or that there would never be found one in his See who would teach against the true faith. From these privileges, we see that the first did not remain to his successors, but the second without a doubt did.”
The second privilege – infallibility when teaching ‘as Pope’ – is what the First Vatican Council defined in Chapter IV of Pastor Aeternus.
The first privilege, which was not passed on to Peter’s successors, was a habitual operating grace (gratia gratum faciens) that benefited the person of St. Peter. The second privilege is a charism (gratia gratis data) that was given to Peter for the good of the Church. The first was a species of impeccability (relative impeccability) that prevented St. Peter from falling into sin heresy and losing the faith; the second was a conditional infallibility that prevented him from erring (even materially) when he taught ‘as Pope’. When St. Peter died, the second privilege remained attached to his teaching office (Magisterium), to be enjoyed by his Successors, for the good of the Church.
When Bellarmine said the second privilege prevents a Pope from erring when he teaches, ‘as Pope’, he meant when he teaches ex-cathedra, which is how the phrase has always been understood.. In his book, On the Word of God, Bellarmine explains that this is how the Pope have always understood Christ’s promise of unfailing faith, as it relates to the teaching of St. Peter’s successors. He writes:
Bellarmine: “‘I have prayed for you that your faith may not fail; and when you have been converted, strengthen your brethren’ (Luke 22:31). From this text St. Bernard in letter 90 to Pope Innocent deduced that the Roman Pontiff, teaching ex cathedra, cannot err; and before him the same was said by Pope Lucius I in letter 1 to the Bishops of Spain and France, by Pope Felix I in a letter to Benignus, Pope Mark in a letter to Athanasius, Leo I in sermon 3 … Leo IX in a letter to Peter, Patriarch of Antioch, Agatho in a letter to the Emperor Constantine IV which was read at the sixth council (act. 4 and again act 8 and approved by the whole Council, Pope Paschal II at the Roman Council … Innocent III in the chapter, Majores on Baptism and its effect. Therefore, if the Roman Pontiff cannot err when he is teaching ex cathedra, certainly his judgment must be followed (…). For we read Acts ch.15 that the Council said, ‘It has seemed good to the Holy Spirit and to us;’ such also now is the Pontiff teaching ex cathedra, whom we showed is always directed by the Holy Spirit so that he cannot err.” (Bellarmine, On the Word of God, lib. 3, cap 5.)
Bellarmine’s explanation of when the second privilege prevents a Pope from erring is identical to what Vatican I defined more than two centuries later.
Suarez provides a lengthy explanation Christ’s promise of unfailing faith in his book Against the Anglicans, and likewise distinguishes between the two privileges. In Chapter five he begins by explaining that the Promise was not only for St. Peter personally, but was primarily for his office, which was to remain in the Church forever:
Suarez: “Hence, just as this office [i.e., that of an infallible teacher] is necessary in the Church for the preservation of the true faith, so those words [i.e., ‘Feed my sheep’] were said to Peter by reason of a pastoral office that was going to flow perpetually into the Church and remain there always; therefore too the (…) promise, that ‘thy faith fail not,’ was made, not merely to the person [of Peter], but to the office and See of Peter. For that is why Christ specially prayed for him and gained that privilege for him, because the office of strengthening the brethren required that help on the part of God; therefore, as the office was going to be perpetual in the See of Peter, so also the privilege.”
In chapter six, he uses the distinction between the two privileges to refute the heretics of his day, who were convinced that certain popes had fallen into personal heresy, and believed it proved that Christ’s Promise was not passed on to St. Peter’s successors. Suarez replied as follows:
Suarez: “There is open to view a received distinction between the Pontiff as believer, as a private person, and as teacher, as he is as Pontiff. For we say that the promise of Christ pertains to him as taken in the second way; (…) when considering the person of the Pontiff in the first way, even Catholics are in disagreement about whether a Pontiff could be a heretic, and the quarrel is still undecided whether some Pontiff was a heretic, not by presumption alone, but really such. (…) So for the sake of avoiding controversy we easily grant that it is not necessary for the promise of Christ to extend to the person of the Pontiff as an individual believer.
“But if someone insists that the person of Peter as individual believer could for the same reason have defected from the faith, notwithstanding the promise of Christ, we reply first that the reasoning is not the same for Peter, because to him was the promise immediately made, and therefore it was made to him not only as to his office but also as to his person; but to the others it only descended by succession, and therefore it was communicated to them as successors of Peter.”
Once again, we see that only St. Peter received the guarantee of unfailing personal faith (first privilege), while the second remained attached to the Petrine office to be enjoyed by his successors. In later chapters, Suarez confirms that infallibility (second privilege) only applies when the Pope is defining a doctrine, ex cathedra.
The famous biblical commentary by Cornelius a Lapide, S. J., makes the same distinction between the two privileges, and likewise notes that only the second was passed on to St. Peter’s successors. The renowned canonist, Fr. Paul Laymann, S.J., explains why the first privilege was not:
Fr. Laymann, S.J.: “It is more probable that the Supreme Pontiff, as concerns his own person, could fall into heresy, even a notorious one (…) The proof of the assertion is that neither Sacred Scripture nor the tradition of the Fathers indicates that such a privilege was granted by Christ to the Supreme Pontiffs; therefore, the privilege is not to be asserted. The first part of the proof is shown from the fact that the promises made by Christ to St. Peter cannot be transferred to the other Supreme Pontiffs insofar as they are private persons, but only as the successors of Peter in the pastoral office of teaching, etc.” (Moral Theology, bk. 2, tract 1, ch. 7).
Lastly, when theologians, such as Bellarmine, appeal to Christ’s promise of unfailing faith to show why it is unlikely that a Pope will fall into personal heresy, they only use the promise as an indirect way of supporting the position. Bellarmine, for example, refers directly to the second privilege (infallibility in teaching) and argues that it seems to be more in accord with the Providence of God that he, who is preserved from teaching heresy when he defines a doctrine, will also be preserved by God from falling into personal heresy – not because preserving the Pope's personal faith is necessary for him to teach infallibly (as Bellarmine admits), but simply because Bellarmine believes not permitting the Pope to fall into heresy seems to be more in according with “the sweet Providence of God” which “disposes all things well” – the same sweet Providence of God, which disposes all things well, that permitted Lucifer – the Head of the Angles - to apostatize and bring about the fall of a third of the angles; that permitted Adam – the Head of the human face – to fall into sin, resulting in the loss of millions of souls; and that permitted the High Priest and head of the Old Covenant Church to reject Christ and have him put to death, thereby causing the Fall of His once-chosen people.
With all due respect to Bellarmine, if history is any indication of the future/present, the sweet Providence of God, which disposes all things well, will indeed permit a Pope (or series of Popes), at a critical juncture - such as the time of the Antichrist - to fall into heresy, and bring about yet another great apostasy that begins at the top. Which is precisely what those who’ve read the Third Secret say it predicts: “In the Third Secret, it is foretold, among other things, that the great apostasy in the Church will begin at the top.” (Cardinal Ciappi).
-
The Pope can be judged with a discretionary judgment, which is a legitimate judgement, but one that lacks any juridical or coercive power over the Pope. If you deny that a Pope can be judged by a discretionary judgement, not only are you in manifest disagreement with Bellarmine, St. Alphonsus, and countless other theologians I could cite, but you are disagreement with the Popes who willingly submitted to a discretionary judgment of an Emperor or council, such as Popes Sixtus III, Leo III, Leo IX, and others.
As I've pointed out before, you completely misconstrue the notion of discretionary judgment. As Torquemada points out, it's nothing more than a finding of fact. The POPE is not being judged per se, but rather the truth of the proposition that "Bergoglio (for instance) has ceased to be pope." At that point, Bergoglio, no longer being pope, having been deposed by God formally from office, can be judged and punished, and the material office (designation) removed from him by the Church. It is not the Pope that is the object of such a discretionary judgment, but rather the fact that he has ceased to be pope.
So the object of this discretionary judgment is NOT the Pope, for a Pope cannot be judged, but rather the proposition, the fact, that Bergoglio (or whoever) has ceased to be pope. Discretionary judgment is nothing more than a finding of fact. In this case, the Church is not judging the pope, but making a judgement ABOUT the former pope. There's no "exception" here where suddenly the pope can be judged by men.
That is why in the quote you cited above, Pope Innocent III, states that "he can be judged by men, or rather, he can be shown to be already judged". This showing to have been already judged is what is meant by discretionary judgment.
Pope St. Clement states, along the same lines, that Nestorius was rendered incapable of exercising his office "by divine sentence/judgment."
So, the sequence is this ...
1) Pope is a heretic.
2) Pope is judged by God and no longer formally exercises the office.
3) The Church judges that #2 has in fact happened (the discretionary judgment)
4) The Church removes the material office.
If you put the teaching of Innocent III and Pope St. Clement together, this is very obvious.
It is clear that GOD formally removes the papal authority and the Church removes the material office.
-
So there are clearly two judgments here, a divine judgment and a subsequent judgement by the Church. Both Pope St. Clement and Pope Innocent III refer to a prior divine judgment followed by a subsequent judgment by the Church. By the time the Church judges, the pope, or, rather, former pope, has already been judged by God.
This is not that difficult if you apply the material-formal distinction to papal authority.
In no way can the Church's judgment be the CAUSE of the Pope's formal loss of authority. At best you can argue that the judgment of God (quoad se) only comes to be KNOWN quoad nos when the Church determines that it has in fact happened.
-
Hello Father,
It's common knowledge that you attended Holy Apostles Seminary in Cromwell, CT. Could you please enlighten us as to your ordination details?
Were you ordained in the new or traditional rite? If traditional, was your ordaining bishop consecrated in the new or traditional rite? And finally, if your ordination was in the new rite and/or the ordaining bishop was consecrated in the new rite, did you receive or are you considering ordination sub conditione by a traditional bishop in the traditional rite?
I am also interested in hearing his response to the last question.
-
Here John of St. Thomas answers the objection that a heretical pope must be tolerated. He says that a heretical Pope may be deposed, but if that he is tolerated, that he must still be obeyed and listened to, because he still has power and jurisdiction:
Theological argument (given in the Thomistic style/method)
John of St. Thomas wrote:
"The reason that we must separate ourselves from heretics, according to Titus 3:10 "A man that is a heretic, after the first and second admonition, avoid (devita) him." Now, one should not avoid one that remains in the [Sovereign] Pontificate; on the contrary, the church should instead be unitied with him, or he must be deposed from the Pontificate.
The first solution leads to the obvious destruction of the Church, and has inherently the risk that the whole ecclesiastical government errs, if she has to follow a heretical head. In addition, as the heretic is an enemy of the Church, natural law provides protection against such a Pope according to the rules of self-defense, because she can defend herself against an enemy as is a heretical Pope; therefore, she can act (in justice) against him. So, in any case, it is necessary that such a Pope must be deposed.
Response to an objection
An objection: Christ the Lord tolerated, in the Chair of Moses, infidels and heretics, like the Pharisees: "The scribes and Pharisees have sitten on the chair of Moses. All things therefore whatsoever they shall say to you, observe and do: but according to their works, do ye not; for they say, and do not." (Mt 23:2-3). But the Pharisees were heretics and taught false doctrines according to the various superstitions and traditions, says St. Jerome in his commentary on chapter 8 Isaiah. St. Epiphanius lists their errors (Panarion, 1. 1, c.16) and Josephus (Jєωιѕн War, 1. 2, c 7 on the end) and Baronius (annals, v. 7). So on the Chair of Peter, too, one must tolerate a heretic and an infidel because he can (can't?) define a heresy or error and thus the Church will
always be free from error.
I answer that Christ the Lord did not order that Pharisees be tolerated in the Chair of Moses, even if they are declared heretics, or that any heretic or infidel should be kept in the priesthood or Papacy, but he only gave this counsel in case they are tolerated there. If they are not yet declared and deposed from their chair, the faithful should listen to them and obey them, because they keep their power and jurisdiction; however, if the Church wants to declare them a heretic and no longer tolerate them, Christ the Lord does not prohibit it by the words above."
http://www.dominicansavrille.us/on-the-deposition-of-the-pope-part-1-of-2/
-
As I've pointed out before, you completely misconstrue the notion of discretionary judgment. As Torquemada points out, it's nothing more than a finding of fact. The POPE is not being judged per se, but rather the truth of the proposition that "Bergoglio (for instance) has ceased to be pope." ... It is not the Pope that is the object of such a discretionary judgment, but rather the fact that he has ceased to be pope.
No, you're interpreting it through the lens of how you believe a Pope loses his office. Bellarmine is clear that the discretionary judgment precedes the loss of office and jurisdiction, if the heretical Pope has not publicly separated himself from the Church. Put another way, the judgment is a condition for the loss ipso facto loss of office to take place; and if the condition is not met the heretic remains Pope. Read again what Bellarmine wrote.
Bellarmine: But it is certain, whatever one or another may think, that an occult heretic, if he be a bishop or even the supreme Pontiff, does not lose his jurisdiction, or dignity, or the title of head in the Church, until either he publicly separates himself from the Church or, being convicted of heresy (aut convictus haereseos), is separated against his will.” (Bellarmine, De Ecclesia Militante, cap x).
If the heretical pope has not publicly separated himself from the Church, he will retain his jurisdiction, dignity, and title of the head of the Church "until" he is convicted of heresy. The conviction is the condition required for the loss of office to take place.
And again, notice what the condition is: it is not the determination that he's no longer the Pope. It's the determination that he's a heretic. The "conviction of heresy" is the condition, and that's what the antecedent discretionary judgment determines.
And the heretical Pope who doesn't publicly separate himself from the Church isn't simply a "Material Pope" before he is convicted. He's the true Pope, with jurisdiction.
Ladislaus (https://www.cathinfo.com/index.php?topic=53675.msg674573#msg674573) That is why in the quote you cited above, Pope Innocent III, states that "he can be judged by men, or rather, he can be shown to be already judged". This showing to have been already judged is what is meant by discretionary judgment.
You are confusing two things. You're assuming that if a Pope has been "judged by God," it means he's been "deposed by God." You are equating judging with deposing, or at least presupposing that if God judges a Pope or bishop to be a heretic, he would immediately depose them (if it applies to a Pope, it would also have to apply to a bishop). If that were the case, a bishop or Pope who committed the sin of heresy by an internal act alone would immediately be deposed by God, since God judges heresy even if it is entirely occult. Consequently, it would be impossible for the Church to ever know if the person it recognized as Pope is a true Pope or a false Pope, a believer or a pretender. It would be just as impossible for the Church to ever know if a true Pope or false Pope defined this or that dogma, or ratified this or that council. The foundation of the faith would be undermined, everything would be uncertain, and all any heretic would have to do to justify their rejection of a dogma is cast doubt on the Pope who defined it, or at least convince themselves that he had committed the sin of heresy in his heart.
The same problem exists if you believe a man can be a "material pope," but not a formal pope, which is simply another post-Vatican II novelty. What's to stop anyone who's embraced that novelty from concluding that the Pope who defined a dogma that they don't particularly care for was only a material pope, and not a formal pope, and then rejecting the dogma on that basis? Especially when, according to Bishop Sanborn, all it takes for a bishop or Pope who legally holds office to be prevented from acquiring the authority (form) of the office, is the "hidden intention" to undermine the faith. But how is anyone supposed to know what another man secretly intends? That requires a judgment of the internal forum, which the Church herself does not judge (except in confession). Yet somehow the Great Bishop Sanborn who promotes this idiotic post-Vatican II novelty, is able to "discern" that all the popes since Pius XII and all the 5000 + bishop alive today who he's never met (and couldn't name) had the hidden intention to destroy the faith when they were lawfully appointed/elected to their office, and consequently never received the authority of the office. What's to stop Bishop Sanborn, or anyone else who embraces that absurd theory, from discerning that a few dozen other Popes - such as Pius IX - had the hidden intention to destroy the faith too, and then reject their papacies, and the dogmas they defined, on that basis?
The point being, Christ is not going to secretly depose a Pope just because he judges him to have committed the sin of heresy. The Church is a visible society, and contrary to what Sedevacantists have been led to believe and have led so many others to believe, no bishop loses their office or jurisdiction ipso facto for heresy, or for anything else, as long as they remain in peaceful possession of their see, and are recognized as holding office by the Church. In fact, even if a Bishop does not legally hold office, for whatever reason, but is thought to have been legally appointed to office, and is commonly believed to hold the office, the Church will supply jurisdiction for the governance of his diocese (for both the internal and external forum), and all his acts of jurisdiction will be just as valid is they would if he did legally hold office. In other words, he will be the bishop quoad nos just as much as he would be if he did legally hold office. And the same principle applies to the Pope, the only differing being that the jurisdiction in that case would be supplied by Christ, not the Church.
-
No, you're interpreting it through the lens of how you believe a Pope loses his office.
No, I'm interpreting it from the words of Pope St. Celestine and Pope Innocent III. Both of them clearly outline a DIVINE JUDGMENT preceding the Church's judgment. Each of these judgments has different effects. Pope St. Celestine describes a loss of jurisdiction (as interpreted by Cardinal Billot) that takes place FROM THE MOMENT someone begins preaching heresy. So you're at odds with Cardinal Billot's interpretaton of Pope St. Celestine, as Billot clearly states that Nestorius lost episcopal jurisdiction from the time he began preaching the heresy, some three years before the Church materially stripped the office from him.
-
Bellarmine: But it is certain, whatever one or another may think, that an occult heretic, if he be a bishop or even the supreme Pontiff, does not lose his jurisdiction, or dignity, or the title of head in the Church, until either he publicly separates himself from the Church or, being convicted of heresy (aut convictus haereseos), is separated against his will.” (Bellarmine, De Ecclesia Militante, cap x).
Why are you constantly ignoring the word OCCULT in this quotation? That is the key to understanding this quote properly.
-
So, according to your position, if a Pope had been elected who was an Arian, at a time when the majority of the world's bishops were Arians, and therefore no General Council could be called in order to "depose" him, he would remain pope indefinitely and continue to exercise papal authority. That is preposterous on the face of it.
-
What's to stop anyone who's embraced that novelty from concluding that the Pope who defined a dogma that they don't particularly care for was only a material pope, and not a formal pope, and then rejecting the dogma on that basis?
That's because the dogmatic certainty regarding the pope would be present a priori to the dogmatic definition. If a Pope enjoyed universal peaceful acceptance prior to said dogmatic definition, then that dogmatic definition likewise enjoys the certainty of faith. This isn't difficult. You cannot argue modo tollentis from a dogma you don't like towards the illegitimacy of a pope who defined it. There has to be some independent suspicion of heresy, and the data points that render the Vatican II papal claimants suspect of heresy are myriad. Entire books have been written on the heretical associations of Angelo Roncalli, suspect of Modernism even by the Vatican in his day, the heresies of Montini, Wojtyla, Ratzinger, and Bergoglio. Their heretical or suspect propositions could fill volumes.
We have the entire Traditional movement rejecting the teaching authority of the V2 papal claimants, and very few of them holding the legitimacy of these papal claimants to be dogmatically certain, and what remains in the Novus Ordo is 95% heretically corrupt (by their own polling data).
For as much as you claim to be a promoter of Bellarmine, I'd love to send you back in a time machine and have you tell Bellarmine that you believe the Magisterium could become corrupt and unreliable as a whole and that the Church could promulgate a Rite of Mass that is harmful to souls and must be avoided. You would not return from your journey, since you would be burned at the stake. You're doing little more than your sophistic distortion of Church teaching regarding the case of a heretical pope than to reject the overall indefectibility of the Church.
-
Cardinal Billot regarding Pope St. Celestine and Nestorius:
Therefore you see that a bishop who is a heretic in secret is still vested with the power of binding and loosing, since he loses episcopal jurisdiction and the power of excommunication only from the time at which he begins to preach heresy openly. Furthermore, the conclusion is readily seen. For if he who is not in the Church cannot possess authority in relation to the Church, and a occult heretic can have authority — better still, at some time possesses it in reality — it clearly follows that a occult heretic has not yet been cut off from the body of the Church.
Like the Bellarmine quote where you consistently ignore the word "occult", Billot states that JURISDICTION IS LOST FROM THE TIME THAT HERESY IS PREACHED OPENLY. Billot is saying that the heresy becomes manifest from the moment heresy is preached openly ... and not when the Church finally "convicts" him of heresy. And this state of lost authority happened as a result of the divine judgment.
-
Bellarmine cites TWO different paths by which heresy transitions from occult to manifest ...
1) the Pope separates himself
OR
2) the Pope is "convicted" against his will.
You gratuitously limit #1 to open apostasy. "I, Bergoglio, have become a Buddhist."
But there's no indication that it's limited to apostasy.
If Bergoglio were to come out and say, "I know that the Church teaches otherwise, but I don't believe that a consecrated host becomes the Body of Christ."
According to your preposterous interpretation, Bergoglio would stay in office until some kind of declaration of the Church.
But I submit that he would immediately become a manifest heretic at that point. That falls into the category of self-separation.
Billot, who knew Bellarmine better than you do, places Nestorius in this same category, Bellarmine's category #1 of someone who had separated himself by heresy.
So your assertion that some kind of formal declaration is required in order for a Pope to be deposed is based on your gratuitous assertion that only in the case of formal apostasy does a Pope "separate himself" without some "conviction" by the Church.
And your second error is to equate "conviction" with a legal judgment against the Pope. While it CAN mean that, the term convincere does not NECESSARILY connote a legal conviction in the modern legal sense. In modern English, of course, when we say that a person was "convicted of a crime", its meaning is obvious. But in Latin, the term is used more broadly, to mean that the allegation "sticks" or is "bound" to someone. It means little more than that the Church has BECOME CONVINCED that the man is a heretic. There need be no declaration or legal proceeding or specific formula.
-
Why are you constantly ignoring the word OCCULT in this quotation? That is the key to understanding this quote properly.
I wasn’t ignoring it, just waiting for someone to bring it up before I addressed it.
The first point is that when considering how heresy separates a person from the Church, the distinction to be consider is between notorious and occult heresy. Material heretics, Formal heretics, Public heretics, etc., (when these terms are properly understood), are all notorious heretics and outside the Church. So only notorious and occult heresy relate to this question.
Now, occult heresy can be understood as the sin of heresy committed by an interior act alone (entirely occult), or the sin of heresy combined with externally heretical acts (externally occult.) Both legally and theologically, the internal mortal sin of heresy combined with externally heretics acts – even if the heretical acts are performed publicly for all the world to see– are only considered occult, if they do not rise to the level of heretical notoriety by fact. In other words, everything less than notorious by fact, is occult. (Whether you know it or not, the Material Hierarchy Thesis that you yourself hold is based on this.)
Cardinal Billot wrote: Heretics are divided into occult and notorious. Occult heretics are, in the first place, those who by a purely internal act disbelieve dogmas of faith proposed by the Church. Those also are occult, who do indeed manifest their heresy by external signs, but not by a public profession. You will easily understand that many men of our times fall into the latter category—those, namely, who either doubt or positively disbelieve matters of faith, and do not disguise the state of their mind in the private affairs of life, but who have never expressly renounced the faith of the Church, and, when they are asked categorically about their religion, declare of their own accord that they are Catholics.”
In case you’re wondering, the phrase “by a public profession,” means by a “notorious profession.” A notorious profession is essentially a public admission of heresy. Without getting to far into this point, suffice it to say that none of the recent Popes have been guilty of a notorious profession of heresy.
Fr. Glieze provides the canonical explanation for why heresy that is not notorious is reduced to occult: “In a strictly juridical sense, we speak only about occult or notorious heresy, and the notion of public heresy is reduced to that of occult heresy. In this juridical sense (which is the sense used in canon law), any external act that has not been noted by the authority is occult.”
Cardinal Billot provides the theological explanation. He begins by noting that “Baptism, of its very nature gathers men into the visible body of the Catholic Church, and its effect will always be joined to it, unless there be something in the recipient of baptism that prevents it—something incompatible with the social bond of ecclesiastical unity.” He goes on to explain that as long as heresy “stays within the mind, or is confined to manifestations that do not suffice for notoriety, it by no means prevents one from being joined to the visible structure of the Church; and by this fact the baptismal character (by which we are made to be of the body of the Church) necessarily continues to have its effect, or rather retains its natural corollary, since there is not yet anything contrary to impede or expel it.”
Only heresy that suffices for notoriety will sever the juridical bond (or social bond) of “profession of the true Faith." If the heresy is not notorious with a notoriety of fact, baptism will continue to produce its effect and the heretic will remain united to the Body of the Church - unless, of course, he openly leaves the Church of how own accord, which will sever the juridical bond of communion.
Here’s how the Catholic Encyclopedia defines notoriety:
Catholic Encyclopedia: “Notoriety is the quality or the state of things that are notorious; whatever is so fully or officially proved, that it may and ought to be held as certain without further investigation, is notorious. (…) Notoriety, in addition to this common idea, involves the idea of indisputable proof, so that what is notorious is held as proved and serves as a basis for the conclusions and acts of those in authority, especially judges. (…) Canonists have variously classified the legal effects of notoriety, especially in matters of procedure; but, ultimately, they may all be reduced to one: the judge, and in general the person in authority, holding what is notorious to be certain and proved, requires no further information, and therefore, both may and ought to refrain from any judicial inquiry, proof, or formalities, which would otherwise be necessary.”
For heresy to be deemed notorious by fact, a judge would have to consider it so clearly proven that no further investigation is required. And if the heretical acts do not meet that criterion, they are occult and the person is only considered an occult heretic, both legally and theologically.
-
John of St. Thomas wrote (here he describes the issue of occult heresy regarding a Pope as well as the two conditions that are needed in order to depose a Pope for heresy):
Two Conditions
"But we need to know if the Pope can be deposed in any case of heresy and in whatever form of being a heretic.; or if some additional conditions are needed without which heresy alone is not sufficient to depose the Pontiff.
I answer that the Pontiff cannot be deposed and lose his pontificate except if two conditions are fulfilled together:
1) That the heresy is not hidden, but publicly and legally notorious;
2) then that he must be incorrigible and pertinacious in his heresy.
If both conditions are fulfilled the Pontiff may be deposed, but not without them; and even if he is not unfaithful interiorly, however if he behaves externally as a heretic, he can be deposed and the sentence of deposition will be valid.
Concerning the first requirement, among some Catholics are of a different opinion, saying that even for occult heresy [Editor: occult = "hidden," "not visible"], the Pontiff loses his Papal jurisdiction, which is based on the true Faith and right confession of Faith; supporting this opinion we have Torquemada (1,2p. from v. 18 and 1. 2, c. 102) Paludanus, Castro, Simancus, Driedo […]
Others think that it is necessary that the heresy must be external and proved in the external forum in order that the Pontiff can be deposed of the pontificate; thus Soto (4 sent. D. 22 q.2.2); Cano (from Locis 1.4), who believes that the contrary opinion is not even probable; Catejan (On the pope's power, De Comparatione auctoritatis papae and concilii cuм apologia eiusdem tractatus, Rome, Angelicuм, 1936; c.18 and 19), Suarez, Azorius, Bellarmine (On the Roman Pontiff, c.30).
The principle is that occult heretics, as long as they are not condemned by the Church and being separated [by her] belong to the Church and are in communion with her, as like being moved from the exterior, even if they do not receive any more interiorly the vital movement; therefore, the Pontiff, if he is an occult heretic, is not separated from the Church; therefore, he can still be the head, since he is still a part and a member, even if he is not a living one.
A confirmation of it is that priests of a lower order can exercise the power of order and jurisdiction without Faith because a heretical priest can confer the sacraments in cases of extreme need […]
The second condition, in order to be able to depose the Pope, namely that he is guilty of incorrigible and pertinacious heresy, is evident, because if someone is ready to be corrected and is not pertinacious in heresy, is not considered to be heretical (Decree of Gratian, No. 24. 3. 29 "Dixit Apostolus"); therefore, if the Pope is ready to be corrected, he should not be deposed as a heretic.
The Apostle [Paul] prescribes to avoid heretics only after a first and second correction: if he comes to repentance after the correction, he should not be avoided; therefore, as the Pope must be deposed for heresy under this apostolic precept, it follows that if he can be corrected, he should not be deposed."
http://www.dominicansavrille.us/on-the-deposition-of-the-pope-part-1-of-2/
-
Hello Father,
It's common knowledge that you attended Holy Apostles Seminary in Cromwell, CT. Could you please enlighten us as to your ordination details?
Were you ordained in the new or traditional rite? If traditional, was your ordaining bishop consecrated in the new or traditional rite? And finally, if your ordination was in the new rite and/or the ordaining bishop was consecrated in the new rite, did you receive or are you considering ordination sub conditione by a traditional bishop in the traditional rite?
Father Paul Kramer is an Irish-American native of Bristol, Connecticut, USA, who studied philosophy and theology in Rome at the Pontifical University of St. Thomas Aquinas during the 1970s, and was ordained to the priesthood on April, 20, 1980 by Bishop Vittorio M. Costantini O.F.M. Conv. in the Cathedral of Sessa Aurunca (CA) Italy. Fr. Kramer served in parish ministry in Germany, Philippines, USA, and has carried out various missions in other countries, including Canada, Italy, Brazil, India, Ireland, Portugal, Spain, and England. Fr. Kramer is currently retired, and is living in Ireland. Fr. Kramer was a close collaborator with the world famous “Fatima Priest”, Fr. Nicholas Gruner from 1986 until the latter’s untimely death in April 2015; at whose request this book has been written, and to whose memory it is dedicated. - Source (https://www.cathinfo.com/crisis-in-the-church/'to-deceive-the-elect'-by-fr-paul-kramer-now-available/msg669229/#msg669229)
Thank you for providing that biography, Stubborn. This is the narration which can be also found on the new book's jacket cover. However, it still lacks answers to specific questions.
Father, although it does provide information about your ordaining bishop, +Vittorio Constantini, who in 1962 was consecrated in the traditional rite, we're still uncertain about the details of your ordination. Was it in the new rite or the traditional rite? Having been ordained in a Diocesan Cathedral in 1980, it may be safe to assume that it was in the new rite; was this the case, Father? And if yes, have your ever received a traditional rite ordination sub conditione by a traditional bishop?
Thank you, Father, we would be very grateful if you-yourself could answer these questions from the faithful.
-
DELETED
-
Hello Father,
It's common knowledge that you attended Holy Apostles Seminary in Cromwell, CT. Could you please enlighten us as to your ordination details?
Father Kramer's bio (https://fatima.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/02/The-ѕυιcιdє-of-Altering-the-Faith-in-the-Liturgy.pdf)in The ѕυιcιdє of Altering the Faith, says "M.Div., Holy Apostles College, Cromwell, Connecticut, U.S.A., 1987-1988."
Holy Apostles College lists their graduates on their website (https://holyapostles.edu/story-of-holy-apostles/graduates-1977-present/) by year and Fr. Kramer's name is not there.
-
Fr. Kramer's name is on the diploma issued by Holy Apostles College and Seminary on 1 August 1988; signed by Fr. Francis Lescoe (President and Rector, Fr. Bradley Pierce (Secretary, Board of Directors), Sr. Mary Reagan (Academic Dean), and Bro. Daniel Karempelis (Registrar). A photo of the diploma will appear presently on my facebook page.
-
"PaxChristi2" has quoted Innocent III entirely out of context in order to invert Pope Innocent's meaning. Innocent explicitly and categorically taught that for so long as a pope is reigning, no one on earth may judge him -- if the pope were to "wither away into heresy"; then he could be "shown to be already judged" , i.e., proven to have already fallen from office, following the doctrine of his mentor, Huguccio of Pisa. I have devoted an entire section of my book to the doctrine of Innocent III on this point. One cannot determine his meaning by quoting little snippets out of context as "PaxChristi2" has done.
-
Salza and Sicoe's entire mis-interpretation of Bellarmine rests on arbitrarily restricting Bellarmine's reference to defecting from the Church on his own to someone who formally apostasizes.
This is rejected by the Canon Lawyers who have commented on the related canons.
https://stevensperay.wordpress.com/2016/03/17/canon-188-4-and-defection-of-faith-why-john-salza-and-robert-siscoe-get-it-wrong-part-iii/ (https://stevensperay.wordpress.com/2016/03/17/canon-188-4-and-defection-of-faith-why-john-salza-and-robert-siscoe-get-it-wrong-part-iii/)
All the Canonists agree that both apostasy AND heresy constitute a defection from faith (in the context of the canon under discussion) ... whether there being some dispute among the canonists whether schism that does not involve heresy counts as defection from the faith.
And the Canonists also agree that the resignation from office is not "in the nature of a penalty".
-
Salza and Sicoe's entire mis-interpretation of Bellarmine rests on arbitrarily restricting Bellarmine's reference to defecting from the Church on his own to someone who formally apostasizes.
This is rejected by the Canon Lawyers who have commented on the related canons.
https://stevensperay.wordpress.com/2016/03/17/canon-188-4-and-defection-of-faith-why-john-salza-and-robert-siscoe-get-it-wrong-part-iii/ (https://stevensperay.wordpress.com/2016/03/17/canon-188-4-and-defection-of-faith-why-john-salza-and-robert-siscoe-get-it-wrong-part-iii/)
All the Canonists agree that both apostasy AND heresy constitute a defection from faith (in the context of the canon under discussion) ... whether there being some dispute among the canonists whether schism that does not involve heresy counts as defection from the faith.
And the Canonists also agree that the resignation from office is not "in the nature of a penalty".
Excellent!
-
I think that the confusion is this ...
MAJOR: Legitimate Pope cannot become a heretic.
MINOR: Bergoglio is a heretic.
CONCLUSION: Therefore, Bergoglio was never a legitimate pope.
I would add:
MAJOR: A heretic (non Catholic) cannot validly be elected pope
MINOR: Bergoglio was a heretic before his “election”.
CONCLUSION: Therefore, Bergoglio was never a legitimate pope.
-
On the Deposition of the Pope
Here, the Dominican theologian John of St. Thomas writes that it is a General Council that should pronounce the declarative sentence of the crime of heresy of a Pope. He also gives examples of Popes who had to defend themselves against charges made against them, in a Council, which appears from the practice of the Church.
John of St. Thomas writes:
"It remains to deal with the second problem: by what authority should the deposition of the Pope be done? And the who issue revolves around two points:
1) The declarative sentence by which the Pope's crime is declared: should it be made by the Cardinals or by the General Council? And if it is by the General Council, by what authority should it be assembled, and on what basis should this Council judge the case?
2) The deposition itself which must follow the declarative sentence of the crime: it is made by the power of the Church, or immediately by Christ, being supposed made the declaration?
1. Who should pronounce the declarative sentence of the crime of heresy?
The declarative sentence should not be made by the cardinals.
On this first point, we must say that the statement of the crime does not come from the Cardinals, but from the General Council.
It appears from the practice of the Church. Indeed, in the case of Marcellinus (Pope from 296-304) about the incense offered to idols, a synod was convened, as stated in the Decree of Gratian (Distinction 21, chapter 7, "Nunc autem"). And in the case of the Great (Western) Schism during which there were three Popes, the Council of Constance was assembled to settle the Schism, Likewise in the case of Pope Symmachus (Pope from 498-514), a Council was convened in Rome to treat the case against him, as reported in Antoine Augustin in his Epitome juris pontificii veteris (Title 13, chapter 14. See also Catholic Encyclopedia, Pope St. Symmachus); and the places in Canon Law quoted above, show that the Pontiffs who wanted to defend themselves against the crimes imputed to them, have done it before a Council.
Then we see that the power to treat the cause of the Pontiff, and what concerns his deposition, was not entrusted to the Cardinals. In the case of deposition, this belongs to the Church, whose authority is represented by a General Council; indeed, to the Cardinal is only entrusted the election, and nothing else, as can be seen in Canon Law [John of St. Thomas refers to what he said earlier in his works]: see Torquemada (Summa, 1.2, c. 93) Catejan (De Comparatione auctori tatis Papae) and the Canonists (on the Decretal of Boniface Vlll (in 6th), chap. "In fideide haereticis" and the Decree of Gratian, Dist. 40).
http://www.dominicansavrille.us/on-the-deposition-of-the-pope-part-1-of-2/
-
On the Deposition of the Pope
Please stop spamming that article into this thread piece by piece. It's obnoxious forum behavior. Anyone could find an article representing their point of view and spam it in. I could easily take the contents of that link I posted just above and spam the entire thing in here also.
-
Please stop spamming that article into this thread piece by piece. It's obnoxious forum behavior. Anyone could find an article representing their point of view and spam it in. I could easily take the contents of that link I posted just above and spam the entire thing in here also.
So....it's getting to you that your beloved opinions are being refuted here. Well, that's how forums work, Ladislaus.
-
All the Canonists agree that both apostasy AND heresy constitute a defection from faith (in the context of the canon under discussion)
Of course, Ladislaus. But what's under dispute is WHEN is one guilty of heresy? PaxChristi2's research argues that this does not apply until the Church rules on the matter. I agree. Once the Church discerns heresy, THEN that person has defected from the faith (or, it can be said that it is established as fact that they defected).
.
The way you explained it above is too general. It glosses over a few steps which must take place first. It's a summary with no detailed process.
-
Of course, Ladislaus. But what's under dispute is WHEN is one guilty of heresy? PaxChristi2's research argues that this does not apply until the Church rules on the matter. I agree. Once the Church discerns heresy, THEN that person has defected from the faith (or, it can be said that it is established as fact that they defected).
.
The way you explained it above is too general. It glosses over a few steps which must take place first. It's a summary with no detailed process.
PaxChristi2 is clearly either Salza or Siscoe.
In any case, he adduced the quote from Bellarmine as proof for the fact that a heretic must be judged by the Church before losing office. But Bellarmine gave two scenarios, one which required no such judgment. S&S got around this by gratuitously claiming that only formal apostasy falls into the first category. So this completely debunks their "research" from Bellarmine.
As for the overall research, there's clear indication (Pope St. Clement, Pope Innocent III, Billot, etc.) that episcopal jurisdiction is lost from the moment that the heretic goes public, and not mere from the time he's judged a heretic by the Church.
What reconciles these statements is the formal-material distinction (which PC2 dismissed with the waive of his hand as a "post-Vatican-II novelty"). This distinction while not explicitly applied by commentators certainly fits with (and reconciles) the different points of view. In other words, there's "research" that backs both points of view, except that these can be reconciled by the material-formal distinction.
As soon as a Pope were to become a public heretic, he would lose authority, but not the material possession of the office, with the latter being lost only by a judgment of the Church.
-
So....it's getting to you that your beloved opinions are being refuted here. Well, that's how forums work, Ladislaus.
No, that is not how forums work. They are intended for discussion and argument, not spamming in entire articles, piece by piece, peppering them in without any regard for whether or not they are pertinent to the current state of the thread.
-
No, that is not how forums work. They are intended for discussion and argument, not spamming in entire articles, piece by piece, peppering them in without any regard for whether or not they are pertinent to the current state of the thread.
Tell ya what. I won't post my next installment of John of St. Thomas' views on deposing a heretical Pope until tomorrow morning. That way, you'll have the whole rest the day today to promote and defend your sedeprivationist views. John of St. Thomas, of course, wasn't a sedeprivationist.
Ta ta until tomorrow morning! :)
-
Of course, Ladislaus. But what's under dispute is WHEN is one guilty of heresy? PaxChristi2's research argues that this does not apply until the Church rules on the matter. I agree. Once the Church discerns heresy, THEN that person has defected from the faith (or, it can be said that it is established as fact that they defected).
.
The way you explained it above is too general. It glosses over a few steps which must take place first. It's a summary with no detailed process.
Pax and Ladislaus, the way Fr. Ballerini (of St. Robert's school) describes it below, loss of office would take place after some kind of warnings or admonitions, such that public pertinacity becomes manifest, “For the person who, admonished once or twice, does not repent, but continues pertinacious in an opinion contrary to a manifest or public dogma - not being able, on account of this public pertinacity to be excused, by any means, of heresy properly so called, which requires pertinacity - this person declares himself openly a heretic. He reveals that by his own will he has turned away from the Catholic Faith and the Church, in such form that now no declaration or sentence of any one whatsoever is necessary to cut him from the body of the Church. (…) Therefore the Pontiff who after such a solemn and public warning by the Cardinals, by the Roman Clergy or even by the Synod, maintained himself hardened in heresy and openly turned himself away from the Church, would have to be avoided, according to the precept of Saint Paul. So that he might not cause damage to the rest, he would have to have his heresy and contumacy publicly proclaimed, so that all might be able to be equally on guard in relation to him. Thus, the sentence which he had pronounced against himself would be made known to all the Church, making clear that by his own will be had turned away and separated himself from the body of the Church, and that in a certain way he had abdicated the Pontificate, which no one holds or can hold if he does not belong to the Church”. From: http://www.catholicapologetics.info/modernproblems/currenterrors/heretical.htm (http://www.catholicapologetics.info/modernproblems/currenterrors/heretical.htm)
-
Pax and Ladislaus, the way Fr. Ballerini (of St. Robert's school) describes it below, loss of office would take place after some kind of warnings or admonitions, such that public pertinacity becomes manifest, “For the person who, admonished once or twice, does not repent, but continues pertinacious in an opinion contrary to a manifest or public dogma - not being able, on account of this public pertinacity to be excused, by any means, of heresy properly so called, which requires pertinacity - this person declares himself openly a heretic. He reveals that by his own will he has turned away from the Catholic Faith and the Church, in such form that now no declaration or sentence of any one whatsoever is necessary to cut him from the body of the Church. (…) Therefore the Pontiff who after such a solemn and public warning by the Cardinals, by the Roman Clergy or even by the Synod, maintained himself hardened in heresy and openly turned himself away from the Church, would have to be avoided, according to the precept of Saint Paul. So that he might not cause damage to the rest, he would have to have his heresy and contumacy publicly proclaimed, so that all might be able to be equally on guard in relation to him. Thus, the sentence which he had pronounced against himself would be made known to all the Church, making clear that by his own will be had turned away and separated himself from the body of the Church, and that in a certain way he had abdicated the Pontificate, which no one holds or can hold if he does not belong to the Church”. From: http://www.catholicapologetics.info/modernproblems/currenterrors/heretical.htm (http://www.catholicapologetics.info/modernproblems/currenterrors/heretical.htm)
Francis was warned publicly by several cardinals. He did not acknowledge his guilt but sidestepped the questions much in the same way that Lying Pencil-Necked Shifty Schiff does.
At the recent Amazon Synod, the synod did nothing about the Pachamama idolatry that was taking place. So, what happens when the synod of bishops and our heretical pope are all heretics and apostates? Isn't that also what happened at Vatican II?
Are the laity, monks, and priests unable to do anything about it? They can be complicit or they can stand up (confefe), remain firm, and resist the pope to his face, much like St. Paul did to St. Peter who was in error over the Gentile question.
Then think about the Arian heresy which infected about 90 percent of the Catholic Church. This heresy lasted more than 100 years. The faith was preserved by devout monastics, devout members of the laity, faithful priests, and only a handful of faithful bishops as the rest were all in heresy.
-
Thank you for providing that biography, Stubborn. This is the narration which can be also found on the new book's jacket cover. However, it still lacks answers to specific questions.
Father, although it does provide information about your ordaining bishop, +Vittorio Constantini, who in 1962 was consecrated in the traditional rite, we're still uncertain about the details of your ordination. Was it in the new rite or the traditional rite? Having been ordained in a Diocesan Cathedral in 1980, it may be safe to assume that it was in the new rite; was this the case, Father? And if yes, have your ever received a traditional rite ordination sub conditione by a traditional bishop?
Thank you, Father, we would be very grateful if you-yourself could answer these questions from the faithful.
Father, with your ongoing activity here and your recent posting on Facebook (https://www.cathinfo.com/sspx-resistance-news/fr-paul-kramer-accuses-cathinfo-of-giving-out-wrong-information-about-him/), it's obvious you have no interest in answering these questions about your ordination details (which some may construe as an answer in itself). That being the case, unless you inform us otherwise, we may assume the following:
1.) In 1980, you were ordained in the new-rite by a bishop who was consecrated in the traditional-rite.
2.) You have yet to receive a traditional-rite ordination sub conditione by a traditional bishop.
Isn't it ironic that someone who has dedicated nearly 400 pages to expressing his opinion finds it so difficult writing a sentence or two in order to clarify legitimate concerns from the faithful?
-
Pax and Ladislaus, the way Fr. Ballerini (of St. Robert's school) describes it below, loss of office would take place after some kind of warnings or admonitions, such that public pertinacity becomes manifest, “For the person who, admonished once or twice, does not repent, but continues pertinacious in an opinion contrary to a manifest or public dogma - not being able, on account of this public pertinacity to be excused, by any means, of heresy properly so called, which requires pertinacity - this person declares himself openly a heretic. He reveals that by his own will he has turned away from the Catholic Faith and the Church, in such form that now no declaration or sentence of any one whatsoever is necessary to cut him from the body of the Church. (…) Therefore the Pontiff who after such a solemn and public warning by the Cardinals, by the Roman Clergy or even by the Synod, maintained himself hardened in heresy and openly turned himself away from the Church, would have to be avoided, according to the precept of Saint Paul. So that he might not cause damage to the rest, he would have to have his heresy and contumacy publicly proclaimed, so that all might be able to be equally on guard in relation to him. Thus, the sentence which he had pronounced against himself would be made known to all the Church, making clear that by his own will be had turned away and separated himself from the body of the Church, and that in a certain way he had abdicated the Pontificate, which no one holds or can hold if he does not belong to the Church”. From: http://www.catholicapologetics.info/modernproblems/currenterrors/heretical.htm (http://www.catholicapologetics.info/modernproblems/currenterrors/heretical.htm)
Even Salza and Siscoe admit that no admonition or warning is necessary when a pope definitively severs the external bonds of unity. So the only disagreement now would be on what constitutes a tacit resignation. Maybe the fact that even the SSPX still rejects the Conciliar magisterium should be a clue about how far along the Conciliar popes are in the tacit resignation process. Requiring them to explicitly say, "I quit the Church" is ridiculous. Freemasons aren't going to do that. By their fruits you shall know them.
-
The declarative sentence must be made by a General Council
John of St. Thomas writes:
"[…] This Council can be convened by the authority of the Church which is in the bishops or the greater majority of them; the Church has, by divine law, the right to separate herself from a heretical Pope, and therefore she has all the means necessary for such a separation; now, a necessary means itself (per se) is to be able to legally prove such a crime; but we cannot prove it legally unless if there is a competent judgment, and in such a serious matter, we cannot have a competent judgment except by the General Council, because it is about the universal head of the Church, so much so that it depends on the judgment of the universal Church, that is to say, of the General Council.
I do not share the opinion of Fr. Suarez who believes that this can be treated by Provincial Councils; indeed, a Provincial Council does not represent the universal Church in a manner that this case can be treated by such authority; and even several Provincial Councils have no such representation or authority.
If this is not about the authority under which one must judge, but about one who has the authority to convene the [General Council], I believe that this is not assigned to a specific person, but it can be done by either the Cardinals who could communicate the news to the bishops, either by the nearest bishops who could tell the others so that all are gathered; or even at the request of princes, not as a summons having coercive force, as when a Pope convenes a Council, but as an "enuntative" convocation that denounces such a crime to the bishops and manifest it in order that they come to bring a remedy. And the Pope cannot annul such a Council or reject it because he is itself part of it (quia ipse est pars) and that the Church has the power, by divine right, to convene the council for this purpose, because she has the right to secede from a heretic."
http://www.dominicansavrille.us/on-the-deposition-of-the-pope-part-1-of-2/
-
How can we ever determine a legitimate deposing council from a schismatic one, except by private interpretation? Normally we rely on the pope's assent to know whether a general council is valid or not, but obviously that won't work in this scenario.
-
Father, with your ongoing activity here and your recent posting on Facebook (https://www.cathinfo.com/sspx-resistance-news/fr-paul-kramer-accuses-cathinfo-of-giving-out-wrong-information-about-him/), it's obvious you have no interest in answering these questions about your ordination details (which some may construe as an answer in itself). That being the case, unless you inform us otherwise, we may assume the following:
1.) In 1980, you were ordained in the new-rite by a bishop who was consecrated in the traditional-rite.
2.) You have yet to receive a traditional-rite ordination sub conditione by a traditional bishop.
Isn't it ironic that someone who has dedicated nearly 400 pages to expressing his opinion finds it so difficult writing a sentence or two in order to clarify legitimate concerns from the faithful?
Bishop Williamson and Fr. Chazal say Fr. Kramer's original ordination is valid and is not in need of re-ordination. Fr. Kramer use to assist the SSPX back in the old days in the Philippines and just a couple of years ago offered mass at Fr. Chazel's "bamboo seminary."
-
Bishop Williamson and Fr. Chazal say Fr. Kramer's original ordination is valid and is not in need of re-ordination. Fr. Kramer use to assist the SSPX back in the old days in the Philippines and just a couple of years ago offered mass at Fr. Chazel's "bamboo seminary."
Can you give us the criteria used by Bishop Williamson and Fr. Chazal in making this determination?
-
Can you give us the criteria used by Bishop Williamson and Fr. Chazal in making this determination?
I do not know the criteria they used, you may want to contact Bishop Williamson for details.
Correspondence for Bishop Williamson:letters@eleisoncomments.com
-
Archbishop Lefebvre, from what I understand, only sometimes re-ordained priests that come to the SSPX from the Novus Ordo. He didn't automatically consider their ordinations invalid.
-
How can we ever determine a legitimate deposing council from a schismatic one, except by private interpretation? Normally we rely on the pope's assent to know whether a general council is valid or not, but obviously that won't work in this scenario.
I've raised this issue before, one of many problems with the S&S (and even John of St. Thomas position). What if we had a majority of the hierarchy infested with heresy, such as during the Arian crisis, and they convened a General Council and deposed a pope?
What if there were an Arian pope and the majority of the bishops were Arians? You'd never be able to get rid of the guy.
Even if there wasn't that scenario, what if a General Council voted 51% - 49% that the Pope was a heretic but the minority 49% refused to accept that? So is a simple majority sufficient to oust a Pope?
Some of this General Council stuff sounds good on paper, but when you think it through, it could become an absolute mess in actual practical application.
-
Here's another huge problem with the S&S position and the General Council nonsense.
Since at the time of convening a General Council, the Pope is still the Pope and still has authority, he could simply declare the Council invalid and shut it down. He'd have all the authority in the world to do so, since he's still the Pope.
Again, the only way that a General Council could validly be convened in order to declare a pope deposed is if he were already in some manner deposed ... e.g., already formally deposed, and the only role of the Council is to declare him materially deposed also.
-
Look, Bergoglio is obviously a heretic. Amor Laetitia is in fact clear-cut heresy. Even several Cardinals came out and said as much.
But because 99% of the Novus Ordo is infested with heretics, or cowards, or lazy men ... NOTHING WILL EVER BE DONE ABOUT IT.
So a heretic pope like Bergoglio could continue to exercise papal authority INDEFINITELY ... since nothing will be done about it.
-
Let's say you have a clear-cut obvious heretic. "I know the Church teaches this, but I don't believe it."
Now some situation, say a major world war, intervenes and prevents there being a General Council.
So this obvious heretic still has papal authority? Until the General Council could be convened, he could depose ever single bishop in the world and replace him with one of his own (people who believe the same heresy)?
In fact, according to the utterly absurd Siscoe and Salza positon, if the bishops tried to convene a General Council, the heretic pope could instantly depose every single one of them before they had a chance to convene the Council ... since he would have the authority to do so. Then he could replace them all with men who hold his heresy ... and prevent any action from being taken against.
One ridiculous argumentum ad absurdum after another that obliterates the S&S position.
-
This is a huge problem for Siscoe and Salza and their followers.
What happens if a group of bishops intends to convene a General Council, and the heretic Pope instantly deposes every single one of the bishops who has agreed to hold such a Council?
You could argue, "oh, well, that would be unjust." No, sorry, there's nothing "unjust" about the Pope replacing a bishop. He's not excommunicating them, just replacing them. He could replace a bishop because he doesn't like his body odor, for any reason, or for no reason, since they serve entirely at his pleasure. If, as per Siscoe and Salza, this man continues to hold authority, then the bishops' authority derives entirely from his appointment of them ... and he has ever right and ability to replace them, for any reason.
This is an absolute check-mate against Siscoe and Salza.
-
How can we ever determine a legitimate deposing council from a schismatic one, except by private interpretation? Normally we rely on the pope's assent to know whether a general council is valid or not, but obviously that won't work in this scenario.
Good question. It is a conundrum. I don't think that the Pope's assent is required, since he will be the one on trial, so to speak. But putting together a Council with the current Modernist hierarchy would be a problem. But it's not impossible. John of St. Thomas gave his opinion on how to best deal with a heretical Pope. He didn't foresee the problems we have today, but that doesn't mean that we should ignore what he wrote. His views are quite reasonable and Catholic. He wasn't extreme.
It seems hopeless in human terms, if we only think that there has to be a human solution.
-
Good question. It is a conundrum.
Exactly, it's a conundrum that destroys the General Council theory ... as per my previous posts.
-
Exactly, it's a conundrum that destroys the General Council theory ... as per my previous posts.
You are not the foremost authority on how to deal with a heretical Pope. You just THINK that you are.
I'll stick with those who are not extremists.
-
Good question. It is a conundrum. I don't think that the Pope's assent is required, since he will be the one on trial, so to speak. But putting together a Council with the current Modernist hierarchy would be a problem. But it's not impossible. John of St. Thomas gave his opinion on how to best deal with a heretical Pope. He didn't foresee the problems we have today, but that doesn't mean that we should ignore what he wrote. His views are quite reasonable and Catholic. He wasn't extreme.
It seems hopeless in human terms, if we only think that there has to be a human solution.
Well clearly the pope's assent is not required if the pope is a heretic, but how can we objectively tell a group of bishops falsely deposing a true pope in an invalid and schismatic council from a group of bishops deposing a heretical pope in a legitimate and valid general council? I don't think there is any objective way to tell, you'd have to rely on your private interpretation("do I believe the bishops trying to depose the pope, or do I believe the pope and the bishops who support him?"). And relying on private interpretation is a recipe for disaster.
-
Well clearly the pope's assent is not required if the pope is a heretic, but how can we objectively tell a group of bishops falsely deposing a true pope in an invalid and schismatic council from a group of bishops deposing a heretical pope in a legitimate and valid general council? I don't think there is any objective way to tell, you'd have to rely on your private interpretation("do I believe the bishops trying to depose the pope, or do I believe the pope and the bishops who support him?"). And relying on private interpretation is a recipe for disaster.
I suppose we could tell from what the outcome would be. That would be one way, maybe.
-
You are not the foremost authority on how to deal with a heretical Pope. You just THINK that you are.
I'll stick with those who are not extremists.
What does that even mean? Nobody here is, and even the official theologians who dealt with this issue couldn't agree. Address the argument or hold your tongue. That is absolutely typical of you. When you have no answer to an argument, you start in on the personal attacks.
Even YOU admitted the "conundrum" ... but your only answer was that John of St. Thomas couldn't foresee this crisis. That matters little. Principles are always tested against hypothetical circuмstances to determine their validity. General Council theory fails the smell test.
FORMAL-MATERIAL theory is the only thing that passes the test.
-
I suppose we could tell from what the outcome would be. That would be one way, maybe.
So you could tell based on your own private judgment. Fail.
-
Well clearly the pope's assent is not required if the pope is a heretic, ...
But that is false according to Siscoe and Salza theory. Until he's DECLARED to be a heretic by the Council, he's not a heretic ... regardless of how heretical he looks, smells, walks, talks, or quacks. And that is utterly absurd.
So until he's declared a heretic, he retains papal authority. He could shut down any prospective General Council, or, as I mentioned, instantly depose any bishop who intends to participate in one. There's nothing in Siscoe and Salza theory to prevent this. So it's epic fail.
-
You are not the foremost authority on how to deal with a heretical Pope. You just THINK that you are.
I'll stick with those who are not extremists.
Forget about the man; deal with his arguments. You deal with a disputed issue with rational disputation.
-
So you could tell based on your own private judgment. Fail.
If a heretical Pope (like Francis) would be deposed by a Council, I would indeed be able to see it with my own eyes. It would be the best outcome, based on what John of St. Thomas wrote.
-
Forget about the man; deal with his arguments. You deal with a disputed issue with rational disputation.
I never said that the issue is undisputed. I never said that John of St. Thomas has the last word on the subject. John of St. Thomas is not extreme, and his views are very reasonable. They make sense to me.
I try to not deal with extremists like Ladislaus, who also tends to be very vindictive.
-
FORMAL-MATERIAL theory is the only thing that passes the test.
It certainly seems to utilize all the principles and facts on the table in a coherent way that avoids contradiction
-
Look, Bergoglio is obviously a heretic. Amor Laetitia is in fact clear-cut heresy. Even several Cardinals came out and said as much.
But because 99% of the Novus Ordo is infested with heretics, or cowards, or lazy men ... NOTHING WILL EVER BE DONE ABOUT IT.
So a heretic pope like Bergoglio could continue to exercise papal authority INDEFINITELY ... since nothing will be done about it.
The devout laity, monastics, Priests, and a small handful of true Bishops are the Church because where the Bishop is there is the One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic faith. As long as one true Bishop can consecrate other Bishops and Priests, the True Church will continue. This will most likely be what will happen in the End Times, and many priests are convinced that we are in the End Times.
-
But that is false according to Siscoe and Salza theory. Until he's DECLARED to be a heretic by the Council, he's not a heretic ... regardless of how heretical he looks, smells, walks, talks, or quacks. And that is utterly absurd.
So until he's declared a heretic, he retains papal authority. He could shut down any prospective General Council, or, as I mentioned, instantly depose any bishop who intends to participate in one. There's nothing in Siscoe and Salza theory to prevent this. So it's epic fail.
If Francis looks like a heretic, talks like a heretic, and walks like a heretic, then he must be a heretical duck. Francis hides his papal cross when in the presence of Jєωs. He denies Christ and is ashamed of Him, our Lord and our God, so he is not only a heretic but an apostate. How worse can it get?
What did the Church do during the Arian heresy? Didn't the holy ones in the Church continue to consecrate bishops and ordain priests so the faith was preserved? Isn't that what we are doing today?
Isn't the heretic Francis far worse than the Arians? Arians declared that there was a time when Christ was not God. Francis has declared that Christ was never God. Actually, Francis' belief is more consistent with that of the perfidious Jєωs who committed the sin of blasphemy against the Holy Spirit. Has he gone that far? Does he worship with Satanists and celebrate Black Masses?
-
This is a huge problem for Siscoe and Salza and their followers.
What happens if a group of bishops intends to convene a General Council, and the heretic Pope instantly deposes every single one of the bishops who has agreed to hold such a Council?
You could argue, "oh, well, that would be unjust." No, sorry, there's nothing "unjust" about the Pope replacing a bishop. He's not excommunicating them, just replacing them. He could replace a bishop because he doesn't like his body odor, for any reason, or for no reason, since they serve entirely at his pleasure. If, as per Siscoe and Salza, this man continues to hold authority, then the bishops' authority derives entirely from his appointment of them ... and he has ever right and ability to replace them, for any reason.
This is an absolute check-mate against Siscoe and Salza.
This is one of the best arguments I’ve seen made against the R&R position.
-
If a heretical Pope (like Francis) would be deposed by a Council, I would indeed be able to see it with my own eyes.
Do you REALLY expect that this could happen (naturally speaking) ... given the current hierarchy?
-
The devout laity, monastics, Priests, and a small handful of true Bishops are the Church because where the Bishop is there is the One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic faith. As long as one true Bishop can consecrate other Bishops and Priests, the True Church will continue. This will most likely be what will happen in the End Times, and many priests are convinced that we are in the End Times.
I agree with you. That's why I don't think that the "Universal Acceptance" by the Novus Ordo means anything.
-
If Francis looks like a heretic, talks like a heretic, and walks like a heretic, then he must be a heretical duck. Francis hides his papal cross when in the presence of Jєωs. He denies Christ and is ashamed of Him, our Lord and our God, so he is not only a heretic but an apostate. How worse can it get?
What did the Church do during the Arian heresy? Didn't the holy ones in the Church continue to consecrate bishops and ordain priests so the faith was preserved? Isn't that what we are doing today?
Isn't the heretic Francis far worse than the Arians? Arians declared that there was a time when Christ was not God. Francis has declared that Christ was never God. Actually, Francis' belief is more consistent with that of the perfidious Jєωs who committed the sin of blasphemy against the Holy Spirit. Has he gone that far? Does he worship with Satanists and celebrate Black Masses?
Pope St. Pius X did say that Modernism is the synthesis of all heresies. Francis is the culmination of a long standing infiltration of Modernists into the Church, which began, really, with the French revolution. As +ABL said, Rome is occupied by a Modernist sect. The Modernists before Francis were bad, too. They just weren't always obvious about it.
God has not stopped the occupation of His Church by Modernists. We have to be prudent, and appeal to God to end the Crisis. In the meantime, it would be a really good thing if Francis could be deposed.
-
If a heretical Pope (like Francis) would be deposed by a Council, I would indeed be able to see it with my own eyes. It would be the best outcome, based on what John of St. Thomas wrote.
You do realize that it heresy to say that a council is above a pope, do you not?
-
What did the Church do during the Arian heresy? Didn't the holy ones in the Church continue to consecrate bishops and ordain priests so the faith was preserved? Isn't that what we are doing today?
Thankfully, during the Arian crisis, the Pope never went full-blown Arian. Now, Honorius was at times condemned for being soft on it, but he was definitely not a full-blown pertinacious Arian. But, see, what if he HAD been? Since the vast majority of the hierarchy had gone Arian (by most estimates), what could have been done about him ... according to General Council theory?
-
Well clearly the pope's assent is not required if the pope is a heretic, but how can we objectively tell a group of bishops falsely deposing a true pope in an invalid and schismatic council from a group of bishops deposing a heretical pope in a legitimate and valid general council? I don't think there is any objective way to tell, you'd have to rely on your private interpretation("do I believe the bishops trying to depose the pope, or do I believe the pope and the bishops who support him?"). And relying on private interpretation is a recipe for disaster.
"Private interpretation" is a loaded term. It has bad connotations. And I think it is being used in the wrong context here. To see why, consider the Great Western Schism. Was St. Catherine of Siena using private interpretation when she submitted to Pope Urban VI? At the same time, was St. Vincent Ferrer using private interpretation when he submitted to Clement VII? If you read about the circuмstances you will understand why it was difficult to know at the time who was the true Roman Pontiff. We are all responsible for identifying where the Church is. If some man wearing a roman collar opens a church in your neighborhood and claims to be the Catholic Church, you are responsible for knowing whether his claim is true or not. Sometimes it will be very easy to know and other times it will be more difficult. We happen to be living in a time when it is more difficult. But it was also difficult during the Great Western Schism and we had multiple saints who chose the wrong guy and were still canonized afterwards. But in the GWS case, at least both claimants actually professed the Catholic faith. Today, the guy wearing the white cassock is worshipping demons and yet still Catholics are calling him the pope. I'm not expecting those Catholics to be canonized when the smoke clears.
-
You do realize that it heresy to say that a council is above a pope, do you not?
Yeah, I think that the distinction they try to make is "ministerial" deposition ... which I really don't like because I agree that it strongly savors of Conciliarism? Another way to use the term "depose" would be to say that they legally/materially strip the office.
But I agree that to avoid confusion, we should not use the word DEPOSE, even if qualified with "ministerially" because that distinction would be lost on most people ... who would think you're endorsing Conciliarism.
-
You do realize that it heresy to say that a council is above a pope, do you not?
I was wondering when one of you sedevacantists was going to bring that up.
Now you will condemn me for being a heretic, right? You sedes are very good at that.
You must believe that John of St. Thomas was a heretic, too. Would that be right?
-
Another issue that should be mentioned. Both patriarchs Dioscorus and Photius, originators of the Syrian and Greek Orthodox schisms respectively, both wrongly and falsely accused the Roman Pontiffs of heresy. In light of this, the eighth general Council decreed, "Furthermore, nobody else should compose or edit writings or tracts against the most holy pope of old Rome, on the pretext of making incriminating charges, as Photius did recently and Dioscorus a long time ago. Whoever shows such great arrogance and audacity, after the manner of Photius and Dioscorus, and makes false accusations in writing or speech against the see of Peter, the chief of the apostles, let him receive a punishment equal to theirs. If, then, any ruler or secular authority tries to expel the aforesaid pope of the apostolic see, or any of the other patriarchs, let him be anathema. Furthermore, if a universal synod is held and any question or controversy arises about the holy church of Rome, it should make inquiries with proper reverence and respect about the question raised and should find a profitable solution; it must on no account pronounce sentence rashly against the supreme pontiffs of old Rome ... Consequently this holy and universal synod justly and fittingly declares and lays down that no lay person or monk or cleric should separate himself from communion with his own patriarch before a careful enquiry and judgment in synod, even if he alleges that he knows of some crime perpetrated by his patriarch, and he must not refuse to include his patriarch’s name during the divine mysteries or offices." https://www.papalencyclicals.net/councils/ecuм08.htm (https://www.papalencyclicals.net/councils/ecuм08.htm)
Also, during the 4th century, when the Arian heresy was temporarily at its strongest, there were many Saintly Bishops, e.g. Saints Ambrose, Athanasius, Augustine, Hillary, Basil, Chrysostom, Gregory of Nyssa, Gregory nαzιanzus, among others I'm probably forgetting. It isn't the case that 95 or 99% as some say were formal, public heretics in the episcopacy. There were some who were heretics, and there were others who were confused. The way the Church resolved it later on was to require a formal adherence to defined dogma. Those who did it were Catholic, because they were ready to accept Church teaching. Those who refused to do so were anathema. It never happened that 99% of Bishops lost their offices. And that's a problem for those who insist Bishops can be deposed by presumed pertinacity. After Nicaea I in 325 A.D., and before Constantinople I in 381 A.D., both dogmatic Ecuмenical Councils, what happened was you had some non-infallible synods like those in Ariminum that tried to undermine Nicaea. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Council_of_Ariminum (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Council_of_Ariminum) But these were ultimately rejected in later Ecuмenical Councils.
The question of public pertinacity is of the utmost importance. The Councils determined pertinacity by the final refusal to profess the dogmatic decrees.
Even Salza and Siscoe admit that no admonition or warning is necessary when a pope definitively severs the external bonds of unity. So the only disagreement now would be on what constitutes a tacit resignation.
True, if, hypothetically, the Pope says, "I'm going to leave the Church and become a Muslim", the Cardinals can very well say, "Well, good riddance. We're going to declare the fact, with the Bishops, and then we're going to elect a new Pope". That's clear. But it's a much different scenario if the Pope insists he's Catholic. According to Cardinal Billot, "Those also are occult, who do indeed manifest their heresy by external signs, but not by a public profession. You will easily understand that many men of our times fall into the latter category—those, namely, who either doubt or positively disbelieve matters of faith, and do not disguise the state of their mind in the private affairs of life, but who have never expressly renounced the faith of the Church, and, when they are asked categorically about their religion, declare of their own accord that they are Catholics", those who continue to profess to be Catholics in that way are not yet manifest heretics. So what happens if the Pope is corrected, and after many corrections, he finally retracts? Then, he was not pertinacious, despite his materially heretical opinions, and therefore would not have lost office. That would be like the case of Pope John XII, where Cardinal Fournier, who resisted, became the next Pope and defined the Truth as Dogma. That could happen today.
Or, public pertinacity of the Pope could be established by the Bishops in future. At that time, the Pope would cease to be Pope, and a new Pope would be elected. But, it can't be established by us, otherwise there is no one to stop anyone deposing any of the Popes of that past on that basis. What if someone tells you he thinks Pope Pius XII was a public heretic? This is not a matter for private judgment. St. Robert, in answering opinion #2, says God does not remove Popes except through men.
Francis was warned publicly by several cardinals
Right, Maria Regina. But the problem is, none of the Cardinals have explicitly accused him of heresy, much less did they accuse him of public pertinacity, and that is necessary for us laity to conclude that the Church has established him to be manifestly obstinate. Up until then, it remains only an opinion or a presumption that he is pertinacious. The Church doesn't depose the Pope, She can only declare him deposed by God, after sufficiently establishing his public pertinacity. We can have our opinions on whether the Pope is pertinacious in his heresy, but it is up to the Teaching Church i.e. Bishops to confirm them or to reject them. So far, they have not.
-
THE DOCTRINE OF JOHN OF ST. THOMAS IS HERETICALLY OPPOSED TO THE DOGMA OF THE PRIMACY "[…] This Council can be convened by the authority of the Church which is in the bishops or the greater majority of them; the Church has, by divine law, the right to separate herself from a heretical Pope, and therefore she has all the means necessary for such a separation; now, a necessary means itself (per se) is to be able to legally prove such a crime; but we cannot prove it legally unless if there is a competent judgment, and in such a serious matter, we cannot have a competent judgment except by the General Council, because it is about the universal head of the Church, so much so that it depends on the judgment of the universal Church, that is to say, of the General Council. I do not share the opinion of Fr. Suarez who believes that this can be treated by Provincial Councils; indeed, a Provincial Council does not represent the universal Church in a manner that this case can be treated by such authority; and even several Provincial Councils have no such representation or authority. If this is not about the authority under which one must judge, but about one who has the authority to convene the [General Council], I believe that this is not assigned to a specific person, but it can be done by either the Cardinals who could communicate the news to the bishops, either by the nearest bishops who could tell the others so that all are gathered; or even at the request of princes, not as a summons having coercive force, as when a Pope convenes a Council, but as an "enuntative" convocation that denounces such a crime to the bishops and manifest it in order that they come to bring a remedy. And the Pope cannot annul such a Council or reject it because he is itself part of it (quia ipse est pars) and that the Church has the power, by divine right, to convene the council for this purpose, because she has the right to secede from a heretic." 《This Council can be convened by the authority of the Church which is in the bishops or the greater majority of them》sententia hæretica : The proposition directly opposes the full and absolute power of jurisdiction of the pope over the whole Church. 《 a necessary means itself (per se) is to be able to legally prove such a crime; but we cannot prove it legally unless if there is a competent judgment, [...] we cannot have a competent judgment except by the General Council,》sententia hæretica : The proposition directly opposes the full and absolute power of jurisdiction of the pope over a general council. 《but about one who has the authority to convene the [General Council], I believe that this is not assigned to a specific person, but it can be done by either the Cardinals who could communicate the news to the bishops, either by the nearest bishops who could tell the others so that all are gathered; or even at the request of princes, not as a summons having coercive force, as when a Pope convenes a Council, but as an "enuntative" convocation that denounces such a crime to the bishops and manifest it in order that they come to bring a remedy. And the Pope cannot annul such a Council or reject it because he is itself part of it 》sententia hæretica : The proposition directly opposes the dogma of the "full and supreme power of jurisdiction over the whole Church, [...] dispersed throughout the whole world ... the absolute fullness, of this supreme power; [...] ordinary and immediate both over all and each of the churches and over all and each of the pastors and faithful". [Pastor Æternus] Therefore, John of St. Thomas was correct on one point in this matter, namely, “it does not appear by whom such a deposition is to be made”, since such a deposition can be made by no one: He explicitly teaches that a “general council” can depose a pope, by an “act of judgment” and “jurisdiction”, which directly opposes the doctrine of the Fifth Lateran Council: “t is clearly established that the Roman Pontiff alone, possessing as it were authority over all Councils, has full right and power of proclaiming Councils, or transferring and dissolving them, not only according to the testimony of Sacred Scripture, from the words of the holy Fathers and even of other Roman Pontiffs, of our predecessors, and from the decrees of the holy canons . . .” . It also directly opposes the solemn dogma of the universal primacy of jurisdiction defined by the First Vatican Council : "We teach and declare that, according to the gospel evidence, a primacy of jurisdiction over the whole Church of God was immediately and directly promised to the blessed apostle Peter and conferred on him by Christ the lord. [...] a true and proper primacy of jurisdiction. [...] Therefore, if anyone says that blessed Peter the apostle was not appointed by Christ the Lord as prince of all the apostles and visible head of the whole church militant; or that it was a primacy of honour only and not one of true and proper jurisdiction that he directly and immediately received from our lord Jesus Christ himself: let him be anathema. [...] Therefore whoever succeeds to the chair of Peter obtains by the institution of Christ himself, the primacy of Peter over the whole Church. [...] Therefore, if anyone says that it is not by the institution of Christ the Lord himself (that is to say, by divine law) that blessed Peter should have perpetual successors in the primacy over the whole church; or that the Roman pontiff is not the successor of blessed Peter in this primacy: let him be anathema. [...] Chapter 3. On the power and character of the primacy of the Roman pontiff 1. And so, supported by the clear witness of holy scripture, and adhering to the manifest and explicit decrees both of our predecessors the Roman pontiffs and of general councils, we promulgate anew the definition of the ecuмenical council of Florence [49] , which must be believed by all faithful Christians, namely that the apostolic see and the Roman pontiff hold a world-wide primacy, and that the Roman pontiff is the successor of blessed Peter, the prince of the apostles, true vicar of Christ, head of the whole church and father and teacher of all christian people. To him, in blessed Peter, full power has been given by our Lord Jesus Christ to tend, rule and govern the universal Church. [...] Wherefore we teach and declare that, by divine ordinance, the Roman church possesses a pre-eminence of ordinary power over every other church, and that this jurisdictional power of the Roman pontiff is both episcopal and immediate. Both clergy and faithful, of whatever rite and dignity, both singly and collectively, are bound to submit to this power by the duty of hierarchical subordination and true obedience, and this not only in matters concerning faith and morals, but also in those which regard the discipline and government of the church throughout the world. [...] Since the Roman pontiff, by the divine right of the apostolic primacy, governs the whole church, we likewise teach and declare that he is the supreme judge of the faithful [52] , and that in all cases which fall under ecclesiastical jurisdiction recourse may be had to his judgment [53] . The sentence of the apostolic see (than which there is no higher authority) is not subject to revision by anyone, nor may anyone lawfully pass judgment thereupon [54] . And so they stray from the genuine path of truth who maintain that it is lawful to appeal from the judgments of the Roman pontiffs to an ecuмenical council as if this were an authority superior to the Roman pontif. So, then, if anyone says that the Roman pontiff has ... not the full and supreme power of jurisdiction over the whole Church, and this not only in matters of faith and morals, but also in those which concern the discipline and government of the Church dispersed throughout the whole world; or that he has only the principal part, but not the absolute fullness, of this supreme power; or that this power of his is not ordinary and immediate both over all and each of the churches and over all and each of the pastors and faithful: let him be anathema."
-
I, for one, can't take what you say seriously, Fr. Kramer. After all, you have maintained that the theologians were unanimous in saying that the Pope cannot be a heretic. Have you revised your views on that? I have to think that you already knew that the theologians were not unanimous, but you have maintained it anyway.
-
THE DOCTRINE OF JOHN OF ST. THOMAS IS HERETICALLY OPPOSED TO THE DOGMA OF THE PRIMACY
"[…] This Council can be convened by the authority of the Church which is in the bishops or the greater majority of them; the Church has, by divine law, the right to separate herself from a heretical Pope, and therefore she has all the means necessary for such a separation; now, a necessary means itself (per se) is to be able to legally prove such a crime; but we cannot prove it legally unless if there is a competent judgment, and in such a serious matter, we cannot have a competent judgment except by the General Council, because it is about the universal head of the Church, so much so that it depends on the judgment of the universal Church, that is to say, of the General Council.
I do not share the opinion of Fr. Suarez who believes that this can be treated by Provincial Councils; indeed, a Provincial Council does not represent the universal Church in a manner that this case can be treated by such authority; and even several Provincial Councils have no such representation or authority.
If this is not about the authority under which one must judge, but about one who has the authority to convene the [General Council], I believe that this is not assigned to a specific person, but it can be done by either the Cardinals who could communicate the news to the bishops, either by the nearest bishops who could tell the others so that all are gathered; or even at the request of princes, not as a summons having coercive force, as when a Pope convenes a Council, but as an "enuntative" convocation that denounces such a crime to the bishops and manifest it in order that they come to bring a remedy. And the Pope cannot annul such a Council or reject it because he is itself part of it (quia ipse est pars) and that the Church has the power, by divine right, to convene the council for this purpose, because she has the right to secede from a heretic."
《This Council can be convened by the authority of the Church which is in the bishops or the greater majority of them》sententia hæretica : The proposition directly opposes the full and absolute power of jurisdiction of the pope over the whole Church.
《 a necessary means itself (per se) is to be able to legally prove such a crime; but we cannot prove it legally unless if there is a competent judgment, [...] we cannot have a competent judgment except by the General Council,》sententia hæretica : The proposition directly opposes the full and absolute power of jurisdiction of the pope over a general council.
《but about one who has the authority to convene the [General Council], I believe that this is not assigned to a specific person, but it can be done by either the Cardinals who could communicate the news to the bishops, either by the nearest bishops who could tell the others so that all are gathered; or even at the request of princes, not as a summons having coercive force, as when a Pope convenes a Council, but as an "enuntative" convocation that denounces such a crime to the bishops and manifest it in order that they come to bring a remedy. And the Pope cannot annul such a Council or reject it because he is itself part of it 》sententia hæretica : The proposition directly opposes the dogma of the "[color=rgba(0, 0, 0, 0.87)]full and supreme power of[/color][color=rgba(0, 0, 0, 0.87)] [/color][color=rgba(0, 0, 0, 0.87)]jurisdiction[/color][color=rgba(0, 0, 0, 0.87)] over the whole Church, [...][/color][color=rgba(0, 0, 0, 0.87)] dispersed throughout the whole world ... the[/color][color=rgba(0, 0, 0, 0.87)] [/color][color=rgba(0, 0, 0, 0.87)]absolute fullness[/color][color=rgba(0, 0, 0, 0.87)], of this supreme power; [...][/color][color=rgba(0, 0, 0, 0.87)] [/color][color=rgba(0, 0, 0, 0.87)]ordinary and immediate[/color][color=rgba(0, 0, 0, 0.87)] [/color][color=rgba(0, 0, 0, 0.87)]both over all and each of the[/color][color=rgba(0, 0, 0, 0.87)] [/color][color=rgba(0, 0, 0, 0.87)]churches[/color][color=rgba(0, 0, 0, 0.87)] [/color][color=rgba(0, 0, 0, 0.87)]and over all and each of the[/color][color=rgba(0, 0, 0, 0.87)] [/color][color=rgba(0, 0, 0, 0.87)]pastors[/color][color=rgba(0, 0, 0, 0.87)] [/color][color=rgba(0, 0, 0, 0.87)]and[/color][color=rgba(0, 0, 0, 0.87)] [/color][color=rgba(0, 0, 0, 0.87)]faithful". [/color][color=rgba(0, 0, 0, 0.87)][Pastor Æternus][/color]
Therefore, John of St. Thomas was correct on one point in this matter, namely, “it does not appear by whom such a deposition is to be made”, since such a deposition can be made by no one: He explicitly teaches that a “general council” can depose a pope, by an “act of judgment” and “jurisdiction”, which directly opposes the doctrine of the Fifth Lateran Council: “t is clearly established that the Roman Pontiff alone, possessing as it were authority over all Councils, has full right and power of proclaiming Councils, or transferring and dissolving them, not only according to the testimony of Sacred Scripture, from the words of the holy Fathers and even of other Roman Pontiffs, of our predecessors, and from the decrees of the holy canons . . .” . It also directly opposes the solemn dogma of the universal primacy of jurisdiction defined by the First Vatican Council : "[color=rgba(0, 0, 0, 0.87)]We [/color][color=rgba(0, 0, 0, 0.87)]teach and declare [/color][color=rgba(0, 0, 0, 0.87)]that, [/color][color=rgba(0, 0, 0, 0.87)]according to the gospel evidence, a primacy of[/color][color=rgba(0, 0, 0, 0.87)] [/color][color=rgba(0, 0, 0, 0.87)]jurisdiction[/color][color=rgba(0, 0, 0, 0.87)] over the whole Church of God was[/color][color=rgba(0, 0, 0, 0.87)] [/color][color=rgba(0, 0, 0, 0.87)]immediately and directly [/color][color=rgba(0, 0, 0, 0.87)]promised[/color][color=rgba(0, 0, 0, 0.87)] [/color][color=rgba(0, 0, 0, 0.87)]to the blessed apostle Peter and [/color][color=rgba(0, 0, 0, 0.87)]conferred[/color][color=rgba(0, 0, 0, 0.87)] [/color][color=rgba(0, 0, 0, 0.87)]on him by Christ the Lord. [...] [/color][color=rgba(0, 0, 0, 0.87)] a true and proper primacy of jurisdiction. [/color][color=rgba(0, 0, 0, 0.87)][...] [/color][color=rgba(0, 0, 0, 0.87)]Therefore, [/color][color=rgba(0, 0, 0, 0.87)]if anyone says that [/color][color=rgba(0, 0, 0, 0.87)]blessed Peter the apostle was not appointed by Christ the Lord as prince of all the apostles and visible head of the whole Church militant; or that [/color][color=rgba(0, 0, 0, 0.87)]it was a primacy of honour only and not one of true and proper jurisdiction that he directly and immediately received from our lord Jesus Christ himself: [/color][color=rgba(0, 0, 0, 0.87)]let him be anathema[/color][color=rgba(0, 0, 0, 0.87)].[/color][color=rgba(0, 0, 0, 0.87)] [...] [/color][color=rgba(0, 0, 0, 0.87)]Therefore[/color][color=rgba(0, 0, 0, 0.87)] whoever succeeds to the chair of Peter obtains by the institution of Christ himself, the primacy of Peter over the whole Church. [...] [/color][/b][color=rgba(0, 0, 0, 0.87)]Therefore, [/color][color=rgba(0, 0, 0, 0.87)]if anyone says that [/color][color=rgba(0, 0, 0, 0.87)]it is not by the institution of Christ the Lord himself (that is to say, by divine law) that blessed Peter should have perpetual successors in the primacy over the whole church; or that [/color][color=rgba(0, 0, 0, 0.87)]the Roman pontiff is not the successor of blessed Peter in this primacy: [/color][color=rgba(0, 0, 0, 0.87)]let him be[/color][color=rgba(0, 0, 0, 0.87)] [/color][color=rgba(0, 0, 0, 0.87)]anathema[/color][color=rgba(0, 0, 0, 0.87)]. [...] [/color][color=rgba(0, 0, 0, 0.87)]Chapter 3. On the power and character of the primacy of the Roman pontiff 1. [/color][color=rgba(0, 0, 0, 0.87)]And so, supported by the clear witness of holy scripture, and adhering to the manifest and explicit decrees both of our predecessors the Roman pontiffs and of general councils, [/color][color=rgba(0, 0, 0, 0.87)]we promulgate anew the definition of the ecuмenical council of Florence[/color][color=rgba(0, 0, 0, 0.87)] [49] , which[/color][color=rgba(0, 0, 0, 0.87)] [/color][color=rgba(0, 0, 0, 0.87)]must be believed[/color][color=rgba(0, 0, 0, 0.87)] by all faithful Christians, namely that the apostolic see and the Roman pontiff hold a world-wide primacy, and that the Roman pontiff is the successor of blessed Peter, the prince of the apostles, true vicar of Christ, head of the whole Church and father and teacher of all Christian people. To him, in blessed Peter, full power has been given by our Lord Jesus Christ to tend, rule and govern the universal Church. [...] [/color][color=rgba(0, 0, 0, 0.87)]Wherefore we [/color][color=rgba(0, 0, 0, 0.87)]teach and declare[/color][color=rgba(0, 0, 0, 0.87)] that, [/color][color=rgba(0, 0, 0, 0.87)]by divine ordinance, the Roman Church possesses a pre-eminence of ordinary power over every other church, and that [/color][color=rgba(0, 0, 0, 0.87)]this jurisdictional power of the Roman pontiff is both episcopal and immediate. Both clergy and faithful, of whatever rite and dignity, both singly and collectively, are bound to submit to this power by the duty of hierarchical subordination and true obedience, and this not only in matters concerning faith and morals, but also in those which regard the discipline and government of the church throughout the world. [/color][color=rgba(0, 0, 0, 0.87)][...] [/color][color=rgba(0, 0, 0, 0.87)]Since the Roman pontiff, by the divine right of the apostolic primacy, governs the whole church, we likewise [/color][color=rgba(0, 0, 0, 0.87)]teach and declare[/color][color=rgba(0, 0, 0, 0.87)] [/color][color=rgba(0, 0, 0, 0.87)]that [/color][/b][color=rgba(0, 0, 0, 0.87)]he is the supreme judge of the faithful [52] , and that [/color][color=rgba(0, 0, 0, 0.87)]in all cases which fall under ecclesiastical jurisdiction recourse may be had to his judgment [53] . [/color][color=rgba(0, 0, 0, 0.87)]The sentence of the apostolic see (than which there is no higher authority) is not subject to revision by anyone, [/color][color=rgba(0, 0, 0, 0.87)]nor may anyone lawfully pass judgment thereupon [54] . And so [/color][color=rgba(0, 0, 0, 0.87)]they stray from the genuine path of truth who maintain that it is lawful to appeal from the judgments of the Roman pontiffs to an ecuмenical council as if this were an authority superior to the Roman pontif. So, then, if anyone says that the Roman pontiff has ... not the full and supreme power of[/color][color=rgba(0, 0, 0, 0.87)] [/color][color=rgba(0, 0, 0, 0.87)]jurisdiction[/color][color=rgba(0, 0, 0, 0.87)] over the whole Church, and this not only in matters of [/color][color=rgba(0, 0, 0, 0.87)]faith and morals[/color][color=rgba(0, 0, 0, 0.87)], but also in those which concern the [/color][color=rgba(0, 0, 0, 0.87)]discipline and government[/color][color=rgba(0, 0, 0, 0.87)] of the Church dispersed throughout the whole world; or that he has only the principal part, but not the[/color][color=rgba(0, 0, 0, 0.87)] [/color][color=rgba(0, 0, 0, 0.87)]absolute fullness[/color][color=rgba(0, 0, 0, 0.87)], of this supreme power; or that this power of his is not[/color][color=rgba(0, 0, 0, 0.87)] [/color][color=rgba(0, 0, 0, 0.87)]ordinary and immediate[/color][color=rgba(0, 0, 0, 0.87)] [/color][color=rgba(0, 0, 0, 0.87)]both over all and each of the[/color][color=rgba(0, 0, 0, 0.87)] [/color][color=rgba(0, 0, 0, 0.87)]churches[/color][color=rgba(0, 0, 0, 0.87)] [/color][color=rgba(0, 0, 0, 0.87)]and over all and each of the[/color][color=rgba(0, 0, 0, 0.87)] [/color][color=rgba(0, 0, 0, 0.87)]pastors[/color][color=rgba(0, 0, 0, 0.87)] [/color][color=rgba(0, 0, 0, 0.87)]and[/color][color=rgba(0, 0, 0, 0.87)] [/color][color=rgba(0, 0, 0, 0.87)]faithful[/color][color=rgba(0, 0, 0, 0.87)]: let him be[/color][color=rgba(0, 0, 0, 0.87)] [/color][color=rgba(0, 0, 0, 0.87)]anathema[/color][color=rgba(0, 0, 0, 0.87)]."[/color][/i]
-
Fr. Kramer,
What competent Church authority has judged any of the work of the respected Dominican theologian, John of St. Thomas, as being heretical?
-
Meg: JOST's doctrine was not declared heretical BEFORE VATICAN I, because it was still considered an open question. The same applies for St. Thomas Aqinas's teaching on the Immaculate Conception. So READ IT AGAIN:
THE DOCTRINE OF JOHN OF ST. THOMAS IS HERETICALLY OPPOSED TO THE DOGMA OF THE PRIMACY
"[…] This Council can be convened by the authority of the Church which is in the bishops or the greater majority of them; the Church has, by divine law, the right to separate herself from a heretical Pope, and therefore she has all the means necessary for such a separation; now, a necessary means itself (per se) is to be able to legally prove such a crime; but we cannot prove it legally unless if there is a competent judgment, and in such a serious matter, we cannot have a competent judgment except by the General Council, because it is about the universal head of the Church, so much so that it depends on the judgment of the universal Church, that is to say, of the General Council. I do not share the opinion of Fr. Suarez who believes that this can be treated by Provincial Councils; indeed, a Provincial Council does not represent the universal Church in a manner that this case can be treated by such authority; and even several Provincial Councils have no such representation or authority. If this is not about the authority under which one must judge, but about one who has the authority to convene the [General Council], I believe that this is not assigned to a specific person, but it can be done by either the Cardinals who could communicate the news to the bishops, either by the nearest bishops who could tell the others so that all are gathered; or even at the request of princes, not as a summons having coercive force, as when a Pope convenes a Council, but as an "enuntative" convocation that denounces such a crime to the bishops and manifest it in order that they come to bring a remedy. And the Pope cannot annul such a Council or reject it because he is itself part of it (quia ipse est pars) and that the Church has the power, by divine right, to convene the council for this purpose, because she has the right to secede from a heretic." 《This Council can be convened by the authority of the Church which is in the bishops or the greater majority of them》sententia hæretica : The proposition directly opposes the full and absolute power of jurisdiction of the pope over the whole Church. 《 a necessary means itself (per se) is to be able to legally prove such a crime; but we cannot prove it legally unless if there is a competent judgment, [...] we cannot have a competent judgment except by the General Council,》sententia hæretica : The proposition directly opposes the full and absolute power of jurisdiction of the pope over a general council. 《but about one who has the authority to convene the [General Council], I believe that this is not assigned to a specific person, but it can be done by either the Cardinals who could communicate the news to the bishops, either by the nearest bishops who could tell the others so that all are gathered; or even at the request of princes, not as a summons having coercive force, as when a Pope convenes a Council, but as an "enuntative" convocation that denounces such a crime to the bishops and manifest it in order that they come to bring a remedy. And the Pope cannot annul such a Council or reject it because he is itself part of it 》sententia hæretica : The proposition directly opposes the dogma of the "full and supreme power of jurisdiction over the whole Church, [...] dispersed throughout the whole world ... the absolute fullness, of this supreme power; [...] ordinary and immediate both over all and each of the churches and over all and each of the pastors and faithful". [Pastor Æternus] Therefore, John of St. Thomas was correct on one point in this matter, namely, “it does not appear by whom such a deposition is to be made”, since such a deposition can be made by no one: He explicitly teaches that a “general council” can depose a pope, by an “act of judgment” and “jurisdiction”, which directly opposes the doctrine of the Fifth Lateran Council: “t is clearly established that the Roman Pontiff alone, possessing as it were authority over all Councils, has full right and power of proclaiming Councils, or transferring and dissolving them, not only according to the testimony of Sacred Scripture, from the words of the holy Fathers and even of other Roman Pontiffs, of our predecessors, and from the decrees of the holy canons . . .” . It also directly opposes the solemn dogma of the universal primacy of jurisdiction defined by the First Vatican Council : "We teach and declare that, according to the gospel evidence, a primacy of jurisdiction over the whole Church of God was immediately and directly promised to the blessed apostle Peter and conferred on him by Christ the lord. [...] a true and proper primacy of jurisdiction. [...] Therefore, if anyone says that blessed Peter the apostle was not appointed by Christ the Lord as prince of all the apostles and visible head of the whole church militant; or that it was a primacy of honour only and not one of true and proper jurisdiction that he directly and immediately received from our lord Jesus Christ himself: let him be anathema. [...] Therefore whoever succeeds to the chair of Peter obtains by the institution of Christ himself, the primacy of Peter over the whole Church. [...] Therefore, if anyone says that it is not by the institution of Christ the Lord himself (that is to say, by divine law) that blessed Peter should have perpetual successors in the primacy over the whole church; or that the Roman pontiff is not the successor of blessed Peter in this primacy: let him be anathema. [...] Chapter 3. On the power and character of the primacy of the Roman pontiff 1. And so, supported by the clear witness of holy scripture, and adhering to the manifest and explicit decrees both of our predecessors the Roman pontiffs and of general councils, we promulgate anew the definition of the ecuмenical council of Florence [49] , which must be believed by all faithful Christians, namely that the apostolic see and the Roman pontiff hold a world-wide primacy, and that the Roman pontiff is the successor of blessed Peter, the prince of the apostles, true vicar of Christ, head of the whole church and father and teacher of all christian people. To him, in blessed Peter, full power has been given by our Lord Jesus Christ to tend, rule and govern the universal Church. [...] Wherefore we teach and declare that, by divine ordinance, the Roman church possesses a pre-eminence of ordinary power over every other church, and that this jurisdictional power of the Roman pontiff is both episcopal and immediate. Both clergy and faithful, of whatever rite and dignity, both singly and collectively, are bound to submit to this power by the duty of hierarchical subordination and true obedience, and this not only in matters concerning faith and morals, but also in those which regard the discipline and government of the church throughout the world. [...] Since the Roman pontiff, by the divine right of the apostolic primacy, governs the whole church, we likewise teach and declare that he is the supreme judge of the faithful [52] , and that in all cases which fall under ecclesiastical jurisdiction recourse may be had to his judgment [53] . The sentence of the apostolic see (than which there is no higher authority) is not subject to revision by anyone, nor may anyone lawfully pass judgment thereupon [54] . And so they stray from the genuine path of truth who maintain that it is lawful to appeal from the judgments of the Roman pontiffs to an ecuмenical council as if this were an authority superior to the Roman pontif. So, then, if anyone says that the Roman pontiff has ... not the full and supreme power of jurisdiction over the whole Church, and this not only in matters of faith and morals, but also in those which concern the discipline and government of the Church dispersed throughout the whole world; or that he has only the principal part, but not the absolute fullness, of this supreme power; or that this power of his is not ordinary and immediate both over all and each of the churches and over all and each of the pastors and faithful: let him be anathema."
-
Well then, Fr. Kramer, it's only your opinion that John of St. Thomas' work in this instance is heretical, which I am of course free to dismiss, and I do.
-
Well then, Fr. Kramer, it's only your opinion that John of St. Thomas' work in this instance is heretical, which I am of course free to dismiss, and I do.
Meg, while I agree the opinion of John of St. Thomas has a certain probability, the way it would be applied would make sure the Church only plays a ministerial role. The explanation below is from Cardinal Journet Please see: http://theologicalflint.com/journet-on-a-heretic-pope-and-his-deposition/ (http://theologicalflint.com/journet-on-a-heretic-pope-and-his-deposition/)
"Others, such as Cajetan, and John of St. Thomas, whose analysis seems to me more penetrating, have considered that even after a manifest sin of heresy the Pope is not yet deposed, but should be deposed by the Church, papa haereticus non est depositus, sed deponendus. Nevertheless, they added, the Church is not on that account above the Pope. And to make this clear they fall back on an explanation of the same nature as those we have used in Excursus IV. They remark on the one hand that in divine law the Church is to be united to the Pope as the body is to the head; and on the other that, by divine law, he who shows himself a heretic is to be avoided after one or two admonitions (Tit. iii. 10). There is therefore an absolute contradiction between the fact of being Pope and the fact of persevering in heresy after one or two admonitions. The Church’s action is simply declaratory, it makes it plain that an incorrigible sin of heresy exists; then the authoritative action of God disjoins the Papacy from a subject who, persisting in heresy after admonition, becomes in divine law, inapt to retain it any longer. In virtue therefore of Scripture the Church designates and God deposes. God acts with the Church, says John of St. Thomas, somewhat as a Pope would act who decided to attach indulgences to certain places of pilgrimage, but left it to a subordinate to designate which these places should be (II-II, q. I; disp. 2, a. 3, no. 29, vol. VII, p. 264). The explanation of Cajetan and John of St. Thomas — which, according to them, is also valid, properly applied, as an interpretation of the enactments of the Council of Constance — brings us back in its turn to the case of a subject who becomes in Divine law incapable at a given moment of retaining the papacy. It is also reducible to the loss of the pontificate by default of the subject. This then is the fundamental case and the others are merely variants. In a study in the Revue Thomiste (1900, p. 631, “Lettres de Savonarole aux princes chretiens pour la reunion d’un concile”), P. Hurtaud, O. P., has entered a powerful plea in the case — still open — of the Piagnoni. He makes reference to the explanation of Roman theologians prior to Cajetan, according to which a Pope who fell into heresy would be deposed ipso facto: the Council concerned would have only to put on record the fact of heresy and notify the Church that the Pope involved had forfeited his primacy. Savonarola, he says, regarded Alexander VI as having lost his faith. “The Lord, moved to anger by this intolerable corruption, has, for some time past, allowed the Church to be without a pastor. For I bear witness in the name of God that this Alexander VI is in no way Pope and cannot be. For quite apart from the execrable crime of simony, by which he got possession of the [papal] tiara through a sacrilegious bargaining, and by which every day he puts up to auction and knocks down to the highest bidder ecclesiastical benefices, and quite apart from his other vices — well-known to all — which I will pass over in silence, this I declare in the first place and affirm it with all certitude, that the man is not a Christian, he does not even believe any longer that there is a God; he goes beyond the final limits of infidelity and impiety ” (Letter to the Emperor). [1019]
Regarding that last part, Savonarola seems pretty confident that Pope Alexander VI wasn't even a Christian, was obstinate, was an atheist etc, doesn't he? Unfortunately, Savonarola was certainly wrong, and this shows every one of us must be cautious in trying to put forward their own personal opinions as though it was incontrovertible fact and the Church's decision itself. It is not. As Cardinal Billot explained, the Church disregarded the opinion of Savonorala.
Cardinal Billot: "And let this be an incidental remark against those who want to join in giving a respectable appearance to the undoubted schismatic efforts made in the time of Alexander VI on the ground that they were made by one who persisted in saying that the most certain evidence in the matter of the heretical state of Alexander VI had to be disclosed in a general Council. However, so as to forego at the present moment other arguments whereby this opinion of his could be easily refuted, this one [argument] alone is sufficient: It is certainly well known that in the time in which Savanarola was writing his letters to princes, all Christendom adhered to and obeyed Alexander as the true pontiff. Therefore, by that fact, Alexander was not a false pontiff. Therefore he was not a heretic, at least he was not in the heretical state that, in removing the essential element of membership in the Church, as a consequence of its very nature strips [a man] of pontifical power or of any other ordinary jurisdiction whatsoever." https://novusordowatch.org/billot-de-ecclesia-thesis29/ The determination must come from the Church, both of the heresy and of public pertinacity in it: private judgment of public pertinacity most certainly doesn't suffice here
-
I was wondering when one of you sedevacantists was going to bring that up.
Now you will condemn me for being a heretic, right? You sedes are very good at that.
You must believe that John of St. Thomas was a heretic, too. Would that be right?
Some of what John of St. Thomas taught came to be heretical after Vatican I. Now, Father Kramer points out a proposition that seems to violate the Fifth Lateran Council which was held BEFORE the time of John of St. Thomas. So, for instance, St. Thomas Aquinas' teaching about the Immaculate Conception was "heretical" ... except that it wasn't, since it hadn't been defined yet.
Father Kramer quoted the Fifth Lateran Council's teaching that the Pope has the full right to dissolve any Council. Consequently, there's nothing stopping a Pope from immediately dissolving a General Council that set about to "depose" him ... since according to Siscoe & Salza, the Pope still retains his authority ...
It is clearly established that the Roman Pontiff alone, possessing as it were authority over all Councils, has full right and power of proclaiming Councils, or transferring and dissolving them,
Nail in the coffin of General Council theory right there. Such a heretical Pope, assuming the S&S thesis that he retains authority, can simply dissolve this Council. But if deposition had already taken place by divine sentence, then the General Council could indeed convene and declare him deposed, since he would no longer be pope and would no longer have the authority to reject the Council or shut it down.
PS -- nobody's saying that you are a formal pertinacious heretic, but that the position you hold (and the position of John of St. Thomas) are in fact heretical. I cannot find fault with Father Kramer's logic regarding this.
-
"PaxChristi2" has quoted Innocent III entirely out of context in order to invert Pope Innocent's meaning. Innocent explicitly and categorically taught that for so long as a pope is reigning, no one on earth may judge him -- if the pope were to "wither away into heresy"; then he could be "shown to be already judged" , i.e., proven to have already fallen from office, following the doctrine of his mentor, Huguccio of Pisa. I have devoted an entire section of my book to the doctrine of Innocent III on this point. One cannot determine his meaning by quoting little snippets out of context as "PaxChristi2" has done.
Okay, let’s take this one point at a time. You initially made two assertions that I responded to by quoting Pope Innocent III. Your first was this: “… the constant doctrinal and canonical tradition of the Church presupposes that a pope cannot be a heretic.” (Fr. Kramer) Your second was this: “the papal magisterium has constantly taught that the pope can never be judged by anyone.” (Fr. Kramer)
I quoted Innocent who readily admitting the possibility that he could “wither away into heresy,” which contradicts your first entirely false statement that “the constant doctrinal and canonical tradition” presupposes the contrary. The traditional teaching is that a Pope can fall into heresy, and the contrary opinion was not seriously defended until Alber Pighius did so in 16th century (Hierarch. Eccles. lib. 4, cap. So, your first statement was and is entirely false.
You second - that "the papal magististerium has contantly taught the the pope can never be judged by anyone" is also false, because you failed to make a necessary distinction. Plenty of Pope have been legitimately judged by men. Pope Leo IV asked for the Emperor and his legates to judge him, and the Pope agree to submit to their ruling and obey it.
What is forbidden is for a Pope be juridically judged with a coercive (coactive) judgment. The Pope is the supreme ruler on earth and no one can exercise jurisdiction or coercive force over him. It is metaphysically impossible for a Pope to be legitimately judged by men with a coercive judgment. But Popes can and have been judged with a discretionary judgment, which is a legitimate judgment from an authority, who has the right to render the judgment, but who lacks any coercive force over the one judged. That’s how the Pope have been judged in the past, as Bellarmine, St. Alphonsus and countless other theologians teach. For example, in response to the objection that “Leo IV asked for judges from Emperor Louis and promised to obey their decisions, as if contained in the canons Nos so incompetenter 2, q. 7,” Bellarmine said: “Leo subjected himself to the discretionary judgment of the Emperor, not the coactive, as is easily deduced from the same chapter” (De Romano Pontifice, lib II, cap xxix). The same form of judgment was used again Sixtus III, (Mandasti’ 2, quaest. 5), Leo III (ch. ‘Auditum’), as well as other Pope.
. And the judgment was not being rendered against former Popes who had secretly been deposed by God, but against true "formal Popes" - jurisdiction and all - whose legitimately was not in doubt. So, your second statement is just as false as your first.
Now let’s consider the third statement you added in the latest reply. You claim that “shown to be already judged" means “proven to have already fallen from office.” But that’s an argument that was used to defend the 2nd Opinion – i.e., that an entirely occult heretic ceases to be Pope - which Bellarmine refutes, and which was entirely abandoned by theologians centuries ago. I thought you and your fellow Sedevacantists agreed with Bellarmine? Why are you now appealing to an argument that was used to defend the opinion he refuted?
Here’s how Cajetan describes the second opinion, and how he responded to the argument you just presented to defend it:
“[the Second Opinion maintains that] when the Pope becomes a heretic, he is deprived of the papacy ipso facto by divine law, which is based on the distinction between believer and unbeliever. When he is deposed by the Church on this account, it is not the pope who is either judged or deposed, but he who has already been judged, because he does not believe (in accordance with what the Lord says in John 3), and who has already been deposed; since, having become an unbeliever, and being removed by his own will from the body of the Church, he is formally declared judged and deposed.”
Does that sound familiar? That’s the 2nd Opinion that Bellarmine refutes, that every theologian abandoned centuries ago, and that you’re now attempting to resurrect by your interpretation of Innocent III. Here’s what Cajetan says in response to your argument:
“first of all, the Lord’s authority is not to the point, because He is speaking of the judgment of eternal damnation, by which ‘he that doth not believe is already judged’ [John 3:18], and on God’s part, because, ‘The Lord knows who they are’ … and in regard to obvious condemnation without a trial at the last judgment, as Gregory explains.”
What he means is the Pope is not deposed by the judgment of God without the judgement of men. He goes on to answer another one of your argument by saying when "St. Thomas and others" speak of heretics lacking jurisdiction, they are to understood as referring to those who are heretics "in the Church's judgment."
Bellarmine refutes the 2nd Opinion by stating that just as God does not make a man Pope without the cooperation of men (the Cardinal who elect him), neither does he remove a Pope without the cooperation of men (the bishops who judge and declare him deposed). God does not secretly depose a Pope without the Church knowing about it or being involved in the process, any more than he secretly makes a man Pope without the Church knowing about it or being involved in the process. The "judgment of men" that's required for God to depose a Pope is a discretionary judgment, and no coercive power is needed for the Church do so - just as no coercive power was necessary when you to judge the person you the person you mistakenly thought was the Pope (Benedict XVI) on April 30th, before posting your judgment on Facebook and "exhorting" everyone to presume that the See is now vacant.
-
Meg, while I agree the opinion of John of St. Thomas has a certain probability, the way it would be applied would make sure the Church only plays a ministerial role.
But the passages quoted by Father Kramer do appear to be clearly heretical, and so his theory must be significantly modified to become acceptable to Catholics.
Even if the Church is playing only a "ministerial" role, if, as per Siscoe and Salza, the pope retains full authority until the Council so "deposes" him, and since as Fifth Lateran teaches, the Pope has the full right and authority to dissolve any Council, the Pope could dissolve a General Council right out of the gate.
In addition, if the Pope retains full authority, then a heretical Pope could merely replace ANY bishops that opposed his heresy.
These considerations make Salza and Siscoe, as well as John of St. Thomas, entirely untenable.
You have to go with AT LEAST a sedimpoundist view (Father Chazal) or a sedeprivationist/sedevacantist view.
-
There are two ways in which a "Pope" can find himself outside the Church.
1) the Pope can recede from the Church.
2) the Church can recede from the Pope.
What you're saying, XaivierSem, is that the Church's recession from the Pope has a similar effect to someone going up to the Pope and killing him ... rendering the matter indisposed to sustain the form.
We have just one problem with that. It is never permitted to recede from a Pope. That is the definition of schism. So the Church would then cease to be the Church, because it would be in schism. Recession is only permitted if the man is already a non-Pope.
-
Again, someone from the Siscoe and Salza camp needs to answer this question:
IF THE HYPOTHETICAL HERETICAL POPE STILL RETAINS FULL AUTHORITY UNTIL DEPOSED BY A GENERAL COUNCIL --
What is to prevent a heretical Pope from forbidding or dissolving at its inception any General Council that would set about attempting to judge him guilty of heresy? (based on the teaching of V Lateran that the Pope has full authority to dissolve Councils)
What is to prevent a heretical Pope from simply declaring immediately deposed any bishop that considers him to be heretical? (based on the teaching of Vatican I)
-
《The Church’s action is simply declaratory, it makes it plain that an incorrigible sin of heresy exists; then the authoritative action of God disjoins the Papacy from a subject who, persisting in heresy after admonition, becomes in divine law, inapt to retain it any longer. In virtue therefore of Scripture the Church designates and God deposes.》
Apart from the pope, the Church lacks the jurisdiction to issue a declaration of heresy against the pope which binds the whole Church. A declaratory sentence requires jurisdiction. The pope is solemnly defined to be the supreme judge of all questions of faith or morals, and of all cases pertaining to ecclesiastical examination. His power of jurisdiction is full and absolute, and is universal, over every church, clergy and faithful. The pope, in virtue of his primacy possesses the full and absolute power over a council. No decree or declaration of a council has any validity without his consent. He possesses the full and absolute power of jurisdiction to freely dissolve any council at will. Unless he first fall from office by himself, it is absolutely impossible for "the Church" to judge and declare the pope a heretic. The act of deposition is threefold, (as Bordoni explains), 1) Judgment of heresy, 2) declaration of deposition, 3) penal sanction. Nos. 2 & 3 depend absolutely on no. 1; and no. 1 cannot be valid without jurisdiction over the pope; because judgment, according to its nature, is an act of jurisdiction by a superior over a subject (as Bordoni demonnstrates, citing the authorities).
-
You do realize that it heresy to say that a council is above a pope, do you not?
Quo Vadis Domine,
Nobody believes a council is above a Pope. That is a straw man argument used by the Sedevacantists in an attempt to dismiss the theologians directly refute their position. Cajetan was a leading opponent of Conciliarism which was rampant in his day. John of St. Thomas was not a conciliarist, contrary to the slanderous accusations of Fr. Kramer, and neither was Suarez. If you read their arguments carefully, they are explaining how the Church plays a ministerial role in removing an heretical Pope, without having to exercise any authority or coercive force over him.
-
Quo Vadis Domine,
Nobody believes a council is above a Pope.
You may think you don't believe it, but the way your draw our your thesis, that's effectively what you're doing ... subjecting the Pope to the Council.
-
What is to prevent a heretical Pope from simply declaring immediately deposed any bishop that considers him to be heretical? (based on the teaching of Vatican I)
Lad, just because this scenario could arise, does not mean that it would happen. Just because this approach could be easily shown to have flaws, does not mean it could not also succeed.
.
We already have an example of your above bad scenario, but with worse effects than deposition. I think 3 of the cardinals who signed the dubia letter were found dead of “accidental” causes. Certainly, murder is worse than deposition. But that does not mean that the attempt itself, of Cardinals attempting to challenge a heretic pope is theoretically pointless.
.
This is all uncharted territory in the practical sense. Yet, theoretically, many past theologians (including current ones who agreed with the dubia letter) say it is not uncharted territory. In other words, this theory has been around for a long time.
.
If one wants to argue that it is practically pointless that Cardinals/council could declare a pope a heretic, how is this a worse approach than having MILLIONS of Trads declaring the same pope a heretic, without ANY process or ANY authority at all? Talk about the height of irony!
.
If one disagrees that the Cardinals/Bishops can take any action against a heretical pope, then the only alternative is to hunker down, pray, and wait for him to die by God’s will. Those are the only alternatives in my opinion.
-
《This Council can be convened by the authority of the Church which is in the bishops or the greater majority of them》sententia hæretica: The proposition directly opposes the full and absolute power of jurisdiction of the pope over the whole Church.
Bellarmine, who taught that the Pope possesses full and absolute power of jurisdiction over the who Church, replies to Fr. Kramer:
Bellarmine: Question: “whether it is lawful for a Council to be summoned by anyone other than the Pope, when the Pope should not summon it, for the reason that he is a heretic or schismatic …
“I respond that in no case can a true and perfect Council (such as this disputation concerns), be convoked without the authority of the Pope, because he alone has the authority to define questions of faith. (…) Still, in those two cases an imperfect Council could be gathered which would suffice to provide for the Church from the head. For the Church, without a doubt, has the authority to provide for itself from the head, although it cannot, without the head, make a determinations of many things which it can with the head, as Cajetan rightly teaches in his little work, de potstate Papae v. 15 and 16 (i.e. his treatise on deposing an heretical Pope], and much earlier on the priests of the Roman Church in their epistles to Cyprian, which is 7 in the second book of the works of Cyprian. Hence, such an imperfect council can happen, if it is summoned by the college of Cardinals, or if the Bishops of themselves come together in one place.” (De Concilii, lib. I, cap xiv).
-
Lad, just because this scenario could arise, does not mean that it would happen. Just because this approach could be easily shown to have flaws, does not mean it could not also succeed.
As I mentioned before, this is about testing the principle, and the PRINCIPLE fails due to argumentum ad absurdum. I believe it was John of St. Thomas who stated that God would not leave the Church without a remedy in this kind of situation. This principle does exactly that. So what would God have the Church do, αssαssιnαtҽ the heretical Pope?
This is not the correct answer. Answer is that a heretical Pope has no authority to dissolve the Council because he's already lost the authority to do so by virtue of his heresy.
-
Apart from the pope, the Church lacks the jurisdiction to issue a declaration of heresy against the pope which binds the whole Church. A declaratory sentence requires jurisdiction. The pope is solemnly defined to be the supreme judge of all questions of faith or morals, and of all cases pertaining to ecclesiastical examination. His power of jurisdiction is full and absolute, and is universal, over every church, clergy and faithful
Rev. Father, obviously agreed that the Pope's power of jurisdiction is universal, ordinary and immediate over all clergy and faithful. Fr. Suarez said, all the Bishops of the Church together would be able to pronounce such a sentence, "In the first place, who should pronounce such a sentence? Some say that it should be the Cardinals; and the Church could undoubtedly assign them this faculty, above all if it were established with the consent and decision of the Supreme Pontiffs, as was done for the election. But to this day we do not read anywhere that such a judgment has been confided to them. For this reason, it must be affirmed that, of itself, it belongs to all the Bishops of the Church. For since they are the ordinary pastors and the pillars of the Church, one should consider that such a case concerns them. And since by divine law there is no greater reason to affirm that the matter involves some Bishops more than others, and since, according to human law, nothing has been established in the matter, it must necessarily be held that the matter should be referred to all of them, and even to a general Council. This is the common opinion of the doctors. One can read Cardinal Albano expounding upon this point at length in De Cardinalibus, (q. 35, 1584 ed., vol. 13, p. 2)." Presumably, the next Pope would confirm it.
It's of course a question where you have multiple opinions. The Bishops, as we know, have their ordinary particular jurisdiction for their own diocese. Only the Pope of course has ordinary universal jurisdiction for the whole Church. Would the sentence of all the Bishops be binding on the faithful? Imho, yes, it probably will be; at least, if they proceed to elect a new Pope, and then the new Pope confirms it, by his universal jurisdiction. Otherwise, what is the solution? If even all the Bishops together will not bring certitude, nothing will. My question to today's sedes: why is it not even 1% of the Church's Bishops today agree the Pope is a heretic? The Bishops are the only judges in the Church beside the Pope. If all of them consider the Pope is still the Pope, then he is still the Pope imo.
My opinion is that the Pope will lose his office before the Council is convened, but after warnings have been given. Sequence: (1) Warnings from Bishops and Cardinals about heresy (2) Pope demonstrates public pertinacity and therefore loses office. (3) Church assembles in general Council. (4) The Church declares the Pope deposed and proceeds to elect a new Pope.
Your thoughts, Father?
Again, someone from the Siscoe and Salza camp needs to answer this question:
IF THE HYPOTHETICAL HERETICAL POPE STILL RETAINS FULL AUTHORITY UNTIL DEPOSED BY A GENERAL COUNCIL --
Well, Ladislaus, you quoted me, so I'm answering, but I think my opinion differs slightly from Salza's and Siscoe's on this. At least, I'm not sure if they see it in the same way I see it. The way I perceive the sequence of events to unfold is as I gave above. So, in (2) itself, we have the Pope, after the fact of his pertinacity is now publicly manifest, losing the office. Only in (4), we have the Church declaring the Pope deposed, after which it becomes binding. And after it has become binding, the Church can act on the fact, for e.g. by electing a new Pope. That's my opinion. Your thoughts?
Anyway, I don't think a Pope can just like that declare Bishops deposed. Bishops can be deposed only if they commit some grave fault. I seem to recall Cardinal Journet also saying something about all this, I'll see if I can find that text later. God bless, all.
-
Bellarmine, who taught that the Pope possesses full and absolute power of jurisdiction over the who Church, replies to Fr. Kramer:
Sure, a General Council can CONVENE without the the Pope, e.g., in a time of sedevacante, for instance. Thus it is called "Imperfect". Yet it can never convene ACTIVELY AGAINST THE WILL of the Pope. And a true Pope has the authority to dissolve it at its inception.
-
PaxChristi2, these quotes have been posted so many times, yet they are consistently and willfully ignored. You might as well save your time. Most people in this debate have their “favorite quotes” memorized, like mindless Protestants, and refuse (or are intellectually unable) to acknowledge any facts to the contrary. They are defending an agenda and aren’t open to challenges of their small-minded worldview.
.
I’m not saying that this quote stops the debate but it does give credence to the fact that a council is not a crazy idea.
-
Well, Ladislaus, you quoted me, so I'm answering, but I think my opinion differs slightly from Salza's and Siscoe's on this. At least, I'm not sure if they see it in the same way I see it. The way I perceive the sequence of events to unfold is as I gave above. So, in (2) itself, we have the Pope, after the fact of his pertinacity is now publicly manifest, losing the office. Only in (4), we have the Church declaring the Pope deposed, after which it becomes binding. And after it has become binding, the Church can act on the fact, for e.g. by electing a new Pope. That's my opinion. Your thoughts?
I don't disagree with you. In fact, what you're enunciating is similar to some of the principles behind sedeprivationism.
But Salza and Siscoe hold that the pope continues to have full papal authority even after his heresy becomes public. Consequently, he would have the right to forbid and to immediately shut down any such Council, and he would have the right to replace every single bishop in the Church if he so desire.
-
Bishop Williamson and Fr. Chazal say Fr. Kramer's original ordination is valid and is not in need of re-ordination. Fr. Kramer use to assist the SSPX back in the old days in the Philippines and just a couple of years ago offered mass at Fr. Chazel's "bamboo seminary."
Thank you for this information.
-
As I mentioned before, this is about testing the principle, and the PRINCIPLE fails due to argumentum ad absurdum.
Not every principle can be tested (and ruled a failure) by the “absurdity” test. The principle in play is of a governmental, TEMPORAL jurisdiction, and a practical question. This has nothing to do with morality or faith or spiritual jurisdiction. This is part of the Church’s governmental/human law, not the Divine/spiritual law. Hence, there is not necessarily a right answer (being that we don’t live in a perfect world). There is only a “best case” answer. Nothing in government or of human origins is perfect, and this applies to the Church as well.
.
This situation is akin to a war zone. The Church is faced with a decision on how to act in an imperfect scenario. The ONLY perfect, 100% pure solution to the crisis is to pray and wait for God to remove the heretic pope by death. All other solutions are of human means, therefore they aren’t perfect and can’t be tested as such.
-
Cardinal Billot: "And let this be an incidental remark against those who want to join in giving a respectable appearance to the undoubted schismatic efforts made in the time of Alexander VI on the ground that they were made by one who persisted in saying that the most certain evidence in the matter of the heretical state of Alexander VI had to be disclosed in a general Council. However, so as to forego at the present moment other arguments whereby this opinion of his could be easily refuted, this one [argument] alone is sufficient: It is certainly well known that in the time in which Savanarola was writing his letters to princes, all Christendom adhered to and obeyed Alexander as the true pontiff. Therefore, by that fact, Alexander was not a false pontiff. Therefore he was not a heretic, at least he was not in the heretical state that, in removing the essential element of membership in the Church, as a consequence of its very nature strips [a man] of pontifical power or of any other ordinary jurisdiction whatsoever." https://novusordowatch.org/billot-de-ecclesia-thesis29/ The determination must come from the Church, both of the heresy and of public pertinacity in it: private judgment of public pertinacity most certainly doesn't suffice here
That's not the case today. Not even the SSPX clerics obey Frank. But neither do the liberal clerics in the Conciliar sect. Nor do Resistance clerics. Nor do sede vacantist clerics. Frank and his post V2 predecessors have been among the least obeyed "popes" in history. Cardinal Billot doesn't condemn St. Vincent Ferrer, does he? Therefore your argument falls apart.
-
"Private interpretation" is a loaded term. It has bad connotations. And I think it is being used in the wrong context here. To see why, consider the Great Western Schism. Was St. Catherine of Siena using private interpretation when she submitted to Pope Urban VI? At the same time, was St. Vincent Ferrer using private interpretation when he submitted to Clement VII? If you read about the circuмstances you will understand why it was difficult to know at the time who was the true Roman Pontiff. We are all responsible for identifying where the Church is. If some man wearing a roman collar opens a church in your neighborhood and claims to be the Catholic Church, you are responsible for knowing whether his claim is true or not. Sometimes it will be very easy to know and other times it will be more difficult. We happen to be living in a time when it is more difficult. But it was also difficult during the Great Western Schism and we had multiple saints who chose the wrong guy and were still canonized afterwards. But in the GWS case, at least both claimants actually professed the Catholic faith. Today, the guy wearing the white cassock is worshipping demons and yet still Catholics are calling him the pope. I'm not expecting those Catholics to be canonized when the smoke clears.
Well that's kinda the point. The fact that even learned and holy saints guessed wrong proves the peril of private interpretation, and the fact that people were left to private interpretation as to who the pope was is largely why the Schism lasted so long. Most likely not even the popes themselves were sure who the real pope was. My point is that any General Council to depose a heretical pope would lead us to a situation just as bad as the GWS at the very least by virtue of the fact it'd split the Church in two, with Catholics forced to use private interpretation to decide which side is correct.
-
PaxChristi2, these quotes have been posted so many times, yet they are consistently and willfully ignored. You might as well save your time. Most people in this debate have their “favorite quotes” memorized, like mindless Protestants, and refuse (or are intellectually unable) to acknowledge any facts to the contrary. They are defending an agenda and aren’t open to challenges of their small-minded worldview.
.
I’m not saying that this quote stops the debate but it does give credence to the fact that a council is not a crazy idea.
St. Bellarmine saying that the pope doesn't need to call the council doesn't address the fact that (a) we can't be sure of its legitimacy if it lacks papal approval, and (b) if you believe the S&S theory(as opposed to the material-formal version), the pope still has the power to close the council and depose all the bishops who were part of it before they're able to depose him.
-
I don't disagree with you. In fact, what you're enunciating is similar to some of the principles behind sedeprivationism.
Right. If we mostly agree on the principles, the next question becomes, how do we proceed? And even more fundamentally, have even 1% of the Bishops of the Teaching Church today (whom we both agree must pronounce the declaratory sentence, right?) agreed to proceed to making such a declaration. The two Bishops, imho, who are the most likely to consider it, would probably be Bishop Athanasius Schneider and Cardinal Raymond Burke. Cardinal Burke has said, loss of office would be automatic, but H.E. obviously doesn't believe it has happened yet, and continues to refer to the Pope as Pope, even while criticizing many of his actions and statements. And Bp. Athanasius seems to be of the view that a heretic-Pope is a rare event to which the Church has no other defense than to "last it out" and of course to contradict the Pope, as H.E. did in the Abu Dhabi falsehood, the pachamama idolatry, and other such things. But, what about the other 5000+ Bishops in the Church? So, it doesn't seem to me, Ladislaus, that this kind of thing can even get off the ground until we have at least 50 Bishops who are ready to consider declaring loss of office. What do you think about that?
Cardinal Billot doesn't condemn St. Vincent Ferrer, does he?
No, Clemens Maria. He doesn't. But he explains why Savonarola was wrong. Savonarola was convinced the Pope was a heretic. There may seem to be grounds for us to presume pertinacity (as there seemed to be to Savonarola also), but it's ultimately not up to us to decide imho.
The Church is faced with a decision on how to act in an imperfect scenario. The ONLY perfect, 100% pure solution to the crisis is to pray and wait for God to remove the heretic pope by death.
That could be a temporary solution, perhaps, Pax. But what happens when the next Pope is elected, if he also is a flaming liberal Catholic? The only long term solution imho is for the Pope to become the Saint that God Wills him to be, but which his own free-will prevents him from becoming or even wanting to be. God calls us all to strive for a high degree of sanctity amidst the responsibilities of our own state in life. The best contribution each and all of us in our own small measure can make toward Church Restoration and the Triumph of the Immaculate Heart is to strive in our own lives to attain that level of sanctity that God Wills for each of us. St. Leonard said, "take my advice and in every Holy Mass ask God to make you a great saint. Does this seem too much? It is not too much. Is it not our good Master who proclaims in the Gospel that, for a cup of cold water given out of love of him, he will, in return, give paradise? How, then, while offering to God the blood of his most blessed Son, should he not give you a hundred heavens, were there so many?" Let us begin right away and start praying every day both for ourselves to become so, and for Pope Francis, or the Cardinal or Bishop whom God has foreknown and predestined to succeed him, to become the saints that God and the Church needs them to be. That's the only solution imo.
-
Some of what John of St. Thomas taught came to be heretical after Vatican I.
What dogma did Vatican I define that contradicted anything John of St. Thomas wrote?
-
You may think you don't believe it, but the way your draw our your thesis, that's effectively what you're doing ... subjecting the Pope to the Council.
Decrees of the First Vatican Council
SESSION 4 : 18 July 1870
Chapter 3. On the power and character of the primacy of the Roman pontiff
Para 8
"Since the Roman pontiff, by the divine right of the apostolic primacy, governs the whole church, we likewise teach and declare that he is the supreme judge of the faithful [52] , and that in all cases which fall under ecclesiastical jurisdiction recourse may be had to his judgment [53]. The sentence of the apostolic see (than which there is no higher authority) is not subject to revision by anyone, nor may anyone lawfully pass judgment thereupon [54] . And so they stray from the genuine path of truth who maintain that it is lawful to appeal from the judgments of the Roman pontiffs to an ecuмenical council as if this were an authority superior to the Roman pontiff."
I see no distinction between a coercive and discretionary judgement. Also, PaxChristi2 (Salza & Siscoe) is falsely assuming (just as XavierSem does) that there is in fact peaceful acceptance of the Conciliar popes. But that is now manifestly false and even now the man whom they claim to be pope is worshipping demons in the Vatican Gardens. Even the conservative Novus Ordo folks are coming to the realization that this man cannot be the pope. And even Salza & Siscoe admit that a pope who publicly severs the external bonds of unity with the Church would immediately and without a declaration fall from the papacy. So now the only question is whether or not there is sufficient evidence to conclude that Frank has publicly severed the bonds of unity. But there is no guidance from the theologians that only if a pope says, "I quit the Catholic Church" that then and only then could we conclude that he has fallen. I guarantee that S&S will fall into line with the SSPX clerics if ever they finally decide enough is enough and switch over to supporting the idea that Frank publicly and at least tacitly resigned his claim to the papacy. I think Salza and Siscoe are not principled in this regard. They are just going along with whatever the SSPX clerics decide and the SSPX clerics are nothing if not pragmatic. If they see the wind blowing towards the tacit resignation opinion, they will go along with it.
-
Ladislaus: "But Salza and Siscoe hold that the pope continues to have full papal authority even after his heresy becomes public. Consequently, he would have the right to forbid and to immediately shut down any such Council, and he would have the right to replace every single bishop in the Church if he so desire.
Siscoe and Salza believe if there are multiple doubtful Popes (such as during the Great Western Schism), or a pope who is suspected from heresy, the true Pope amongst the doubtful ones, and the true Pope who is suspected of heresy, lack the authority to prevent a council from convening to resolve the matter, and lacks the authority to dissolve the council while it is considering the matter.
Bellator Dei: "This ^^ is the main problem with Salza and Siscoe.
From what I understand, they (Salza and Siscoe) don't believe one can be considered a heretic without a formal declaration from the Church...which is absurd, if that's true.
Nope, that's not what they believe.
-
If it is metaphysically impossible for an inferior to accept the resignation of a superior, it must also be metaphysically impossible for an inferior to make a discretionary judgement on a superior. I think Ladislaus has it right when he says that any discretionary judgement being made by the Cardinals or a Council is not being made on the pope (the superior) but on the man's claim to the papacy. And that discretionary judgement presupposes that there is NOT universal peaceful acceptance of the claim. So S&S can't have their cake and eat it too. They can't claim UPA and then also claim that Cardinals could make a discretionary judgement on the man that everyone obeys as the true pope. So which is it? Is their UPA or not? If there is UPA then you have no business rejecting the magisterium of the man who is peacefully accepted as the true pope. Or if there isn't UPA, then you have no business criticizing people for rejecting Frank the demon-worshipping heretic's claim to the papacy.
-
Siscoe and Salza believe if there are multiple doubtful Popes (such as during the Great Western Schism), or a pope who is suspected from heresy, the true Pope amongst the doubtful ones, and the true Pope who is suspected of heresy, lack the authority to prevent a council from convening to resolve the matter, and lacks the authority to dissolve the council while it is considering the matter.
Nope, that's not what they believe.
And how are we to know that the council is a true council? Even true councils can act and teach in error when they are not doing so in union with the pope. The Council of Constance, the one which ended the GWS and elected Martin V, taught in error regarding conciliar infallibility during its period of sede vacante. And even for centuries after Constance it was disputed which popes of the GWS were true popes and which were anti-popes(for example, Alexander V reigned in opposition to the Roman line who we recognise as popes today, yet Pope Alexander VI numbered himself after him, and Alexander V was included in most lists of popes).
Point is, councils without the direction of a pope really aren't much help. Constance only worked out because the two claimants who the vast majority of Christendom backed both agreed to step down to elect a new pope, and any remaining doubt was removed by the anti-pope of Avignon agreeing to step down just a few years thereafter. Had it not been for the good wills of those men, Constance would've been powerless. Indeed, the first council that attempted to resolve the schism, the Council of Pisa, just made matters worse by creating a third papal claimant.
-
Also, PaxChristi2 (Salza & Siscoe) is falsely assuming (just as XavierSem does) that there is in fact peaceful acceptance of the Conciliar popes.
What do the theologians say is required for the peaceful and universal acceptance of a Pope?
-
What do the theologians say is required for the peaceful and universal acceptance of a Pope?
http://sedevacantist.com/believe.html
-
And how are we to know that the council is a true council? Even true councils can act and teach in error when they are not doing so in union with the pope.
The only way we would know for sure is when the next Pope confirmed it. The Council of Pisa attempted to resolve the Great Western Schism and failed. It even judged the true Pope to be a notorious heretic and declared him ipso facto deposed; yet he remained pope until he resigned during the Council of Constance.
-
http://sedevacantist.com/believe.html
That article doesn't address the question What do the theologians say is required for the peaceful and universal acceptance of a Pope? That's not a hard question if you know the answer. And if you do know the answer you'll know that all the recent Popes met the criterion.
-
Quote from: Clemens Maria
"Private interpretation" is a loaded term. It has bad connotations. And I think it is being used in the wrong context here. To see why, consider the Great Western Schism. Was St. Catherine of Siena using private interpretation when she submitted to Pope Urban VI? At the same time, was St. Vincent Ferrer using private interpretation when he submitted to Clement VII? If you read about the circuмstances you will understand why it was difficult to know at the time who was the true Roman Pontiff. We are all responsible for identifying where the Church is. If some man wearing a roman collar opens a church in your neighborhood and claims to be the Catholic Church, you are responsible for knowing whether his claim is true or not. Sometimes it will be very easy to know and other times it will be more difficult. We happen to be living in a time when it is more difficult. But it was also difficult during the Great Western Schism and we had multiple saints who chose the wrong guy and were still canonized afterwards. But in the GWS case, at least both claimants actually professed the Catholic faith. Today, the guy wearing the white cassock is worshipping demons and yet still Catholics are calling him the pope. I'm not expecting those Catholics to be canonized when the smoke clears.
forlorn's response:
Well that's kinda the point. The fact that even learned and holy saints guessed wrong proves the peril of private interpretation, and the fact that people were left to private interpretation as to who the pope was is largely why the Schism lasted so long. Most likely not even the popes themselves were sure who the real pope was. My point is that any General Council to depose a heretical pope would lead us to a situation just as bad as the GWS at the very least by virtue of the fact it'd split the Church in two, with Catholics forced to use private interpretation to decide which side is correct.
No, I'm not making your point for you. Was St. Vincent Ferrer guilty of private interpretation when he followed the Cardinals who falsely claimed that Clement VII was the true Catholic pope? Was St. Catherine of Siena guilty of private interpretation when she followed the Cardinals who correctly claimed Urban VI was the true pope? What was the difference between their two judgements aside from the fact that one was correct and the other was wrong? Did St. Vincent Ferrer commit a sin? What should he have done differently, in your opinion?
-
That article doesn't address the question What do the theologians say is required for the peaceful and universal acceptance of a Pope? That's not a hard question if you know the answer. And if you do know the answer you'll know that all the recent Popes met the criterion.
No they don't.
https://www.cathinfo.com/crisis-in-the-church/universal-acceptance-is-a-catholic-doctrine-not-mere-theological-opinion/
-
Nope, that's not what they believe.
Have you yet affirmed or denied that you are either Siscoe or Salza?
-
If it is metaphysically impossible for an inferior to accept the resignation of a superior, it must also be metaphysically impossible for an inferior to make a discretionary judgement on a superior. I think Ladislaus has it right when he says that any discretionary judgement being made by the Cardinals or a Council is not being made on the pope (the superior) but on the man's claim to the papacy.
Popes have been judged by a discretionary judgment while they remained Pope. These were true Pope who were being judged for alleged crimes they had committed. The discretionary judgment was not seeking to determine if they were Popes. Bellarmine has a chapter on this in De Concilli.
And that discretionary judgement presupposes that there is NOT universal peaceful acceptance of the claim.
The popes who were judged with a discretionary judgment were peacefully and universally accepted.
So S&S can't have their cake and eat it too. They can't claim UPA and then also claim that Cardinals could make a discretionary judgement on the man that everyone obeys as the true pope. So which is it? Is their UPA or not?
Perfect example of how two false suppositions easily end in an quandry. UPA has noting to do with the discretionary judgment.
-
Care to elaborate?
Yes, I'd be interested in an elaboration. To me it seems that the entire argument of S&S is that the Pope continues to have full papal authority until it's declared otherwise by the Church in a General Council.
To this end, it would be important to know whether PC2 is in fact either Salza or Siscoe. If not, then I'd prefer not to get into the battle of exegesis of S&S, since it's difficult enough to interpret the actual theologians and Doctors who dealt with this subject.
-
No they don't.
https://www.cathinfo.com/crisis-in-the-church/universal-acceptance-is-a-catholic-doctrine-not-mere-theological-opinion/
No links. It's a simple question that does not require a long answer. What do the theologians say is required for the peaceful and universal acceptance of a Pope. If you'd rather quote a theologian, that's fine, but don't just post a link.
-
Have you yet affirmed or denied that you are either Siscoe or Salza?
Affirmed.
Ladislaus: To me it seems that the entire argument of S&S is that the Pope continues to have full papal authority until it's declared otherwise by the Church in a General Council.
I replied to that a few comments earlier. I'll be interested in hearing your reply. And when you do reply, be sure to remember what your own position is, since if you do, you cannot possibly object to what I wrote.
-
PC2, you still haven't answered my question:
Is there anything that would prevent a heretical Pope from dissolving a General Council from its inception?
Is there anything that would prevent a heretical Pope from instantly removing every single bishop who doesn't believe the same heresy he holds?
-
Affirmed.
OK, thank you. I asked because you wrote of Siscoe and Salza in the third person.
-
and the true Pope who is suspected of heresy, lack the authority to prevent a council from convening to resolve the matter, and lacks the authority to dissolve the council while it is considering the matter.
How can a True Pope lack the authority to dissolve a Council? How does not this reject the teaching of Lateran V?
You can only say that a Pope who's suspect of heresy LACKS FULL PAPAL AUTHORITY, that his authority is somehow crippled.
-
PC2, you actually cited 2 cases, but I focused on one ...
1) multiple disputed popes
2) true pope suspect of heresy
In both cases, isn't the common denominator that they are "doubtful" popes?
Is this a case where a papa dubius lacks full papal authority?
So if a pope who's suspect of heresy lacks the authority to dissolve a General Council, then what other aspects of his authority are also somehow "suspended"? Nestorius' ability to excommunicate people perhaps? What else? Does the doubtful pope have the authority to define a dogma? Does the doubtful pope have the authority to promulgate and impose a new Rite of Mass? Does the doubtful pope have the authority to issue encyclicals that are to be given assent by the faithful? In all your studies, have you taken into consideration the status of the papa dubius, the doubtful pope?
This is actually drawing things closer to Father Chazal's sedimpeditism and sedeprivationism ... is it not?
Father Chazal studied the theologians as well and he came to the conclusion that heretical popes are in fact "suspended" or "quarantined" or "impounded" and that they lack all authority, even though they remain legally in office until the Church declares otherwise. THIS makes sense to me.
-
Right. If we mostly agree on the principles, the next question becomes, how do we proceed? And even more fundamentally, have even 1% of the Bishops of the Teaching Church today (whom we both agree must pronounce the declaratory sentence, right?) agreed to proceed to making such a declaration. The two Bishops, imho, who are the most likely to consider it, would probably be Bishop Athanasius Schneider and Cardinal Raymond Burke. Cardinal Burke has said, loss of office would be automatic, but H.E. obviously doesn't believe it has happened yet, and continues to refer to the Pope as Pope, even while criticizing many of his actions and statements. And Bp. Athanasius seems to be of the view that a heretic-Pope is a rare event to which the Church has no other defense than to "last it out" and of course to contradict the Pope, as H.E. did in the Abu Dhabi falsehood, the pachamama idolatry, and other such things. But, what about the other 5000+ Bishops in the Church? So, it doesn't seem to me, Ladislaus, that this kind of thing can even get off the ground until we have at least 50 Bishops who are ready to consider declaring loss of office. What do you think about that?
Exactly. I have brought this up also. Let's say that Amor Laetitiae is in fact heretical ... and it certainly seems to be the case. Given the fact that 99% of the hierarchy are either heretical themselves or asleep at the switch or don't care or too lazy to rebuke Bergoglio or whatever ... then how can we hope, naturally speaking, that it can ever get resolved by a General Council?
Regardless of what position one takes regarding the status of a heretical pope, there's no question but that we just have to "last it out". God will provide the solution ... in His time.
In the MEANTIME, while we wait, what is our own personal response? Given their "doubtful" state, I think that we simply adhere to Tradition and wait it out. Since they are, in my mind, doubtful, then I am not obliged to accept their Magisterium and their Mass, since those too then are doubtful.
Despite the fact that, considering the question ontologically, the sedeprivationist/sedimpoundist position makes the most sense, that's for the Church to ultimately sort out. In my own personal response, I can go so far only as to say that I am "in doubt".
That's why I have referred to myself as a sede-doubtist. This position actually dovetails nicely with my previous responses, just above, to PC2. If the suspect Pope cannot dissolve a heretical Council, it must only be because he's crippled somehow by the mere suspicion of heresy from exercising the plenitude of papal authority.
-
I could go in any direction about the detailed quibbling, but what I cannot accept as a matter of faith, is that the Church's Magisterium could go so badly off the rails as to be leading souls to hell, that the Church's Universal Discipline, the Mass, can be harmful to faith, to souls, and must be avoided by Catholics to please God. Those propositions are anathema to me. And that really is the problem most sedevacantists have ... it isn't Bellarmine vs. Cajetan vs. John of St. Thomas disputing the finer points of how many heretics can dance on the head of a pin.
I believe what follows in the depths of my soul, and this can never be dislodge from me -- (from Msgr. Fenton)
... God has given the Holy Father a kind of infallibility distinct from the charism of doctrinal infallibility in the strict sense. He has so constructed and ordered the Church that those who follow the directives given to the entire kingdom of God on earth will never be brought into the position of ruining themselves spiritually through this obedience. Our Lord dwells within His Church in such a way that those who obey disciplinary and doctrinal directives of this society can never find themselves displeasing God through their adherence to the teachings and the commands given to the universal Church militant. Hence there can be no valid reason to discountenance even the non-infallible teaching authority of Christ’s vicar on earth.
...
It is, of course, possible that the Church might come to modify its stand on some detail of teaching presented as non-infallible matter in a papal encyclical. The nature of the auctoritas providentiae doctrinalis within the Church is such, however, that this fallibility extends to questions of relatively minute detail or of particular application. The body of doctrine on the rights and duties of labor, on the Church and State, or on any other subject treated extensively in a series of papal letters directed to and normative for the entire Church militant could not be radically or completely erroneous. The infallible security Christ wills that His disciples should enjoy within His Church is utterly incompatible with such a possibility.
To me, this isn't just Msgr. Fenton's opinion, but I hold this to be true de fide, with anything else being an implicit rejection of the Church's indefectibility.
-
Lad, when you say this is the problem most sedevacantist have....what do you mean? Because sedevacantists agree with Fenton.
-
Popes have been judged by a discretionary judgment while they remained Pope. These were true Pope who were being judged for alleged crimes they had committed. The discretionary judgment was not seeking to determine if they were Popes. Bellarmine has a chapter on this in De Concilli.
No they haven't. And I think you mean De Romano Pontifice. Previously you quoted part of it:
"For example, in response to the objection that “Leo IV asked for judges from Emperor Louis and promised to obey their decisions, as [is] contained in the canons Nos so incompetenter 2, q. 7,” Bellarmine said: “Leo subjected himself to the discretionary judgment of the Emperor, not the coactive, as is easily deduced from the same chapter” (De Romano Pontifice, lib II, cap xxix)"
Leo freely chose to subject himself to such a judgement. But what you are proposing is to compel Frank to leave the papacy. And the whole point of that sixth argument is to refute the idea that the Roman Pontiff can be subjected to emperors. So your interpretation is tortured. For you, it's all about justifying the SSPX position, not about finding the truth. Otherwise, you wouldn't be accusing sedes of being manifest schismatics/heretics while defending Joe Biden's membership in the Church.
-
Lad, when you say this is the problem most sedevacantist have....what do you mean? Because sedevacantists agree with Fenton.
No, sorry. What I meant is that this is the biggest problem sedevacantists have with R&R. I too agree with the Msgr. Fenton ... and the sedevacantists on this particular issue. What I'm trying to say is that the bigger concern for sedevacantists, the bigger issue they have with R&R, is the implications for the Church's holiness and indefectibility. I think we can get too mired down in the finer points of this dispute regarding Bellarmine vs. Cajetan vs. John of St. Thomas, etc. We can get lost in the weeds and lose sight of the bigger issue.
-
How can a True Pope lack the authority to dissolve a Council? How does not this reject the teaching of Lateran V?
You can only say that a Pope who's suspect of heresy LACKS FULL PAPAL AUTHORITY, that his authority is somehow crippled.
Here's what St. Alphonsus wrote:
St. Alphonsus: “It must be prefaced, I. The fact that a Pope is above a council must not be understood about a doubtful Pope in a time of schism, when there will be probable uncertainty about the legitimacy of his election; because then in each case the doubtful Pope ought to be under a council, just as the Council of Constance defined (sess. 4). For then, a general Council holds supreme power immediately from Christ, just as in a time when the See is vacant, as St. Antoninus rightly adverts (p. 3, tit. 23, c. 2, §26).
“It must be prefaced, II. The same thing avails in regard to a manifestly and externally heretical Pope, but not for a secret or mental one. However, others argue more accurately that, in this case, the Pope cannot be deprived of his authority by the council as if it were above him, but that he is deposed immediately by Jesus Christ, when the condition of this deposition [the declaration of the council] is carried out as required.” (Moral Theologym 1748.
I would nuance St. Alphonsus’ teaching a bit by saying, along with Torquemada, that “the council is not greater than the Pope by the power of jurisdiction, but with the authority of a discretionary judgment for greater knowledge.”
Tanquerey relates that during the First Vatican Council, Bishop Gasser took the time to address the question of an heretical Pope. After explaining that it is ‘probable’ that a Pope will never fall into heresy, he added this: “If it did happen that the Pope fell into pertinacious heresy, he would either be ipso facto be deprived of the Pontificate, or the body of bishops could depose him, as in the case of doubtful pope: for in this extraordinary case, the authority passes (delolvitur) to the episcopal body.” (Tanquerey, Synopsis theologiae dogmaticae)
-
Okay, let’s take this one point at a time. You initially made two assertions that I responded to by quoting Pope Innocent III. Your first was this: “… the constant doctrinal and canonical tradition of the Church presupposes that a pope cannot be a heretic.” (Fr. Kramer) Your second was this: “the papal magisterium has constantly taught that the pope can never be judged by anyone.” (Fr. Kramer)
I quoted Innocent who readily admitting the possibility that he could “wither away into heresy,” which contradicts your first entirely false statement that “the constant doctrinal and canonical tradition” presupposes the contrary. The traditional teaching is that a Pope can fall into heresy, and the contrary opinion was not seriously defended until Alber Pighius did so in 16th century (Hierarch. Eccles. lib. 4, cap. So, your first statement was and is entirely false.
You second - that "the papal magististerium has contantly taught the the pope can never be judged by anyone" is also false, because you failed to make a necessary distinction. Plenty of Pope have been legitimately judged by men. Pope Leo IV asked for the Emperor and his legates to judge him, and the Pope agree to submit to their ruling and obey it.
What is forbidden is for a Pope be juridically judged with a coercive (coactive) judgment. The Pope is the supreme ruler on earth and no one can exercise jurisdiction or coercive force over him. It is metaphysically impossible for a Pope to be legitimately judged by men with a coercive judgment. But Popes can and have been judged with a discretionary judgment, which is a legitimate judgment from an authority, who has the right to render the judgment, but who lacks any coercive force over the one judged. That’s how the Pope have been judged in the past, as Bellarmine, St. Alphonsus and countless other theologians teach. For example, in response to the objection that “Leo IV asked for judges from Emperor Louis and promised to obey their decisions, as if contained in the canons Nos so incompetenter 2, q. 7,” Bellarmine said: “Leo subjected himself to the discretionary judgment of the Emperor, not the coactive, as is easily deduced from the same chapter” (De Romano Pontifice, lib II, cap xxix). The same form of judgment was used again Sixtus III, (Mandasti’ 2, quaest. 5), Leo III (ch. ‘Auditum’), as well as other Pope.
. And the judgment was not being rendered against former Popes who had secretly been deposed by God, but against true "formal Popes" - jurisdiction and all - whose legitimately was not in doubt. So, your second statement is just as false as your first.
Now let’s consider the third statement you added in the latest reply. You claim that “shown to be already judged" means “proven to have already fallen from office.” But that’s an argument that was used to defend the 2nd Opinion – i.e., that an entirely occult heretic ceases to be Pope - which Bellarmine refutes, and which was entirely abandoned by theologians centuries ago. I thought you and your fellow Sedevacantists agreed with Bellarmine? Why are you now appealing to an argument that was used to defend the opinion he refuted?
Here’s how Cajetan describes the second opinion, and how he responded to the argument you just presented to defend it:
“[the Second Opinion maintains that] when the Pope becomes a heretic, he is deprived of the papacy ipso facto by divine law, which is based on the distinction between believer and unbeliever. When he is deposed by the Church on this account, it is not the pope who is either judged or deposed, but he who has already been judged, because he does not believe (in accordance with what the Lord says in John 3), and who has already been deposed; since, having become an unbeliever, and being removed by his own will from the body of the Church, he is formally declared judged and deposed.”
Does that sound familiar? That’s the 2nd Opinion that Bellarmine refutes, that every theologian abandoned centuries ago, and that you’re now attempting to resurrect by your interpretation of Innocent III. Here’s what Cajetan says in response to your argument:
“first of all, the Lord’s authority is not to the point, because He is speaking of the judgment of eternal damnation, by which ‘he that doth not believe is already judged’ [John 3:18], and on God’s part, because, ‘The Lord knows who they are’ … and in regard to obvious condemnation without a trial at the last judgment, as Gregory explains.”
What he means is the Pope is not deposed by the judgment of God without the judgement of men. He goes on to answer another one of your argument by saying when "St. Thomas and others" speak of heretics lacking jurisdiction, they are to understood as referring to those who are heretics "in the Church's judgment."
Bellarmine refutes the 2nd Opinion by stating that just as God does not make a man Pope without the cooperation of men (the Cardinal who elect him), neither does he remove a Pope without the cooperation of men (the bishops who judge and declare him deposed). God does not secretly depose a Pope without the Church knowing about it or being involved in the process, any more than he secretly makes a man Pope without the Church knowing about it or being involved in the process. The "judgment of men" that's required for God to depose a Pope is a discretionary judgment, and no coercive power is needed for the Church do so - just as no coercive power was necessary when you to judge the person you the person you mistakenly thought was the Pope (Benedict XVI) on April 30th, before posting your judgment on Facebook and "exhorting" everyone to presume that the See is now vacant.
You've provided very good information, but most of the sedevacantists and at least one of the sedeprivationists aren't going to pay much attention to information from the other side, unless they can find a way to call it "heretical" (their favorite word in the English language). That's what they live for - to look for heresy in everything and everywhere and everyone. That's why I hardly debate with them anymore.
I'll keep posting the work of John of St. Thomas, though of course it may give them fits.
-
Here's what St. Alphonsus wrote:
Fine, but that is just reiterating the point that a doubtful pope can be judged by a Council.
WHY? HOW?
That is the key question here, not just a restatement of the same thing.
Lateran V clearly taught that a True Pope has the right to dissolve a Council.
Clearly then the doubtful pope is somehow in a crippled or suspended state ... and lacking the usual authority.
Note, I am not in fact disputing the fact that a doubtful pope is crippled. That is precisely the condition I believe the Church to be in right now, which is why I have called myself a sede-doubtist.
Doubtful popes have crippled authority. How? Why? Unless this can be explained, the "exception" granted is merely gratuitous and would seem to violate Lateran V.
This is a bit too convenient a deus ex machina pulled out of Bishop Gasser's hat in merely gratuitously stating that it's an exception, an "extraordinary situation".
-
You've provided very good information, but most of the sedevacantists and at least one of the sedeprivationists aren't going to pay much attention to information from the other side, unless they can find a way to call it "heretical" (their favorite word in the English language). That's what they live for - to look for heresy in everything and everywhere and everyone. That's why I hardly debate with them anymore.
Stop polluting the thread with your worthless ad hominems and your spamming of John of St. Thomas. We're actually having some decent interesting discussion here that might be going somewhere. I don't enjoy having to scroll past your 10-paragraph spam posts just to get to the next point being made by PC2, Clemens, Decem, or XavierSem.
-
So let's expand the earlier scenario:
March 1, 2020: Bergoglio says something that could be heretical depending on its interpretation.
April 1, 2020: General Council convenes, admonishes Bergoglio, he refuse to recant.
April 2, 2020: Bergoglio dissolves the General Council and declares it null.
April 3, 2020: General Council declares Bergoglio outside the Church.
At some point before April 1, 2020, Bergoglio entered a "doubtful pope" state.
This to me is different from:
March 1, 2020: Bergoglio says something clearly heretical, "I know the Church teaches the Real Presence, but I don't believe it."
April 1, 2020: General Council declares Bergoglio a heretic.
To me, THIS is the distinction between a Pope leaving the Church himself vs. a Pope being "judged" a heretic. ... and not the apostasy vs. everything else division.
And now, let's add a twist. On April 3, 2020: The General Council declared 51% to 49% that Bergoglio was a heretic. But the 49% do not accede to this judgment and remain adamant that Bergoglio is still the pope.
What then?
-
I wish I could find the quotation of a theologian made by Father William Jenkins regarding the "doubtful pope" and how he lacked authority.
Note well the theological maxim: papa dubius papa nullus ... a doubtful pope is no pope. Citations have been made from Cajetan, Capello, and DeGroot.
-
Tanquerey relates that during the First Vatican Council, Bishop Gasser took the time to address the question of an heretical Pope. After explaining that it is ‘probable’ that a Pope will never fall into heresy, he added this: “If it did happen that the Pope fell into pertinacious heresy, he would either be ipso facto be deprived of the Pontificate, or the body of bishops could depose him, as in the case of doubtful pope: for in this extraordinary case, the authority passes (delolvitur) to the episcopal body.” (Tanquerey, Synopsis theologiae dogmaticae)
Note, however, that there's no indication here that ANY Pope who hasn't been judged by a Council is a doubtful pope. It's also possible that he is also ipso facto deprived of the Pontificate.
-
So we must conclude that a Doubtful Pope is certainly not a True Pope simpliciter. Otherwise, it would be heretical to state that he could not dissolve any General Council.
So a Doubtful Pope is merely a pope secundum quid.
Might one not say this secundum quid works out along the lines of formaliter vs. materialiter. Gasp.
-
PC2, you actually cited 2 cases, but I focused on one ...
1) multiple disputed popes
2) true pope suspect of heresy
In both cases, isn't the common denominator that they are "doubtful" popes?
Is this a case where a papa dubius lacks full papal authority?
So if a pope who's suspect of heresy lacks the authority to dissolve a General Council, then what other aspects of his authority are also somehow "suspended"? Nestorius' ability to excommunicate people perhaps?
That's my personally position, but I would nuance it a bit. To clarity what I wrote previously, I wouldn't say he lacks the authority. He always possesses full supreme authority as an undivided and inseparable habit; but being a pertinacious heretic and a manifest wolf in sheep's clothing has the unfortunately effect of preventing him from licitly and validly exercise certain aspects of it (in certain circuмstances), such as excommunicating those who resist him or preventing the Bishops from gather at an imperfect council.
Does the doubtful pope have the authority to define a dogma?
Yes, and the charism of infallibility, which is attached to the Petrine office - the teaching office, not governing office - will prevent him from erring if he does so.
Does the doubtful pope have the authority to promulgate and impose a new Rite of Mass?
He would have the authority to publish a new missal and express the "wish" and "hope" that everyone really likes it (which is essentially what Paul VI did), but he would not have the authority to abrogate the true Mass (which Paul VI never did).
This is actually drawing things closer to Father Chazal's sedimpeditism and sedeprivationism ... is it not? Father Chazal studied the theologians as well and he came to the conclusion that heretical popes are in fact "suspended" or "quarantined" or "impounded" and that they lack all authority, even though they remain legally in office until the Church declares otherwise. THIS makes sense to me.
I had an lengthy correspondence with Fr. Chazal about this a few years ago. I'll see if I can located it. At the time, he recommended that we publish into a booklet, so I'm sure he won't mind if I post it here.
-
PC2, are you and Fr Chazal in agreement, generally speaking?
.
If so, what is you opinion on how the current sspx leadership would accept such views? I can’t see the sspx endorsing any Fr Chazal-like view, because it would be negative towards +Francis.
-
"PaxChristi", Siscoe, or whatever your real name is: It is absolutely clear that you are obstinately and knowingly entrenched in heresy. What part of"absolute power" do you not understand? How can a council or any other body or individual exercise a "ministerial function" against a pope who possesses by divine right the "absolute fullness of this supreme power" over the whole Church? It is infallibly defined that the pope possesses absolute authority over a council. It is infallibly defined that the pope can freely dissolve a council whenever he chooses to do so. Fifth Lateran Council: “t is clearly established that the Roman Pontiff alone, possessing as it were authority over all Councils, has full right and power of proclaiming Councils, or transferring and dissolving them". Pastor Æternus: "[color=rgba(0, 0, 0, 0.87)]So, then, if anyone says that the Roman pontiff has ... not the full and supreme power of[/color][color=rgba(0, 0, 0, 0.87)] [/color][color=rgba(0, 0, 0, 0.87)]jurisdiction[/color][color=rgba(0, 0, 0, 0.87)] over the whole Church, and this not only in matters of [/color][color=rgba(0, 0, 0, 0.87)]faith and morals[/color][color=rgba(0, 0, 0, 0.87)], but also in those which concern the [/color][color=rgba(0, 0, 0, 0.87)]discipline and government[/color][color=rgba(0, 0, 0, 0.87)] of the Church dispersed throughout the whole world; or that he has only the principal part, but not the[/color][color=rgba(0, 0, 0, 0.87)] [/color][color=rgba(0, 0, 0, 0.87)]absolute fullness[/color][color=rgba(0, 0, 0, 0.87)], of this supreme power; or that this power of his is not[/color][color=rgba(0, 0, 0, 0.87)] [/color][color=rgba(0, 0, 0, 0.87)]ordinary and immediate[/color][color=rgba(0, 0, 0, 0.87)] [/color][color=rgba(0, 0, 0, 0.87)]both over all and each of the[/color][color=rgba(0, 0, 0, 0.87)] [/color][color=rgba(0, 0, 0, 0.87)]churches[/color][color=rgba(0, 0, 0, 0.87)] [/color][color=rgba(0, 0, 0, 0.87)]and over all and each of the[/color][color=rgba(0, 0, 0, 0.87)] [/color][color=rgba(0, 0, 0, 0.87)]pastors[/color][color=rgba(0, 0, 0, 0.87)] [/color][color=rgba(0, 0, 0, 0.87)]and[/color][color=rgba(0, 0, 0, 0.87)] [/color][color=rgba(0, 0, 0, 0.87)]faithful[/color][color=rgba(0, 0, 0, 0.87)]: let him be[/color][color=rgba(0, 0, 0, 0.87)] [/color][color=rgba(0, 0, 0, 0.87)]anathema[/color][color=rgba(0, 0, 0, 0.87)]."[/color][/i]
-
"PaxChristi", Siscoe, or whatever your real name is: It is absolutely clear that you are obstinately and knowingly entrenched in heresy. What part of"absolute power" do you not understand? How can a council or any other body or individual exercise a "ministerial function" against a pope who possesses by divine right the "absolute fullness of this supreme power" over the whole Church? It is infallibly defined that the pope possesses absolute authority over a council. It is infallibly defined that the pope can freely dissolve a council whenever he chooses to do so. Fifth Lateran Council: “t is clearly established that the Roman Pontiff alone, possessing as it were authority over all Councils, has full right and power of proclaiming Councils, or transferring and dissolving them". Pastor Æternus: "So, then, if anyone says that the Roman pontiff has ... not the full and supreme power of jurisdiction over the whole Church, and this not only in matters of faith and morals, but also in those which concern the discipline and government of the Church dispersed throughout the whole world; or that he has only the principal part, but not the absolute fullness, of this supreme power; or that this power of his is not ordinary and immediate both over all and each of the churches and over all and each of the pastors and faithful: let him be anathema."
-
It is absolutely clear that you are obstinately and knowingly entrenched in heresy.
I guess Torquemada and +Bellarmine were heretics too, then, because they spoke of councils and depositions? You really are a simpleton.
-
No "Pax Vobis", you are the simpleton: Bellarmine was writing before Vatican I; just as St. Thomas wrote erroneously on the Immaculate Conception before Ineffabilis Deus. If what he had written had been written after the dogmatic definitions were made, then he would indeed have been a heretic -- but being a saint, (unlike you) he certainly would not have expressed a contrary opinion after the the dogma had been defined.
-
Ok, fair point. But still, I don’t think your quote applies to the question at hand. No one is denying that the true pope has full powers/jurisdiction. No one is denying that a CONFIRMED heretic pope loses all of these powers. What is under debate: In the intermediary state, before a pope is declared a heretic, but when he appears (materially) to be one, are his spiritual or jurisdictional powers impaired? Your quote does not address this situation at all.
-
There is no universal peaceful acceptance of Jorge Bergoglio as the pope. I posted an answer to this idea in another thread. Let me copy/paste it here:
In any case, there is no universal public acceptance of George Bergoglio as pope on the part of Catholics, so the question is moot anyway. If someone is appealing to the mass of people who call themselves Catholic today, most of them don't believe that abortion, divorce, contraception, sodomy, etc. are mortal sins. Most of them don't believe in transubstantiation. People who don't accept these teachings are not Catholics, therefore their opinions are not relevant to a discussion of whether most Catholics accept George Bergoglio as pope.
Now, once you eliminate all those heretics from the discussion, the people you are left with are basically the ones we would call traditional Catholics, broadly speaking. Among those people it is true that a majority of them, probably, believe Francis is the pope, but the fact is that significant numbers of them don't. Probably many of them think George is likely the pope but are confused about how he is able to be such an open heretic and pope at the same time, and may be unsure in their own minds about the question. Then you have some who think Ratzinger is the pope. Then you have the sedevacantists. But however you look at it, among people who profess the Catholic Faith and do actually accept its teachings, there is nothing even remotely approaching a universal consensus that George is pope. So I think the UPA discussion is irrelevant to the current situation. Whatever acceptance George enjoys, it is far from being either universal or peaceful among Catholics.
-
That's my personally position, but I would nuance it a bit. To clarity what I wrote previously, I wouldn't say he lacks the authority. He always possesses full supreme authority as an undivided and inseparable habit; but being a pertinacious heretic and a manifest wolf in sheep's clothing has the unfortunately effect of preventing him from licitly and validly exercise certain aspects of it (in certain circuмstances), such as excommunicating those who resist him or preventing the Bishops from gather at an imperfect council.
Well, see, I'm not buying that. Either he has "full supreme authority" or he does not. There's nothing limited about "full supreme". I'm with those theologians who hold papa dubius papa nullus. Not "mostly papa" or "almost always papa". Or papa "except when it comes to situations x, y, or z".
-
He would have the authority to publish a new missal and express the "wish" and "hope" that everyone really likes it (which is essentially what Paul VI did), but he would not have the authority to abrogate the true Mass (which Paul VI never did).
Oh, please. come on now. Paul VI: "here, try this. You might like it." This is a ridiculous stretch, and saying something like this proves your insincerity. You are clearly in the business of justifying R&R at all costs, regardless of how preposterous it might be.
As a true Pope, he could not actively promote for use of the faithful a bad, harmful Rite of Mass that displeases God. That is contrary to the Church's indefectibility. Trent taught simply that it's heretical to assert that the Mass "used by" the Church can be harmful, not "forced upon" them. And you and go ahead and try to tell those priests who wished to continue saying the Tridentine Mass whether it not it was forced upon them.
-
I could go in any direction about the detailed quibbling, but what I cannot accept as a matter of faith, is that the Church's Magisterium could go so badly off the rails as to be leading souls to hell, that the Church's Universal Discipline, the Mass, can be harmful to faith, to souls, and must be avoided by Catholics to please God. Those propositions are anathema to me. And that really is the problem most sedevacantists have ... it isn't Bellarmine vs. Cajetan vs. John of St. Thomas disputing the finer points of how many heretics can dance on the head of a pin.
I believe what follows in the depths of my soul, and this can never be dislodge from me -- (from Msgr. Fenton)
... God has given the Holy Father a kind of infallibility distinct from the charism of doctrinal infallibility in the strict sense. He has so constructed and ordered the Church that those who follow the directives given to the entire kingdom of God on earth will never be brought into the position of ruining themselves spiritually through this obedience. Our Lord dwells within His Church in such a way that those who obey disciplinary and doctrinal directives of this society can never find themselves displeasing God through their adherence to the teachings and the commands given to the universal Church militant. Hence there can be no valid reason to discountenance even the non-infallible teaching authority of Christ’s vicar on earth.
...
It is, of course, possible that the Church might come to modify its stand on some detail of teaching presented as non-infallible matter in a papal encyclical. The nature of the auctoritas providentiae doctrinalis within the Church is such, however, that this fallibility extends to questions of relatively minute detail or of particular application. The body of doctrine on the rights and duties of labor, on the Church and State, or on any other subject treated extensively in a series of papal letters directed to and normative for the entire Church militant could not be radically or completely erroneous. The infallible security Christ wills that His disciples should enjoy within His Church is utterly incompatible with such a possibility.
To me, this isn't just Msgr. Fenton's opinion, but I hold this to be true de fide, with anything else being an implicit rejection of the Church's indefectibility.
Yes, and does anyone here think that those prelates, clergy and laity who joined Frank in worshipping the Pachamama demon in the Vatican Gardens (because they embraced V2's teaching on religious freedom) or joined in Assisi '86 or prayed in a mosque, does anyone here think that those people are not ruining themselves? That's why I posted the link to Canon Smith's "Must I believe it" article. If a pope is peacefully accepted their is no danger of being ruined when conforming your heart and mind to his teaching and discipline. But now we are told by the SSPX that the only way to save our souls is to obey the SSPX clerics who enjoy no divine promise of infallibility. You won't find that in any pre-V2 theology manuals.
-
Well, see, I'm not buying that. Either he has "full supreme authority" or he does not.
Yes, this is the only logical position. This is what gives us the axiom of "papa dubius, papa nullus", as Ladislaus points out.
I think the UPA argument can be refuted simply by thinking about a time in the Church when all are agreed that the pope was universally and peacefully accepted. Let's take the year 1950, when Pius XII was reigning gloriously. How many people were on internet forums (or whatever equivalent existed back then) torturously discussing whether he was the real pope? How many good Catholics simply could not believe he was the real pope? How many people thought they had to choose between believing in the Catholic Faith and believing in the teachings of Pope Pius XII, and that the two were diametrically opposed? How many good Catholics simply did not believe he was the pope at all, or thought Pius XI was still alive somewhere, and he was somehow still the pope? I could go on.
The answer is that in the in 1950 the answer to all those questions is "nobody", and now the answer to all those questions is "many thousands of people."
That should suffice to answer the question of whether Francis is universally, peacefully accepted as the pope.
EDIT: formatting
-
Ok, fair point. But still, I don’t think your quote applies to the question at hand. No one is denying that the true pope has full powers/jurisdiction.
Now, despite the fact that we're still disagreeing, I feel that this thread is moving and getting somewhere.
We're down to the question of how an Imperfect Council could possibly convene against the will of a true pope. Now, an Imperfect Council (by its very definition) can certainly convene in the absence of a pope. But if a Pope who's suspect of heresy cannot dissolve it, then he no longer has full supreme authority over the Church. Another explanation is required. It is not enough to gratuitously assert, without proof, that he is limited in only the specific case of dissolving a Council or excommunicating his adversaries. Limited is limited, and full supreme is full supreme.
So this heretical dubius pope cannot be the Pope simpliciter but must be considered a Pope secundum quid. This doubtful pope has attained the formal status of being materially deposable. He is pope but he isn't. Bishop Guerard to the rescue!
-
PC2, are you and Fr Chazal in agreement, generally speaking?
.
PC2 states that the Pope retains full supreme authority except in specific circuмstances. Father Chazal clearly stated the such a pope loses all authority and is completely impounded or quarantined. I obviously side with Father Chazal here.
-
Yes, this is the only logical position. This is what gives us the axiom of "papa dubius, papa nullus", as Ladislaus points out.
I think the UPA argument can be refuted simply by thinking about a time in the Church when all are agreed that the pope was universally and peacefully accepted. Let's take the year 1950, when Pius XII was reigning gloriously. How many people were on internet forums (or whatever equivalent existed back then) torturously discussing whether he was the real pope? How many good Catholics simply could not believe he was the real pope? How many people thought they had to choose between believing in the Catholic Faith and believing in the teachings of Pope Pius XII, and that the two were diametrically opposed? How many good Catholics simply did not believe he was the pope at all, or thought Pius XI was still alive somewhere, and he was somehow still the pope? I could go on.
The answer is that in the in 1950 the answer to all those questions is "nobody", and now the answer to all those questions is "many thousands of people."
That should suffice to answer the question of whether Francis is universally, peacefully accepted as the pope.
EDIT: formatting
Agreed. These Vatican II papal claimants clearly have no UPA. I have posed this before. Imagine yourself living during the time of Pius XII. Does anyone have the faintest thought in their mind that Pius XII isn't pope? THAT is UPA. What we see here is absolutely nothing like that. We have people in the Novus Ordo saying that Bergoglio is a heretic. Bergoglio has made it obvious even to those drinking so much of the Conciliar Kool-Aid that they didn't notice the same heresies in his predecessors.
Bergoglio may end up being the unwitting savior of the Church by exposing all this ... just as Gollum unwittingly saved the day in the Lord of the Rings.
-
"absolute fullness of this supreme power" over the whole Church
Indeed, the word "absolute" completely cinches it. Absolute precludes being blocked by circuмstances from dissolving a Council.
-
There is no universal peaceful acceptance of Jorge Bergoglio as the pope. I posted an answer to this idea in another thread. Let me copy/paste it here:
In any case, there is no universal public acceptance of George Bergoglio as pope on the part of Catholics, so the question is moot anyway. If someone is appealing to the mass of people who call themselves Catholic today, most of them don't believe that abortion, divorce, contraception, sodomy, etc. are mortal sins. Most of them don't believe in transubstantiation. People who don't accept these teachings are not Catholics, therefore their opinions are not relevant to a discussion of whether most Catholics accept George Bergoglio as pope.
Now, once you eliminate all those heretics from the discussion, the people you are left with are basically the ones we would call traditional Catholics, broadly speaking. Among those people it is true that a majority of them, probably, believe Francis is the pope, but the fact is that significant numbers of them don't. Probably many of them think George is likely the pope but are confused about how he is able to be such an open heretic and pope at the same time, and may be unsure in their own minds about the question. Then you have some who think Ratzinger is the pope. Then you have the sedevacantists. But however you look at it, among people who profess the Catholic Faith and do actually accept its teachings, there is nothing even remotely approaching a universal consensus that George is pope. So I think the UPA discussion is irrelevant to the current situation. Whatever acceptance George enjoys, it is far from being either universal or peaceful among Catholics.
This is very well articulated. I'd add to the other heresies of the Conciliar adherents that the vast majority of them do not so much as believe in the fact that the Catholic Church and the Magisterium are the rule of faith. Theologians who treat of UPA state that the principle derives from the fact that the Church cannot adhere to a false rule of faith. But 99% of Conciliarists are so-called cafeteria Catholics, those who think they are their own rule of faith and can pick and choose whatever they like from among Church teaching. So they do not even admit the existence of a rule of faith, much less "adhere" to one.
-
No, sorry. What I meant is that this is the biggest problem sedevacantists have with R&R. I too agree with the Msgr. Fenton ... and the sedevacantists on this particular issue. What I'm trying to say is that the bigger concern for sedevacantists, the bigger issue they have with R&R, is the implications for the Church's holiness and indefectibility. I think we can get too mired down in the finer points of this dispute regarding Bellarmine vs. Cajetan vs. John of St. Thomas, etc. We can get lost in the weeds and lose sight of the bigger issue.
I had a feeling this is what you meant, but I wanted to be sure.
-
This is very well articulated. I'd add to the other heresies of the Conciliar adherents that the vast majority of them do not so much as believe in the fact that the Catholic Church and the Magisterium are the rule of faith. Theologians who treat of UPA state that the principle derives from the fact that the Church cannot adhere to a false rule of faith. But 99% of Conciliarists are so-called cafeteria Catholics, those who think they are their own rule of faith and can pick and choose whatever they like from among Church teaching. So they do not even admit the existence of a rule of faith.
PaxChristi2 said:
UPA has [nothing] to do with the discretionary judgment.
Can we all agree that if there is UPA then there cannot possibly be a discretionary judgment against the Roman Pontiff? We must adhere to a UPA pope. There is no way around it. The only way not to adhere to a pope is to first of all deny that he is UPA. But PaxChristi2 is asserting UPA. So he can't possibly justify the possibility of a discretionary judgment by a council (or the cardinals). He has to choose one or the other. Either UPA and obedience or not UPA and resistance.
-
So we must conclude that a Doubtful Pope is certainly not a True Pope simpliciter. Otherwise, it would be heretical to state that he could not dissolve any General Council.
So a Doubtful Pope is merely a pope secundum quid.
Might one not say this secundum quid works out along the lines of formaliter vs. materialiter. Gasp.
You are going to drive yourself crazy trying to figure this out. I understand that you're just seeking clarity, but don't torture yourself in the process. God doesn't demand that you have all the answers, and there's a danger in trying too hard to figure out what God might not want you to understand, to see if you will remain faithful to Him in spite of your doubts; and to see if, instead of relying on your wits, you will place your trust in Him to bring you through the crisis safely. If you have a Mass nearby and old books to read, what more do you need?
That being said, I would reply that a true but doubtful Pope (don't equate this with an heretical Pope yet) is a true Pope secundum quid, not with respect to the distinction between the form and the matter, but quoad se/quoad nos.
During the Great Western Schism, the true but doubtful Popes possessed jurisdiction (were formal popes), and were Popes quoad se, but they were not Popes quoad nos (for all the Church). Obviously, the doubt is always related to "quoad nos," since it is "we" who are doubting. The doubt, in this case, doesn't affect the quoad se, material or formal distinctions, but it did excuse the Catholics who followed a false claimant, since at the time it was nearly impossible for them to know for sure which Pope was legit.
You mentioned a quote that Fr. Jenkins has cited that refers to a doubtful Pope not possessing jurisdiction (i.e., lacking the form). If it’s the quote I’m thinking of, this is referring to a “Pope” whose election was in doubt from the beginning, and specifically one whose election was judged be null who a subsequent investigation determined was never the Pope. The reason he lacks the form is because he was never the true Pope. Here’s the quote I think you’re referring to:
Fr. Wernz: “The ancient authors everywhere admitted the axiom, ‘A doubtful pope is no pope’ and applied it to solve the difficulties which arose from the Great Western Schism. Now this axiom could be understood in several ways. For instance, a ‘doubtful pope’ can be understood not negatively, but positively - i.e., when, after a diligent examination of the facts, competent men in the Catholic Church would pronounce: 'The validity of the canonical election of this Roman pontiff is uncertain’. Moreover, the words 'No pope' are not necessarily understood of a pope who has previously been received as certain and undoubted by the whole Church, but concerning whose election so many difficulties are subsequently brought to light that he becomes 'a doubtful pope' so that he would thereby forfeit the pontifical power already obtained. This understanding of the axiom concerning 'a doubtful pope' should be reproved because the whole Church cannot entirely fall away from a Roman pontiff who has been legitimately elected, on account of the unity promised to His Church by Christ.
The underlined is exactly what we have with Francis. He was accepted as Pope by the entire Church at first - which is all that’s required for the “peaceful and universal acceptance” to prove that he’s is the Pope (and that Benedict is not) – and then later doubted by some due to alleged defects in the election. As Fr. Wernz said, this is not what’s meant by a doubtful Pope. The initial acceptance of Francis in the days and weeks after the election is all that’s required to prove he became Pope. UPA does not have to be habitual.
Fr Wernz goes on to address the case of a Pope whose election was uncertain from the beginning and remained so:
Fr. Wernz: “But the other part of this axiom could have the meaning that a Roman pontiff whose canonical election is uncertain and remains subject to positive and solid doubts after studious examination, absolutely never did acquire also the papal jurisdiction from Christ the Lord. For this reason, the bishops gathered together in a general council, in the event that they subject to examination a doubtful case of this kind, do not pronounce judgement on a true pope, since the person in question lacks the papal jurisdiction [because he never had it].
“Now if the axiom be understood in this last sense, the doctrine which it contains is entirely sound. Indeed, this is what is deduced in the first place from the very nature of jurisdiction. For jurisdiction is essentially a relation between a superior who has the right to obedience and a subject who has the duty of obeying. Now when one of the parties to this relationship is wanting, the other necessarily ceases to exist also, as is plain from the nature of the relationship. However, if a pope is truly and permanently doubtful, the duty of obedience cannot exist towards him on the part of any subject. For the law, 'Obedience is owed to the legitimately-elected successor of St. Peter,' does not oblige if it is doubtful; and it most certainly is doubtful if the law has been doubtfully promulgated, for laws are instituted when they are promulgated, and without sufficient promulgation they lack a constitutive part, or essential condition. But if the fact of the legitimate election of a particular successor of St. Peter is only doubtfully demonstrated, the promulgation is doubtful; hence that law is not duly and objectively constituted of its necessary parts, and it remains truly doubtful and therefore cannot impose any obligation. Indeed it would be rash to obey such a man who had not proved his title in law. Nor could appeal be made to the principle of possession, for the case in question is that of a Roman pontiff who is not yet in peaceful possession. Consequently, in such a person there would be no right of command - i.e. he would lack papal jurisdiction.
The same conclusion is confirmed on the basis of the visibility of the Church. For the visibility of the Church consists in the fact that she possesses such signs and identifying marks that, when moral diligence is used, she can be recognised and discerned, especially on the part of her legitimate officers. But in the supposition we are considering, the pope cannot be found even after diligent examination. The conclusion is therefore correct that such a doubtful pope is not the proper head of the visible Church instituted by Christ. Nor is such a doubtful pope any less compatible with the unity of the Church, which would be in the highest degree prejudiced in the case of the body being perfectly separated from its head. For a doubtful pope has no right of commanding and therefore there is no obligation of obedience on the part of the faithful. Hence in such a case the head would be perfectly separated from the rest of the body of the Church. Cf. Suarez, De Fide, Disp.10, sect.6, n.4, 19
-
PaxChristi2 said:Can we all agree that if there is UPA then there cannot possibly be a discretionary judgment against the Roman Pontiff? We must adhere to a UPA pope. There is no way around it. The only way not to adhere to a pope is to first of all deny that he is UPA. But PaxChristi2 is asserting UPA. So he can't possibly justify the possibility of a discretionary judgment by a council (or the cardinals). He has to choose one or the other. Either UPA and obedience or not UPA and resistance.
This makes sense. Without a Pope becoming a "doubtful pope," no Council can exercise even a discretionary judgment about him ... against his will. So he would have to lose UPA before that could possibly happen.
-
During the Great Western Schism, the true but doubtful Popes possessed jurisdiction (were formal popes), and were Popes quoad se, but they were not Popes quoad nos (for all the Church). Obviously, the doubt is always related to "quoad nos," since it is "we" who are doubting. The doubt, in this case, doesn't affect the quoad se, material or formal distinctions, but it did excuse the Catholics who followed a false claimant, since at the time it was nearly impossible for them to know for sure which Pope was legit.
You are presupposing that Francis is a true pope. If you are sure that he is a true pope then he cannot possibly be a doubtful pope (to you) at the same time. From a historical perspective we can say that a pope was a true but doubtful pope but for the people who doubted his claim at that moment in time, he certainly was not a true pope (of course they were wrong but that's besides the point). He was merely a doubtful pope to them. You can't assert a claimant is both a certainly true pope (UPA) and a doubtful pope at the same time. That is nonsense.
-
Clemens,
UPA refers to an election. A doubt could happen after the election - say for heresy - and be completely unrelated to the election. So, yes, in the case of +Francis (or +Benedict), their election would be accepted (UPA), but they could later be doubted for their V2 heresies.
-
By the way, 20th century theologians were still wondering if any of those GWS claimants were true popes. The Liber Pontificalis would list Urban as a true pope. But that is not infallible. And just as you guys doubt that Pope Martin was still the true pope when Pope Eugene was elected and peacefully accepted so it is possible for 20th century theologians to doubt that Urban was a true pope. History isn't infallible. But it's there. It's at least an indication of what Roman authorities thought was possible. The main point is that a UPA pope wields an authority that no doubtful pope ever could. If Frank is UPA, then you better obey him in both heart and mind. Not recommending that.
-
This makes sense. Without a Pope becoming a "doubtful pope," no Council can exercise even a discretionary judgment about him ... against his will. So he would have to lose UPA before that could possibly happen.
Isnt this obvious? Wouldn’t the fact that a pope is deemed a “potential” heretic make his status doubtful? Thus, the Cardinals can investigate his orthodoxy and charge him with heresy, if he’s obstinate.
.
On the other hand, if such doubts were wrong and he was not obstinate in heresy or what he said was understood incorrectly, I don’t think a discretionary judgment is problematic. The word “discretionary” is limited. It doesn’t usurp any authority; it’s advisory. I don’t see an issue with it.
-
I agree with Salza and Siscoe on the definition of UPA. I just don't think they are applying it correctly.
-
There is no universal peaceful acceptance of Jorge Bergoglio as the pope. I posted an answer to this idea in another thread. Let me copy/paste it here:
In any case, there is [present tense] no universal public acceptance of George Bergoglio as pope on the part of Catholics, so the question is moot anyway.
Yeti, the peaceful and universal acceptance is a one-time event that happens the moment the Church accepts the man as Pope; or rather, when the news of the election spreads throughout the universal Church and there is no protest. That’s the “infallible sign” that proves the validity of his election and his legitimacy as Pope.
Cardinal Billot: "the adhesion of the universal Church will be always, in itself, an infallible sign of the legitimacy of a determined Pontiff, and therefore also of the existence of all the conditions required for legitimacy itself. … Therefore, from the moment in which the Pope is accepted by the Church and united to her as the head to the body, it is no longer permitted to raise doubts about a possible vice of election or a possible lack of any condition whatsoever necessary for legitimacy. For the aforementioned adhesion of the Church heals in the root all fault in the election and proves infallibly the existence of all the required conditions.” (De Ecclesia Christi)
John of St. Thomas: “All that remains to be determined, then, is the exact moment when the acceptance of the Church becomes sufficient to render the proposition [i.e., that this man is Pope] de fide. Is it as soon as the cardinals propose the elect to the faithful who are in the immediate locality, or only when knowledge of the election has sufficiently spread through the whole world, wherever the Church is to be found?
"I REPLY that (as we have said above) the unanimous election of the cardinals and their declaration is similar to a definition given by the bishops at a Council legitimately gathered. Moreover, the acceptance of the Church is, for us, like a confirmation of this declaration. Now, the acceptance of the Church is realized both negatively, by the fact that the Church does not contradict the news of the election wherever it becomes known, and positively, by the gradual acceptance of the prelates of the Church, beginning with the place of the election, and spreading throughout the rest of the world. As soon as men see or hear that a Pope has been elected, and that the election is not contested, they are obliged to believe that that man is the Pope, and to accept him."
The news of Francis' election spread throughout the Church within a few days and no one raised any objections for more than a year. By then it was too late. UPA happened in the days following his election.
Yeti: “If someone is appealing to the mass of people who call themselves Catholic today, most of them don't believe that abortion, divorce, contraception, sodomy, etc. are mortal sins. Most of them don't believe in transubstantiation. People who don't accept these teachings are not Catholics, therefore their opinions are not relevant to a discussion of whether most Catholics accept George Bergoglio as pope.”
Here's Bishop Sanborn’s reply to your objection:
Bishop Sanborn:
Q. Can a papal election be convalidated by the general acceptance of the Catholic people?
“A. Yes. This is generally conceded by Catholic theologians. The ultimate guarantee of a valid election is the universal acceptance of Catholics that a certain man has been elected. (…)
“Q. But if the Novus Ordo Catholics are in heresy together with the Vatican II cardinals, how can they convalidate an election?
“A. They can do so because, again, they have not been legally severed from the Catholic Church, and therefore, despite the fact that they adhere to the heresies of Vatican II, are still legally Catholics, and retain the power to legally accept an election. Their legal status as Catholics is confirmed by the fact that all traditional priests admit them to the practice of the traditional Faith without any lifting of excommunication, and without any public or formal abjuration of error. (…)
“When Novus Ordites return to the traditional faith, they merely need to tell the priest, in all the cases I know, that they want to become members of their parish (i.e., Mass center). They make no abjuration, public or private, and no excommunication is lifted. On the other hand, if a Lutheran should approach a traditional priest, the priest rightly requires that he make a public abjuration, in which the excommunication is lifted. Furthermore, if Lutherans were to approach the communion rail, the priest would refuse them Holy Communion, even without previous warning. But I know of no priest who refuses Holy Communion, without previous warning, to Novus Ordites who wander into the traditional Mass for the first time. Why this difference? Because the Novus Ordites have not been legally severed from the Catholic Church. (…) The effect of their baptism by which they became legally united to the Church as a society has never been destroyed.” (Bishop Sanborn, Explanation Of The Thesis Of Bishop Guérard Des Lauriers, June 29th, 2002).
-
Pax Vobis says:《No one is denying that the true pope has full powers/jurisdiction. No one is denying that a CONFIRMED heretic pope loses all of these powers. What is under debate: In the intermediary state, before a pope is declared a heretic, but when he appears (materially) to be one, are his spiritual or jurisdictional powers impaired?》
I REPLY: For so long as a man is certainly the pope, he possesses the fullness of power. A man who is manifestly a formal heretic is an incapable subject of the papacy. He is no pope. A man who is doubtfully the pope, due to indicia constituting him as suspect of heresy is to be resisted. If he subsequently manifests pertinacity, then he is certainly no pope, even if he was believed to have been the pope before. A man can be declared a heretic by the ecclesiastical authority if he is no longer the pope; i.e., if he fell from office when his pertinacity became manifest. For so long as he is validly constituted as pope, he may not be judged by any power on earth, civil or ecclesiastical; not even by an ecuмenical council.
-
PaxChristi2, Bishop Sanborn doesn't support your position. He would not allow a Novus Ordo priest to celebrate Mass in his chapels. The NO priest would first be required to prove that he was proficient in traditional Catholic theology and then he would be required to be at least conditionally ordained. It doesn't matter if that NO priest was legally severed from the Catholic Church or not. There is no way that Conciliar cardinals and/or Conciliar clergy in general can convalidate the claim of a man who isn't even a priest as the true Bishop of Rome.
-
You are presupposing that Francis is a true pope. If you are sure that he is a true pope then he cannot possibly be a doubtful pope (to you) at the same time. From a historical perspective we can say that a pope was a true but doubtful pope but for the people who doubted his claim at that moment in time, he certainly was not a true pope (of course they were wrong but that's besides the point). He was merely a doubtful pope to them. You can't assert a claimant is both a certainly true pope (UPA) and a doubtful pope at the same time. That is nonsense.
You are confusing three things. First, UPA happened 6.5 years ago, in March of 2013, when the universal Church accepted him as Pope.
Second, I never said Francis was a doubtful Pope. A doubtful Pope and an apparently heretical Pope are only in the same category in the sense that they are the two cases that theologians say justifies the Church convene an imperfect council, but that doesn't mean a doubtful Pope must be considered a heretic, and a heretic must be doubtful. They are distinct categories that happen to fall into the same third category.
-
A major part of what would be necessary to form such a council in the first place, a great number of scandalized and courageous bishops, is missing. A nice thought, but it's even less likely we're suddenly going to get a group of faithful Cardinals before we get a decent Pope. It was from a great mass of rotten apples the we received our latest worm-riddled papacy. Miracles are miracles and if we get them all at once I won't complain! In my opinion, only a good Pope from sometime in the future is really going to be able to make this right. Until then, no Pope at anytime has had or ever will have the authority to teach against dogma, or suppress the Latin Mass, or create a new rite, or practice pagan rituals, or worship pagan idols, etc, etc...
I do find a few things I agree with S&S on, like their distinction between occult and notorious heresy, and the near impossible conditions a Pope may enter into such a state. Ultimately the Church is restricted to judging the externals, which wouldn't be so tortuous if we weren't dealing with thoroughly dishonest modernist-masons lying their heads off when they say the Church teaches this or that and insisting they actually believe it. This is what makes Modernism such a difficult thing to root out: the heretics have found an exploit against the Church Militant and they are going to keep pressing their advantage until God removes them. And then of course, there is the fact that we have a very guilty College of Cardinals unwilling to press the Pope for the True Faith.
If the future glory of the Church is indicated at all by the hideous near-hopeless situation she currently finds herself in, it truly may feel like a Heaven on Earth when it finally arrives.
-
You are confusing three things. First, UPA happened 6.5 years ago, in March of 2013, when the universal Church accepted him as Pope.
Second, I never said Francis was a doubtful Pope. A doubtful Pope and an apparently heretical Pope are only in the same category in the sense that they are the two cases that theologians say justifies the Church convene an imperfect council, but that doesn't mean a doubtful Pope must be considered a heretic, and a heretic must be doubtful. They are distinct categories that happen to fall into the same third category.
How would Salza know in an unqualified manner that sedes are manifestly schismatic and heretical if you aren't asserting UPA as a dogmatic fact that guarantees that Bergoglio is the true pope right now? At least some sede privationists would agree that Bergoglio was validly elected and recognized by the Church and still materially holds the office. And some sedes would argue that Bergoglio was validly elected but fell from the papacy. So if you believe UPA only guarantees that he was validly elected and not that he is certainly the pope right now, how does Salza (and I presume you) justify the assertion that all sedes are not members of the Church? No sedes have said, "I quit the Church." And of course, if UPA is only relevant to the election and not to the present time then why are you bringing it up now? In 1965 the American Ecclesiastical Review asserted that UPA was how we could know that Paul VI was certainly the pope. But Paul VI was elected in 1963. Why didn't the AER say that we could be sure that Paul VI was validly elected and leave it at that? It's because UPA is how we know that a pope is the true pope right now, not years ago when he was elected. The purpose of asserting UPA is that we must obey true popes. That's why I posted the link to "Must I believe it". You can't avoid your head. It is true that all doubtful popes are not heretics. But it certainly also is true that all manifest heretics have doubtful jurisdiction.
-
Frankly, PaxChristi2, I think you wasted 15 years of your life on this. Your position is a house of cards in a wind storm. If it took you 15 years to get to a position where only your fellow R&R friends agree with you, what does that say about your work? It's completely unconvincing and a lot of it is tortured logic. You quote St Robert's refutation of the idea that popes are subject to emperors to prove your point that popes were subject to emperors. That's madness. You quote sede Bishop Sanborn who rejects Bergoglio's claim to prove your point that Bergoglio's claim is valid. You're nuts. Not to mention that your posts are dripping with condescension. Maybe you're not aware of it. It doesn't help your effort.
-
A man can be declared a heretic by the ecclesiastical authority if he is no longer the pope; i.e., if he fell from office when his pertinacity became manifest. For so long as he is validly constituted as pope, he may not be judged by any power on earth, civil or ecclesiastical; not even by an ecuмenical council.
No power on earth, civil or ecclesiastical, not even an ecuмenical council can judge the Pope, yet Fr. Kramer believes he's free to do so using is "conscience," no less (which judges good vs. evil in practical matters, not true vs. false in speculative matters); and if his conscience is tells him he who is judged by no power on earth, civil or religions, nor even an ecuмenical council, is a heretic, he believes he is fully in his right to "exhort the few remaining Catholics" to presume the See is vacant on his Facebook page, which he did.
Then a few months later his conscience told him that he who "may no be judged by no power on earth, civil or ecclesiastical, not even an ecuмenical council," is the Pope after all.
-
How would Salza know in an unqualified manner that sedes are manifestly schismatic and heretical if you aren't asserting UPA as a dogmatic fact that guarantees that Bergoglio is the true pope right now?
:facepalm:
-
You quote St Robert's refutation of the idea that popes are subject to emperors to prove your point that popes were subject to emperors. That's madness.
I quoted St. Robert's refutation of the idea that a Pope can be subject to the coercive judgment of Emperors, because his reply confirms that Popes themselves have submitted to discretionary judgments.
-
No power on earth, civil or ecclesiastical, not even an ecuмenical council can judge the Pope, yet Fr. Kramer believes he's free to do so using is "conscience," no less (which judges good vs. evil in practical matters, not true vs. false in speculative matters); and if his conscience is tells him he who is judged by no power on earth, civil or religions, nor even an ecuмenical council, is a heretic, he believes he is fully in his right to "exhort the few remaining Catholics" to presume the See is vacant on his Facebook page, which he did.
Then a few months later his conscience told him that he who "may no be judged by no power on earth, civil or ecclesiastical, not even an ecuмenical council," is the Pope after all.
You're presupposing that he is the pope you dumbass!
-
I quoted St. Robert's refutation of the idea that a Pope can be subject to the coercive judgment of Emperors, because his reply confirms that Popes themselves have submitted to discretionary judgments.
And they could just as easily choose not to subject themselves to discretionary judgments.
-
You're presupposing that he is the pope you dumbass!
I'm not presupposing he's the Pope, because I know he's not. But Fr. Kramer thought he was the Pope while he was judging him. That's the point. He judged the person he thought was the Pope, his conscience rendered a guilty verdict, and he concluded that he wasn't the Pope. Then, after exhorting the remaining Catholics to presume the See is vacant, he changed his mind, and again believes the person he judged and declared to be a heretic in April, is the Pope.
-
For there to be a universal and peaceful acceptance that confirms the validity of a papal election, the see must be certainly vacant, and the universal acceptance must be absolutely exclusive to one man only. Benedict XVI carefully expressed his renunciation of the active ministry -- worded in such a manner which made it clear that he did not intend to renounce his munus (as I have explained in the Introduction to my book). His renunciation was invalid for not having expressed the intention to renounce his munus. Benedict maintains his claim on his munus while absurdly recognizing Bergoglio too. While the nature of his continuing claim on the Petrine munus is not universally understood with any precision, it is nevertheless still accepted; although having once been validly elected and instituted into the office of the papacy, he no longer needs any acceptance from anyone for him to validly continue in the munus. Jorge "Francis" Bergoglio has never received the exclusive universal acceptance that would confirm the validity of his claim on the pontificate.
-
Clemens,
UPA refers to an election. A doubt could happen after the election - say for heresy - and be completely unrelated to the election. So, yes, in the case of +Francis (or +Benedict), their election would be accepted (UPA), but they could later be doubted for their V2 heresies.
But in the case of Francis, there's the whole "Team Bergoglio" situation, where some people claim that the election of Bergoglio was orchestrated beforehand and that it therefore invalidated the election. I don't buy the "convalidation" theory of elections. We've had situations in the Church where an election occurred while the reigning Pope was still alive (and in jail), and which was universally accepted ... despite being clearly invalid.
-
On the deposition of a Pope (continued...)
On which authority the Pope is deposed
John of St. Thomas wrote:
Diverse Opinions
"On the second point on which authority the declaration [of heresy] and the deposition are to be made, there is dissention among theologians, and it is not clear by whom that statement should be made, because it is an act of judgment and jurisdiction, which no one can exert on a Pope. Cajetan, in his treatise on the Pope's authority, refers to two extreme positions (De comparatione auctoritatis Papae and concilii, Angelicuм, Rome, 1936, chapter 20).
The two extremes: one says that the Pope is removed without human judge by the mere fact of being a heretic (Bellarmine and Suarez); on the opposite, the other said that the Pope has truly a power above him by which he can be judged (this opinion is not sustained anymore, Cajetan considered it false).
The two middle positions: one says that the Pope has no superior [on earth] in absolute terms, except in case of heresy; one says that he has no superior on earth neither on earth, nor in the case of heresy, but only in a ministerial way: just as the Church has a ministerial power to choose the person [Pope], but not give power, as this is dome immediately by Christ, in the same manner, in the deposition, which is a destruction of the bond by which the Papacy is attached to a person in particular, the Church has the power to depose him in a ministerial manner; but it is Christ who deprives [his power] with authority.
The first opinion is that of Azorius (the Church is above the Pope in case of heresy). The second is that of Cajetan who develops it extensively. Bellarmine quotes it and combats it (The Romano Ponitifice, c. 20), especially on two points: Cajetan said that the Manifest heretic Pope is not ipso facto removed and that the Pope is actually deposed by the Church. Similarly, Suarez (De fide Predisputatio, Sec. 6, num. 7) reproaches Cajetan for saying that the Church, in case of heresy, is above the Pope. This, in fact, Cajetan did not say: he holds that the Church is not above the Pope absolutely, even in the case of heresy, but she is above the link joining the Pontificate with such a person, and that she dissolves it, in the same manner as the Church has joined it in the election, and that this power of the Church is ministerial, because only Christ the Lord is simpliciter superior to the Pope.
Bellarmine and Suarez think that the Pope, by the very fact that he is a manifest heretic and declared incorrigible, is immediately deposed by Christ the Lord and not by any authority of the Church."
-------
Cajetan's opinion on the subject be explained further in the next installments on the thread.
http://www.dominicansavrille.us/on-the-deposition-of-the-pope-part-1-of-2/
-
On the deposition of a Pope (continued...)
You do realize, right, that no one is reading these, not even your allies? You're just being an obnoxious twit and doing this for no other reason than to annoy. Would you like me to counter by posting the various refutations of Siscoe and Salza paragraph by paragraph? I could start pasting in Father Kramer's book, for that matter.
-
Hey Meg! Quoting John of St. Thomas against the dogma of the pope's "fullness of absolute power", to support the heresy that the Church can judge and depose a pope, is like quoting St. Thomas against the dogma of the Immaculate Conception. The only thing you prove is that you are a heretic.
-
Let's recap.
Bellarmine and many others cite two different heresy scenarios in which a Pope might lose office, one in which he's manifest and loses office ipso facto and the other in which the Church would judge him a heretic.
What hasn't been established is what kinds of scenarios would fall in either category. Siscoe and Salza based their entire argument on the entirely-gratuitous assertion that only apostasy falls within the first category.
This is categorically denied by all the Canonists who dealt with the subject of tacit resignation of office; these Canonists, whom S&S fail to cite in their lengthy tome, categorically DENY this assertion, stating that both apostasy AND heresy fall into the category whereby there would be tacit loss of office. Cardinal Billot further confirms this in his commentary on the Pope St. Clement vs. Nestorius situation, stating that Nestorius had lost episcopal jurisdiction from the time that he began preaching his heresy, and not merely at his formal condemnation 3 years later. While commenting on Canon 188, S&S claim that only apostasy falls under this category, whereas all the trained Canonists commenting on the passage agree that both heresy AND apostasy do, with there being a dispute only about whether "pure" schism qualifies.
S&S claim that Popes can be subjected to a discretionary judgment, and that this is an exception to the rule that the Pope can be judged by no one. But, in point of fact, discretionary judgement has as its object not the Pope himself, but, as Torquemada explains, the truth of a proposition, in the case, the proposition that a given heretical Pope is in fact not a Catholic. Pope Innocent III explains this type of judgment as, rather, meaning to "show that [the heretical pope] has ALREADY BEEN judged." So it's SHOWING or AVERRING the a priori fact that the man has suffered loss of office.
Finally, we are left with nothing but a gratuitous assertion that a pope who retains his authority cannot dissolve a General Council. It is Church dogma that the Pope has absolutely supreme authority over Councils, and Lateran V explicitly teaches that the Pope has the right to dissolve Councils. PC2 dodged this question by merely dismissing it as "overcomplicating" the situation, whereas in fact understanding how this can be is at the very heart of the dispute.
We must state that such a one who is incapable of dissolving the Council is already in a state where he's no longer Pope simpliciter, since any such Pope COULD in fact dissolve a Council, for the Church teaches that his power is "absolute", i.e. cannot be limited. This question must be answered, and cannot simply be dodged. By the mere fact that a Council is in the process of determining whether he's actually the Pope, he's at that point in the category of papa dubius, which a number of theologians classify as being tantamount to papa nullus. In other words, it's by virtue of his papa dubius, papa nullus status that he is incapable of dissolving the Council. In other words, it is NOT because the Pope's authority has been "limited" but rather because he's in a state of being a papa nullus. As papa nullus, he would, according to these theologians, not have the papal authority.
Let us consider such a Council. As soon as it begins, the putative Pope dissolves the Council. Then the Council reaffirms that he is in fact Pope. That means that the dissolution of the Council was legitimate, and the Council was in fact dissolved quoad se. But if the Council concludes that he was in fact a heretic, then his dissolution meant nothing, since he was no longer pope.
Papa Dubius exists only in the realm of quoad nos. In terms of quoad se, he either IS the Pope or he is NOT the Pope. This relationship between the quoad se and the quoad nos needs to be further explored.
We had one situation historically where there was a legitimate pope quoad se who was hauled off and jailed, and another elected and universally accepted, to the point that there was a different pope quoad nos. This seems to blow away "convalidation" theory.
If there's an existing legitimately elected Pope, the subsequent universal acceptance of another cannot depose the man and override the fact that he is pope quoad se. Cardinal Siri thesis anyone?
-
"PalxChristi2" with his habitual mendacity asserts: 《No power on earth, civil or ecclesiastical, not even an ecuмenical council can judge the Pope, yet Fr. Kramer believes he's free to do so using is "conscience,"》
He lies just like Robert Siscoe. I follow the teaching of Gregory XVI, who explained that such a judgment would not be made against the pope, but "against him who before was adorned with papal dignity."
-
Salza & Siscoe always flatly contradict themselves so that when you call them out for asserting a heretical proposition, they can claim they "qualified" their statement -- "qualified" with a direct contradiction! LOL
-
The two extremes: one says that the Pope is removed without human judge by the mere fact of being a heretic (Bellarmine and Suarez);
...
Bellarmine and Suarez think that the Pope, by the very fact that he is a manifest heretic and declared incorrigible, is immediately deposed by Christ the Lord and not by any authority of the Church."
So I guess that John of St. Thomas (cited above) disagrees with the S&S interpretation of Bellarmine.
-
So I guess that John of St. Thomas (cited above) disagrees with the S&S interpretation of Bellarmine.
I thought no one reads what I post on John of St. Thomas?
By S and S, do you mean Sisco and Salza? I haven't read their work for years. I don't care if they disagree with John of St. Thomas.
-
Lad,
Do you believe a Council can be convened to determine whether a Pope is actually the Pope? Wouldn't this fall under the realm of judging the Vicar of Christ?
I believe that this would fall into the category of the Church deliberating about whether or not any given man has in fact fallen from the papacy and ceased to be pope. It's not a judgment about the Pope, but a judgment, potentially, about a non-Pope. But I believe that the role of such a Council would be nothing other than to have the Church "make up her mind" when the issue is disputed. If after deliberations, the Council would vote 51% to 49% that he was the pope, and the 49% minority did not yield, then the matter would not be decided, as the sole purpose of this is to establish a universal consensus. By itself the "judgment" of this Council is not and cannot be any kind of "sentence" issued against the Pope, but the statement issued would be merely declaratory for the benefit of the faithful: "We are all agreed that this man is not the pope."
-
I thought no one reads what I post on John of St. Thomas?
By S and S, do you mean Sisco and Salza? I haven't read their work for years. I don't care if they disagree with John of St. Thomas.
I looked at it because of Father Kramer's comment. You may not care, but the S&S interpretation of Bellarmine has been the main subject of this thread ... which you apparently ignore as you go about mindlessly posting spam regardless of the thread context.
-
I believe that this would fall into the category of the Church deliberating about whether or not any given man has in fact fallen from the papacy and ceased to be pope. It's not a judgment about the Pope, but a judgment, potentially, about a non-Pope. But I believe that the role of such a Council would be nothing other than to have the Church "make up her mind" when the issue is disputed. If after deliberations, the Council would vote 51% to 49% that he was the pope, and the 49% minority did not yield, then the matter would not be decided, as the sole purpose of this is to establish a universal consensus. By itself the "judgment" of this Council is not and cannot be any kind of "sentence" issued against the Pope, but the statement issued would be merely declaratory for the benefit of the faithful: "We are all agreed that this man is not the pope."
And again, who is the Church here? The Novus Ordo sect's hierarchy? LOL The chance of them coming to an unanimous decision on the non-popehood of Bergoglio is almost as likely as my becoming the next pope.
-
I looked at it because of Father Kramer's comment. You may not care, but the S&S interpretation of Bellarmine has been the main subject of this thread ... which you apparently ignore as you go about mindlessly posting spam regardless of the thread context.
I happen to think that the work of John of St. Thomas is relevant to the topic at hand. You apparently do not. Oh well.
-
Let's recap.
Siscoe and Salza based their entire argument on the entirely-gratuitous assertion that only apostasy falls within the first category.
Siscoe and Salza never said that and it's not what they believe.
S&S claim that Popes can be subjected to a discretionary judgment, and that this is an exception to the rule that the Pope can be judged by no one. But, in point of fact, discretionary judgement has as its object not the Pope himself, but, as Torquemada explains, the truth of a proposition, in the case, the proposition that a given heretical Pope is in fact not a Catholic.
This was already answered. The discretionary judgment determines if the Pope is, in fact, a heretic.
Pope Innocent III explains this type of judgment as, rather, meaning to "show that [the heretical pope] has ALREADY BEEN judged." So it's SHOWING or AVERRING the a priori fact that the man has suffered loss of office.
This, too, was already answered. Saying a heretic has "already been judged" by God, does not mean already deposed by God, as Cajetan explained. If being judged by God equated to being deposed by God, entirely occult heretics would lose their office and no one would have anyway of knowing it.
We had one situation historically where there was a legitimate pope quoad se who was hauled off and jailed, and another elected and universally accepted, to the point that there was a different pope quoad nos. This seems to blow away "convalidation" theory.
You continue to repeat that as if it's a fact, but you've never proven it. How do you know the newly elected Pope was universally accepted before the Pope who was "hauled off and jailed" willingly abdicated a year later?
If there's an existing legitimately elected Pope, the subsequent universal acceptance of another cannot depose the man and override the fact that he is pope quoad se. Cardinal Siri thesis anyone?
That's right. The universal acceptance cannot depose a sitting Pope, and no one has ever said it could. The universal acceptance is an infallible sign that the one accepted as Pope is the Pope, and an infallible sign that all the conditions necessary for him to have become pope were satisfied.
Cardinal Journet (1955): "[T]he peaceful acceptance of the universal Church given to an elect, as to a head to whom it submits, is an act in which the Church engages herself and her fate. It is therefore an act in itself infallible and is immediately recognizable as such. (Consequently, and mediately, it will appear that all conditions prerequisite to the validity of the election have been fulfilled.)”
Cardinal Billot (1909): “the adhesion of the universal Church will be always, in itself, an infallible sign of the legitimacy of a determined Pontiff, and therefore also of the existence of all the conditions required for legitimacy itself.
Ferraris: (1764) “Through the mere fact that the Church receives him as legitimately elected, God reveals to us the legitimacy of his election (…) since by this fact God has revealed that he is the legitimate Pope, he thereby implicitly revealed that all the necessary conditions for him to become Pope were met.” Ferraris, Louis, Prompta Bibliotheca Canonica Iuridica Moralis Theologica)
Antonio Arbiol O.F.M (1702): “after he was peacefully and universally accepted, as we saw above, not only is the election canonical and de fide; but also that he was baptized, as well as many other things that were not previously de fide; for since by Divine Providence will not permit the Church cannot err [by universally accepting a false pope], all these are implicitly revealed in the promise of Christ: ‘Behold I am with you all days, even to the end of the world. (…) Therefore, after the peaceful and universal acceptance, the proposition [that he is the true Pope] is not merely probable; it is de fide. No Catholic authors relate differently. Indeed, all teach that by the peaceful and universal acceptance of the Church all the related conditions also become de fide, which beforehand were not de fide.” (Selectae disputationes scholasticae, et dogmaticae).
Billot (1909): “"Therefore, from the moment in which the Pope is accepted by the Church and united to her as the head to the body, it is no longer permitted to raise doubts about a possible vice of election or a possible lack of any condition whatsoever necessary for legitimacy. For the aforementioned adhesion of the Church heals in the root all fault in the election and proves infallibly the existence of all the required conditions.”
Now, since one of the conditions required for a man to become Pope is that the See be vacant beforehand, the universal acceptance of John XXIII proves that Siri was not the Pope, and the universal acceptance of Francis proves that Benedict's resignation was accepted by God.
-
Salza & Siscoe always flatly contradict themselves so that when you call them out for asserting a heretical proposition, they can claim they "qualified" their statement -- "qualified" with a direct contradiction! LOL
Well, yes. It would help if they would lay it out in logical format.
Proposition (de fide): The Pope can be judged by no one.
S&S: that the pope can be judged by no one via a coercive judgment, concedo, that the pope can be judged by no one via a discretionary judgment nego.
I do not deny this distinction IF by discretionary judgment is meant simply that the Church is judging whether the fact of heresy has already taken place and deposed the Pope.
But S&S do not appear to hold this, but, rather, follow John of St. Thomas that the discretionary judgment actually causes the severing of the bond between the matter and the form. If I were to kill the pope, I would in fact cause his loss of authority, by eliminating the matter. This theory holds that the discretionary judgment has an analogous effect. By declaring the man guilty of heresy, the judgement renders him unsuitable matter for sustaining the form of papal authority
But I cannot, for the life of me, see how this is not tantamount to judging the Pope. If God does not withdraw the authority at some point before the judgment is rendered, then the judgment is in fact being rendered against the man who is the pope.
And, if the Church is capable of "severing the bond," then what would stop the Church from merely withdrawing the designation? "Hey, we changed our mind. We're withdrawing our election of this man." In both cases, we could stipulate, well, it's really God, in response to the Church, who removes the formal authority, so it's not really the Church stripping the man of authority. Didn't the Church condemn an error which artificially distinguished between the man and his office ... once united by God?
-
Meg,
I think it's important to consider all points of view regarding the subject matter. However, there is one point of view, or opinion, that seems to be held in higher regard than the others...
Interestingly enough, the possibility of a heretic Pope was discussed at Vatican I and it would seem that Saint Robert's opinion was given ample consideration...
Of course, Saint Robert Ballarmine is not infallible by any means. However, since his writings on the Papacy were held in such high regard by the Fathers at Vatican I, I tend to follow their lead in this matter.
Thank you for presenting your point in a reasonable manner. That's unusual for sedevacantists.
I agree that all points of view should be considered. John of St. Thomas does in fact consider Bellarmine's views. He just doesn't agree with some of them. We can disagree with that which is not specific Church teaching. We aren't obligated to accept everything that Bellarmine wrote, even though he was held in high esteem by the Fathers at Vatican 1.
-
Interestingly enough, the possibility of a heretic Pope was discussed at Vatican I and it would seem that Saint Robert's opinion was given ample consideration...
...
Of course, Saint Robert Ballarmine is not infallible by any means. However, since his writings on the Papacy were held in such high regard by the Fathers at Vatican I, I tend to follow their lead in this matter.
This is a great quote from Archbishop Purcell regarding the position of Bellarmine ... which again disagrees with the S&S spin on it.
Look, if Salza and Siscoe want to disagree with Bellarmine, they are entitled to do so, but I find it disingenuous that they try to spin Bellarmine to make it look like he agrees with their position, when in fact he does not. Both this quote from Archbishop Purcell as well as the interpretation by John of St. Thomas are completely at odds with how S&S spin Bellarmine. This sleight of hand, as has been pointed out, comes from their completely gratuitous limiting of ipso facto deposition to the case of formal apostasy.
S&S's very dishonest implication is, "Hey, look, while these men disagree on minor points, they ALL agree with us about the basic of our position." That's nonsense. There was a reason for the 5 different opinions and why John of St. Thomas distinguished himself from Bellarmine and Cajetan ... and the two from one another.
-
But S&S do not appear to hold this, but, rather, follow John of St. Thomas that the discretionary judgment actually causes the severing of the bond between the matter and the form.
No, the discretionary judgement does not cause the bond to be severed. And you are confusing the antecedent discretionary judgment with the consequent vitandus declaration. The vitandus declaration is what induces the disposition into the matter that renders it incapable of sustaining the form, at which time God - as the efficient cause - separates the form from the matter. The vitandus declaration is the dispositive cause; God is the efficient cause.
-
And you are confusing the antecedent discretionary judgment with the consequent vitandus declaration. The vitandus declaration is what induces the disposition into the matter that renders it incapable of sustaining the form, at which time God - as the efficient cause - separates the form from the matter. The vitandus declaration is the dispositive cause; God is the efficient cause.
Well, that's even worse, and this undermines your earlier distinction. While a discretionary judgment is not coercive and punitive, a vitandus declaration MOST CERTAINLY fits in that category. So you're saying that a man who is up until that moment the Pope is being punished with a vitandus declaration. This is where you get in trouble by trying to blend Bellarmine and John of St. Thomas together as if they both support you. You cite Bellarmine about discretionary judgment being OK in order to prove that a punitive vitandus declaration is OK? That's a major fail.
-
Well, that's even worse, and this undermines your earlier distinction. While a discretionary judgment is not coercive and punitive, a vitandus declaration MOST CERTAINLY fits in that category. So you're saying that a man who is up until that moment the Pope is being punished with a vitandus declaration. This is where you get in trouble by trying to blend Bellarmine and John of St. Thomas together as if they both support you. You cite Bellarmine about discretionary judgment being OK in order to prove that a punitive vitandus declaration is OK? That's a major fail.
The vitandus declaration is not a punishment and it has no coercive power over the Pope. It is simply an application of divine law, which says a heretic is to be avoided (vitandus) after two warnings. Therefore, if the pope remains hardened in heresy after receiving two warnings (two "fraternal correction" as an act of charity, not jurisdiction), the ecclesia docens can, in accord with divine law, command the faithful (coercive power over the faithful) to avoid him. The vitandus declaration legally separates the Church from the heretic pope, which renders him incapable of exercising the pontificate. Hence, the matter becomes incompatible with the form, and God separates the two.
I thought you understood this?
-
The only way we would know for sure is when the next Pope confirmed it. The Council of Pisa attempted to resolve the Great Western Schism and failed. It even judged the true Pope to be a notorious heretic and declared him ipso facto deposed; yet he remained pope until he resigned during the Council of Constance.
But in this whole scenario of the bishops convoking a council to depose the old pope and elect a new one, we don't know who the pope is. We'd have one papal claimant approve the council and the other deny it. And we'd be stuck with a situation at least as bad as the GWS until by the grace of God their successors agree to resign together decades later.
-
No, I'm not making your point for you. Was St. Vincent Ferrer guilty of private interpretation when he followed the Cardinals who falsely claimed that Clement VII was the true Catholic pope? Was St. Catherine of Siena guilty of private interpretation when she followed the Cardinals who correctly claimed Urban VI was the true pope? What was the difference between their two judgements aside from the fact that one was correct and the other was wrong? Did St. Vincent Ferrer commit a sin? What should he have done differently, in your opinion?
Guilty of private interpretation? No, he was FORCED to use it by the circuмstances. He couldn't go to the Church to answer the question for him because well, the Church had no answer for him. Each pope would declare that he himself was the true pope, so the Church had no answer for St. Ferrer or anyone else. All of Christendom had to use their own reason to make an educated guess as to who the true pope was. And it's because Christians had to use private interpretation that we were stuck with a massive schism that only got worse with each attempt to solve it, until we were lucky enough to have the claimants all step down. Had they not, the schisms would've likely multiplied just like how there are thousands of Protestant denominations today. Without a certain pope, further and further schisms are guaranteed.
-
The vitandus declaration is not a punishment and it has no coercive power over the Pope. It is simply an application of divine law, which says a heretic is to be avoided (vitandus) after two warnings.
:facepalm:
-
But in the case of Francis, there's the whole "Team Bergoglio" situation, where some people claim that the election of Bergoglio was orchestrated beforehand and that it therefore invalidated the election. I don't buy the "convalidation" theory of elections. We've had situations in the Church where an election occurred while the reigning Pope was still alive (and in jail), and which was universally accepted ... despite being clearly invalid.
I don't think UPA is some uber-doctrine which trumps all other factors. If facts come to light, AFTERWARDS, which cast doubt on the election, then obviously UPA can be questioned. Just like a pope who starts spewing heresy can start to be questioned. You don't judge the papacy on UPA with tunnel-vision goggles. UPA is ONE aspect to judge a legitimate papacy; it's not the ONLY aspect.
-
S&S claim that Popes can be subjected to a discretionary judgment, and that this is an exception to the rule that the Pope can be judged by no one. But, in point of fact, discretionary judgement has as its object not the Pope himself, but, as Torquemada explains, the truth of a proposition, in the case, the proposition that a given heretical Pope is in fact not a Catholic. Pope Innocent III explains this type of judgment as, rather, meaning to "show that [the heretical pope] has ALREADY BEEN judged." So it's SHOWING or AVERRING the a priori fact that the man has suffered loss of office.
I don't see any contradiction between S&S and Torquemada. It's all a semantics issue that is causing confusion. 1) Declaration of heresy and 2) Loss of office are 2 separate events.
.
A. Aug 1 - Pope speaks heresy.
B. Aug 1 - Cardinals rebuke him. Pope ignores rebuke.
C. Aug 2 - Cardinals rebuke him a 2nd time. Pope ignores 2nd rebuke.
D. Aug 3 - Cardinals give discretionary judgement that the pope is an obstinate/manifest/formal heretic, because he was obstinate on Aug 2. Because the pope is deemed a heretic, THEN he is no longer the superior of the Cardinals. So he can THEN be removed, since the former-pope's heresy is a "self judgement" from Divine Law.
E. Aug 3 - Cardinals declare that the former-pope-turned-heretic loses his office "ipso facto".
F. Aug 3 - The Pope HOLDS HIS OFFICE UNTIL the discretionary judgment on Aug 3. This judgement of heresy is the CAUSE of the "ipso facto" loss of office.
.
People can argue that "Oh, I told you so. I told you the pope was a heretic when he said heresy on Aug 1." But that doesn't matter. What matters is the Church's decision on Aug 3. Before that date, even when the pope was obstinate on Aug 2, he still holds office UNTIL a declaration is made. Why? Because before a declaration from the Church, there is no authoritative decision. Before the Cardinals deem him a formal heretic, he is simply in material error. Before they rebuke him and follow the process, it is not determined if he is an obstinate heretic.
.
1. Material Heresy alone does not cause "ipso facto" loss of office, but a declaration/recognition of obstinacy must follow, which makes it formal heresy.
2. Only the officials of the Church can recognize/judge obstinate heresy, based on Scripture and canon law.
3. Laymen, priests and Bishops cannot judge the pope, even in a discretionary way, but only the Cardinals, who have the authority to elect him.
4. Ergo, "ipso facto" loss of office does not happen to a pope, without a recognition/judgement from the Cardinals that the pope is an obstinate/formal heretic.
-
Today is the feast day of Pope St. Martin I. St. Martin, pray for us.
-
:facepalm:
John of St. Thomas: “For the Church can declare the crime of the Pope and propose him to the faithful as one who is to be avoided [vitandus], according to Divine Law, which commands that heretics be avoided. And the Pope who is to be avoided, as a consequence of this disposition, is necessarily rendered incapable of being the head of the Church, since he is a member to be avoided by her, and consequently unable to exercise an influx on her; therefore, by reason of this power, the Church dissolves, in a ministerial and dispositive way, the bond between the papacy and that person. The consequence is clear: for when an agent has the power to induce a disposition in a subject, and the disposition is such that the separation of the form necessarily follows from it (since the form cannot remain with this disposition in the subject), the agent has power over the dissolution of the form, and mediately touches the form itself as having to be separated from the subject—not as having to be destroyed in itself, as is evident in the agent that corrupts a man; for the agent does not destroy the form of the man, but induces the dissolution of the form by placing in the matter a disposition that is incompatible with the form. Therefore, because the Church has the power to declare that the Pope is to be avoided, she is able to introduce into his person a disposition that is incompatible with the papacy; and thus the papacy is dissolved ministerially and dispositively by the Church, but authoritatively by Christ; even as, in designating him through his election, she gives him the last disposition needed for him to receive the papacy that Christ our Lord bestows upon him, and thus she creates a Pope in a ministerial way.”
-
For so long as a man is certainly the pope, he possesses the fullness of power. A man who is manifestly a formal heretic is an incapable subject of the papacy. He is no pope.
Agree.
A man who is doubtfully the pope, due to indicia constituting him as suspect of heresy is to be resisted.
Agree.
If he subsequently manifests pertinacity, then he is certainly no pope, even if he was believed to have been the pope before. A man can be declared a heretic by the ecclesiastical authority if he is no longer the pope; i.e., if he fell from office when his pertinacity became manifest.
Who determines if the pope is obstinate and manifest? ...(p.s. you can't have one without the other. You are either obstinate AND manifest or you are neither.) Answer: The Cardinals can rebuke the pope, based on suspicion of heresy, to determine if he is obstinate in his errors.
For so long as he is validly constituted as pope, he may not be judged by any power on earth, civil or ecclesiastical; not even by an ecuмenical council.
Disagree, because this statement is too general and has no distinctions. A pope can be "determined" to be obstinate in his heresy. No one other than the Cardinals can make this determination. Thus, he would immediately cease to be pope, due to Divine Law and canon law. THEN, since he is no longer pope, he would lose his office "ipso facto" per canon law.
.
Where we differ is on point 3. Only the Cardinals can determine manifest/obstinate heresy. Ergo, only they can tell all the rest of the Church that pope x is no longer pope. No one else can make the determination that the pope is manifest and obstinate.
-
Do you know what ipso facto means?
You don't lose office "automatically" until it is determined you are an obstinate heretic.
You aren't determined to be obstinate until the Church decides you are.
Thus, you don't lose office until you are determined to be obstinate in heresy.
.
As I've said a thousand times, most of you think that obstinate/formal heresy can be determined outside of a Church process, which is your main error. No one is an obstinate heretic, (as is defined by canon law) UNTIL the Church tells us so. Without this judgement/decision, there is no "ipso facto" loss of office.
-
[on Pope St. Martin I being replaced by Pope St Eugene I]
You continue to repeat that as if it's a fact, but you've never proven it. How do you know the newly elected Pope was universally accepted before the Pope who was "hauled off and jailed" willingly abdicated a year later?
Read the Catholic Encyclopedia article on Pope St Eugene I: http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/05598a.htm (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/05598a.htm)
With regard to the circuмstances of his election, it can only be said that if he was forcibly placed on the Chair of Peter by the power of the emperor, in the hope that he would follow the imperial will, these calculations miscarried; and that, if he was elected against the will of the reigning pope (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/12260a.htm) in the first instance, Pope Martin subsequently acquiesced in his election (Ep. Martini xvii in P.L., LXXXVII).
There is no indication that any of the Roman clergy objected to Pope Eugene's election or refused to subject themselves to his authority. That meets your criteria for UPA.
-
Well, yes. It would help if they would lay it out in logical format.
Proposition (de fide): The Pope can be judged by no one.
S&S: that the pope can be judged by no one via a coercive judgment, concedo, that the pope can be judged by no one via a discretionary judgment nego.
I do not deny this distinction IF by discretionary judgment is meant simply that the Church is judging whether the fact of heresy has already taken place and deposed the Pope.
But S&S do not appear to hold this, but, rather, follow John of St. Thomas that the discretionary judgment actually causes the severing of the bond between the matter and the form. If I were to kill the pope, I would in fact cause his loss of authority, by eliminating the matter. This theory holds that the discretionary judgment has an analogous effect. By declaring the man guilty of heresy, the judgement renders him unsuitable matter for sustaining the form of papal authority
But I cannot, for the life of me, see how this is not tantamount to judging the Pope. If God does not withdraw the authority at some point before the judgment is rendered, then the judgment is in fact being rendered against the man who is the pope.
And, if the Church is capable of "severing the bond," then what would stop the Church from merely withdrawing the designation? "Hey, we changed our mind. We're withdrawing our election of this man." In both cases, we could stipulate, well, it's really God, in response to the Church, who removes the formal authority, so it's not really the Church stripping the man of authority. Didn't the Church condemn an error which artificially distinguished between the man and his office ... once united by God?
It's debatable that what S&S are calling a discretionary judgment is actually discretionary or coercive. If S&S are claiming that the pope can submit to the decision of the council at his own discretion (as Pope Leo IV willingly subjected himself to the judgment of Emperor Louis, or Our Lord willingly subjected himself to Our Lady and St Joseph without thereby becoming an inferior), then that certainly has happened in the past (the true pope willingly resigned to end the GWS). But I don't think that is what S&S are saying. They seem to be saying that the discretionary judgment would have coercive power to remove the claimant from his office. That's a contradiction in terms. But S&S are nothing if not slippery.
-
I really think the issue of UPA is muddying the waters. UPA has nothing to do with a heretic pope. 2 completely separate discussions and criteria.
-
Pax,
Do you know what ipso facto means?
There is a difference between an ipso facto excommunication and an ipso facto deprivation (loss of jurisdiction). The former happens the moment the person commits the act to which the penalty is attached, without the need of any human judgment or declaration; the latter does requires human judgment and a declaration before it is incurred.
Cajetan: “The power of jurisdiction is by man’s appointment: both giving it and taking it away belong to human judgment. … more is required to incur deprivation ipso facto than to incur excommunication [ipso facto], since incurring the censure does not require a declaration, whereas incurring deprivation does, according to the jurists.” (Cajetan, De Comparatione Auctoritatis Papae et Concilii, ch. XIX).
Suarez: “Therefore on deposing a heretical Pope, the Church would not act as superior to him, but juridically and by the consent of Christ she would declare him a heretic and therefore unworthy of Pontifical honors; he would then ipso facto and immediately be deposed by Christ…”
John of St. Thomas: “It cannot be held that the pope, by the very fact of being a heretic, would cease to be pope antecedently to a declaration of the Church. It is true that some seem to hold this position; but we will discuss this in the next article. What is truly a matter of debate, is whether the pope, after he is declared by the Church to be a heretic, is deposed ipso facto by Christ the Lord, or if the Church ought to depose him. In any case, as long as the Church has not issued a juridical declaration, he must always be considered the pope, as we will make more clear in the next article. (…) Hence, Bellarmine and Suarez are of the opinion that, by the very fact that the Pope is a manifest heretic and declared to be incorrigible, he is deposed [ipso facto] by Christ our Lord without any intermediary, and not by any authority of the Church.”
-
They seem to be saying that the discretionary judgment would have coercive power to remove the claimant from his office. That's a contradiction in terms. But S&S are nothing if not slippery.
No, they don't seem to be saying that. A discretionary judgment, by definition, has no coercive power. It simply establishes the facts. It is the form of judgment used by an Arbitrator.
-
That's right. The universal acceptance cannot depose a sitting Pope, and no one has ever said it could. The universal acceptance is an infallible sign that the one accepted as Pope is the Pope, and an infallible sign that all the conditions necessary for him to have become pope were satisfied.
Now, since one of the conditions required for a man to become Pope is that the See be vacant beforehand, the universal acceptance of John XXIII proves that Siri was not the Pope, and the universal acceptance of Francis proves that Benedict's resignation was accepted by God.
Ok, I don't have time to develop this in great detail, so I'll summarize my argument.
S & S hold UPA to be an "infallible sign" that an elected pontiff receiving UPA satisfied all of the conditions of being pope. Well, as Fr. Kramer says, a necessary condition for a pope is possession of the Catholic faith. Thus, S & S are pointing to a post-election occurrence or fact (UPA) as proof of a prior necessary condition.
Well, my position also sees a post-election occurrence or fact as a proof of the lack of a necessary condition, or an "infallible sign" that a condition was not satisfied - namely, the possession of the Catholic faith by the one elected: the post-election occurrence or fact being the promulgation or teaching of error in a "pope's" authoritative magisterium that contradicts Catholic dogma, doctrine or Tradition.
I am basing this on the assumption or belief that a bishop who possesses the Catholic faith will receive the charism of a never-failing faith as successor of Peter (Luke 22:32), and that this will protect a true pope (who met ALL the necessary conditions for a true pope) from teaching or promulgating anything in his authentic magisterium that contradicts or is in opposition to Catholic dogma, doctrine or Tradition. If an elected "pope" does so, it indicates that he does not possess that charism. If he does not receive that charism, it means he lacked a necessary condition to be a true pope. Ergo, he lacked the Catholic faith prior to his election: if the Catholic cardinals and the laity didn't see that, it was because the lack of faith, or the heresy, was occult and hidden - but there nonetheless, explaining the subsequent magisterial error, something which could not be in a true pope.
Thus, the teaching or promulgation of error is an "infallible sign" of a lack of a necessary condition of the person elected as pope (cf. S & S's use of a post-election occurrence or fact (UPA) as an "infallible sign" of the possession of the necessary conditions).
This post-election "infallible sign" is preceded by another pre-election "infallible sign" or mark, though it is hidden: the person's occult heresy, or lack of the Catholic faith when elected. If we could see that sign or fact of the occult heresy it would infallibly tell us that that person, if elected pope, would lack the charism and protections given to Peter and his faith expressed in his teaching office.
This is why I posted something previously saying it is not settled teaching that an occult heretic - lacking the interior, spiritual bond with Christ of supernatural faith - is a member of the church. Of course, the heresy being occult, we can not do otherwise than treat such a person as Catholic, and even perhaps, as the Cardinal electors may have done, elect him to the papacy, since any impediment would have been hidden and the person would have appeared a fit candidate.
As far as S & S and UPA, I do not know how they regard its status: de fida, doctrine, part of Tradition, etc. I can say this though: Paul IV issued a papal bull, cuм Ex Apostolatus, which asserted something contrary to UPA, namely that not even unanimous acceptance of the electors or the Church subsequently for any period of time could not legitimatize a heretic elected and make him "pope." And he said no "declaration" was necessary.
If Paul IV could promulgate an authoritative bull for the Church which contradicts (not merely being erroneous or simply wrong in some manner) UPA - Catholic doctrine, dogma, official teaching, whatever - why are we getting so bent out of shape when it happens or has happened post-V2?
I attach pics of the original Rheims commentary on Luke 22:32, courtesy of Dr. von Peters's wonderful edition in Roman type, http://realdouayrheims.com/ (http://realdouayrheims.com/).
DR
-
They seem to be saying that the discretionary judgment would have coercive power to remove the claimant from his office.
Not what they are saying.
1. The discretionary judgement is ONLY related to the issue of obstinacy or pertinacity in error.
a. Such a judgement comes after 2 rebukes.
b. Such a judgement is a determination of fact or guilt (i.e. pope A knows the truth and obstinately holds to error, even after being shown the truth).
2. Once a person is deemed an obstinate heretic, then they have "judged themselves" and are guilty of the sin of heresy, in a formal sense, per Divine Law.
a. Once they are a formal/obstinate heretic, they are no longer part of the Church and they are no longer a pope, bishop, priest, etc.
b. In the case of a pope, they are now a "former pope" and a "former catholic" and thus, the Cardinals are superiors to them.
c. This "former pope" is now guilty under canon law, and would "ipso facto" lose his office, and be declared a former pope by the Cardinals.
3. Loss of office "ipso facto" is caused by two events:
a. PRIMARY CAUSE - the person is deemed an obstinate/manifest/formal heretic.
b. SECONDARY CAUSE - the person's heresy is PUNISHED by loss of office, per canon law.
-
So you disagree with Bellarmine?
Yes, I feel that S&S are in fact disagreeing with Bellarmine, and that's OK. What I object to is the attempt to twist Bellarmine to make it appear as though Bellarmine agrees with them.
-
The fourth opinion is of Cajetan. There, he teaches, that a manifestly heretical Pope is not ipso facto deposed; but can and ought to be deposed by the Church. Now in my judgment, such an opinion cannot be defended. For in the first place, that a manifest heretic would be ipso facto deposed, is proven from authority and reason. The Authority is of St. Paul, who commands Titus [323], that after two censures, that is, after he appears manifestly pertinacious, an heretic is to be shunned: and he understands this before excommunication and sentence of a judge.
Manifest heresy = obstinate heresy = Church process to determine obstinacy has already happened.
.
Cajetan argued that there should be 2 Church determinations. The first, to determine obstinate/manifest heresy. THEN a second, to state that a loss of office had occurred. +Bellarmine argues that once obstinate/manifest heresy is determined, that loss of office follows automatically. The debate here is over a minor point.
.
Again, manifest heresy CANNOT be determined by ANYONE other than the CHURCH. The way that +Bellarmine uses the word "manifest" is akin to "obstinate", and not how dictionary.com defines it. In the scenario of heresy, if manifest simply means "obvious" or "public" then any of us can judge the pope guilty of heresy, and there is no need for the Cardinals or a council or anyone to do anything. But this would lead to disagreements and chaos. It is manifest that +Bellarmine's use of the word "manifest" presupposes the idea of "obstinacy" which presupposes that the Church has rebuked and determined that obstinacy already exists.
-
No, they don't seem to be saying that. A discretionary judgment, by definition, has no coercive power. It simply establishes the facts. It is the form of judgment used by an Arbitrator.
Your argument, if it makes any sense at all, is that the claimant is the true pope with supreme authority until the moment a discretionary judgment is made against him. If that's not the case, then you have no argument with sedes and your entire book is a fraud. The fact that none of us here understand your slippery arguments is prima facie evidence that you are dishonest liar. No one understands it because it sucks. You are a meathead who wasted 15 years of your life studying a topic without ever conforming yourself to the doctrines of the theologians you were reading. Instead you picked through it and cobbled together a twisted theory that cannot be found in any theology book anywhere. Did the Novus Ordo people discover your theory when they decided that Frank had gone too far? No, they came to the same exact conclusion as the sedes. Does Cardinal Burke agree with you? No. Does Ed Peters agree with you? No. You and your buddy are losers who are trying to prop up the failed R&R position.
-
Next, the Holy Fathers teach in unison, that not only are heretics outside the Church, but they even lack all Ecclesiastical jurisdiction and dignity ipso facto.
A simple material heretic is not outside the Church. They still have jurisdiction and have not lost their office. Thus, St Bellarmine was using the term 'heretic' in the formal/obstinate meaning. Thus, what he said above is true.
-
Fair enough.
What do you make of Bellarmine's argument against the 4th opinion?
"before excommunication and sentence of a judge."
Before the sentence of a judge, does not mean before the discretionary judgment. Bellarmine explains that a discretionary judgment is that of an arbitrator, while a coercive judgment is that of a judge. And he teaches in no uncertain terms that an heretical Pope, who does not publicly separate himself from the Church, will retain the pontificate until he is convicted of heresy. The conviction is the discretionary judgment.
Bellarmine: “an occult heretic, if he be a bishop or even the supreme Pontiff, does not lose his jurisdiction, or dignity, or the title of head in the Church, until either he publicly separates himself from the Church or, being convicted of heresy, is separated against his will.”
In his commentary on the 5th Opinion, when he says a Pope can be "judged and punished" after he ceases to be Pope, that is referring to a coercive judgment.
-
The fact that none of us here understand your slippery arguments is prima facie evidence that you are dishonest liar....Does Cardinal Burke agree with you? No.
It's not a difficult argument, unless you fail to distinguish between material/formal heresy (i.e. error vs obstinate error). When the 4 Cardinals wrote the dubia letter, they explained that this rebuke process is required to determine obstinacy. Once obstinacy is determined, then the Church can remove a former-pope, because they become a former-pope the moment that they are obstinate in error. So, yes, +Burke does agree with this PC2's argument and also +Bellarmine.
-
Your argument, if it makes any sense at all, is that the claimant is the true pope with supreme authority until the moment a discretionary judgment is made against him. If that's not the case, then you have no argument with sedes and your entire book is a fraud. The fact that none of us here understand your slippery arguments is prima facie evidence that you are dishonest liar. No one understands it because it sucks. You are a meathead who wasted 15 years of your life studying a topic without ever conforming yourself to the doctrines of the theologians you were reading. Instead you picked through it and cobbled together a twisted theory that cannot be found in any theology book anywhere. Did the Novus Ordo people discover your theory when they decided that Frank had gone too far? No, they came to the same exact conclusion as the sedes. Does Cardinal Burke agree with you? No. Does Ed Peters agree with you? No. You and your buddy are losers who are trying to prop up the failed R&R position.
This^^^^ is the emotional outburst of someone desperate to salvage his position, because he is aware he is being destroyed in the debate.
-
Although the opinion that a public heretic would lose office entirely by himself, ipso jure divino (i.e. ipso facto), was already formulated by canonists in the twelfth century, Salza & Sisco dismiss it as "sedevacantist theology" -- as if it were a modern sedevacantist invention. How can it be possible that such theologians as Cajetan, John of St. Thomas, and Bordoni were aware of that opinion and argued against it; but if the Salza/Siscoe interpretation of Bellarmine's fifth opinion were correct, then Bellarmine would have been ignorant of the opinion asserting an ipso jure divino loss of office for a pope who becomes a public heretic. It is inconceivable that Bellarmine could have been ignorant of that opinion, and that he would not have listed it as one of the opinions on the question of deposing a heretic pope. Hinscius (1869) mentions that a whole series of authors favour that opinion of an automatic forfiture of office by a manifest heretic pope. Gregory XVI interprets the Bellarminian opinion as formulated by Ballerini in the same manner, i.e., that the manifest heretic pope would lose office "by himself", having "abdicated" the pontificate by his pertinacity; and that the judgment of the Church would be made not against the pope antecedently, but against him "who before was adorned with papal dignity." According to Salza & Siscoe, the fifth opinion calls for an antecedent judgment by the Church; which means Gregory XVI and the entire series of authors mentioned by Hinscius understood it wrongly -- and it would mean that Bellarmine himself was ignorant of that opinion formulated by canonists since the twelfth century. Historically there have been five opinions. The first opinion is that the pope cannot be a heretic. The second is that all heretics, even secret heretics, lose office ipso jure divino (ipso facto). The third is that a manifest heretic pope is not deposed ipso facto, nor can he be deposed by the Church. The fourth is that a manifest heretic is not deposed ipso facto, but must be judged and deposed by the Church. The fifth historic opinion is that the public heretic falls from office entirely by himself, ipso facto, before any deposition or trial. Deposition is a threefold act, (as Bordoni explains), comprised of 1) judgment, 2) deposition, 3) penal sanction. Historically, the fifth opinion asserted an ipso jure divino loss of office without any antecedent judgment or declaration. This opinion was opposed by Cajetan, John of St. Thomas, Suárez, Bordoni, and many others. According to the Salza & Siscoe theory, this historic opinion of an ipso jure divino loss of office for public heresy without an antecedent judgment is not one of the historic five opinions, but a sedevacantist misintetpretation of Bellarmine! The Salza/Siscoe interpretation of the fifth opinion is straight out of the lunatic asylum. Against the teaching of the expert canonists who list Suárez as holding opinion no. 4, Salza & Siscoe claim that Bellarmine and Suárez were of the same opinion, i.e., no. 5! Fr. Jean-Michel Gleize accurately described the Surezian opinion as a logically incoherent synthesis of opinions no. 4 and 5. Suárez's opinion is not the historic no. 5 as Salza & Siscoe ignorantly claim.
-
Your argument, if it makes any sense at all, is that the claimant is the true pope with supreme authority until the moment a discretionary judgment is made against him.
That exactly right, but what you're not getting is that the discretionary judgment does not CAUSE the Pope to fall from the pontificate. It is a condition that must be met before he is ipso facto deposed by Christ, just like Suarez and John of St. Thomas said in the previous quotations I provided.
The fact that none of us here understand your slippery arguments is prima facie evidence that you are dishonest liar. No one understands it because it sucks. ... Does Ed Peters agree with you? No.
The former rector of the Gregorian certainly does. And not only did he teach teach canon law for most of his adult life, but, as related by Professor de Mattei, he also studied the past 1000 years of canonical tradition on the subject. Here’s what he wrote in 2013 after doing so:
Father Ghirlanda, S.J., (2013): “The vacancy of the Roman See occurs in case of the cessation of the office on the part of the Roman Pontiff, which happens for four reasons: 1) Death, 2) Sure and perpetual insanity or complete mental infirmity; 3) Notorious apostasy, heresy, schism; 4) Resignation. In the first case, the Apostolic See is vacant from the moment of death of the Roman Pontiff; in the second and in the third from the moment of the declaration on the part of the cardinals; in the fourth from the moment of the renunciation." (…) There is the case, admitted by doctrine, of notorious apostasy, heresy and schism, into which the Roman Pontiff could fall, but as a ‘private doctor,’ that does not demand the assent of the faithful (…) However, in such cases, because ‘the first see is judged by no one’ (Canon 1404) no one could depose the Roman Pontiff, but only a declaration of the fact would be had, which would have to be done by the Cardinals, at least of those present in Rome.” (La Civiltà Cattolica, March 2, 2013)
He says the Cardinals judge and declare the fact, and the moment they do so the Apostolic See becomes vacant.
-
At the end of the day, people can hold any number of positions on this subject provided that they do not violate Catholic teaching.
If in fact, the Magisterium and Universal Discipline of the Church had not become corrupt, then this would be an entirely academic question. If the Magisterium were intact and the Tridentine Mass were being offered, if Bergoglio was running around saying heretical things, it has no impact on me, and I would just write it off as "not my problem".
But we have a problem. If Vatican II and the New Mass are from the legitimate Pope, then I'm accepting them ... as should all Catholics ... without any fear of our displeasing God by doing so.
-
Although the opinion that a public heretic would lose office entirely by himself, ipso jure divino (i.e. ipso facto), was already formulated by canonists in the twelfth century, Salza & Sisco dismiss it as "sedevacantist theology" -- as if it were a modern sedevacantist invention. How can it be possible that such theologians as Cajetan, John of St. Thomas, and Bordoni were aware of that opinion and argued against it; but if the Salza/Siscoe interpretation of Bellarmine's fifth opinion were correct, then Bellarmine would have been ignorant of the opinion asserting an ipso jure divino loss of office for a pope who becomes a public heretic. It is inconceivable that Bellarmine could have been ignorant of that opinion, and that he would not have listed it as one of the opinions on the question of deposing a heretic pope. Hinscius (1869) mentions that a whole series of authors favour that opinion of an automatic forfiture of office by a manifest heretic pope. Gregory XVI interprets the Bellarminian opinion as formulated by Ballerini in the same manner, i.e., that the manifest heretic pope would lose office "by himself", having "abdicated" the pontificate by his pertinacity; and that the judgment of the Church would be made not against the pope antecedently, but against him "who before was adorned with papal dignity." According to Salza & Siscoe, the fifth opinion calls for an antecedent judgment by the Church; which means Gregory XVI and the entire series of authors mentioned by Hinscius understood it wrongly -- and it would mean that Bellarmine himself was ignorant of that opinion formulated by canonists since the twelfth century. Historically there have been five opinions. The first opinion is that the pope cannot be a heretic. The second is that all heretics, even secret heretics, lose office ipso jure divino (ipso facto). The third is that a manifest heretic pope is not deposed ipso facto, nor can he be deposed by the Church. The fourth is that a manifest heretic is not deposed ipso facto, but must be judged and deposed by the Church. The fifth historic opinion is that the public heretic falls from office entirely by himself, ipso facto, before any deposition or trial. Deposition is a threefold act, (as Bordoni explains), comprised of 1) judgment, 2) deposition, 3) penal sanction. Historically, the fifth opinion asserted an ipso jure divino loss of office without any antecedent judgment or declaration. This opinion was opposed by Cajetan, John of St. Thomas, Suárez, Bordoni, and many others. According to the Salza & Siscoe theory, this historic opinion of an ipso jure divino loss of office for public heresy without an antecedent judgment is not one of the historic five opinions, but a sedevacantist misintetpretation of Bellarmine! The Salza/Siscoe interpretation of the fifth opinion is straight out of the lunatic asylum. Against the teaching of the expert canonists who list Suárez as holding opinion no. 4, Salza & Siscoe claim that Bellarmine and Suárez were of the same opinion, i.e., no. 5! Fr. Jean-Michel Gleize accurately described the Surezian opinion as a logically incoherent synthesis of opinions no. 4 and 5. Suárez's opinion is not the historic no. 5 as Salza & Siscoe ignorantly claim.
I agree completely. S&S are twisting Bellarmine to agree with the position they hold. Again, there's nothing wrong with disagreeing with Bellarmine. I don't agree with 100% of everything he held/taught. But it's not honest to claim that Bellarmine agrees with you when he clearly doesn't. S&S try to claim that ALL the theologians agree with them ... by twisting Bellarmine.
-
Of course, the distinction here is that Bellarmine is discussing the secret/occult heretic, whom he believes are still members of the Church.
Bellarmine backs up his teaching that heretics lose jurisdiction, ipso facto, or by the fact that they are heretics, before any declaration...
I suspect that S&S knew that.
-
This^^^^ is the emotional outburst of someone desperate to salvage his position, because he is aware he is being destroyed in the debate.
Or....every word he wrote was.....completely accurate.
-
http://sspx.org/en/news-events/news/question-papal-heresy-part-3-20413
Here is the article that Fr. Kramer was referencing:
Errors condemned throughout history have been presented as truth from Rome during the past 50 years. How are we to think?
The author of this series, Fr. Jean-Michel Gleize, has been a professor in the SSPX's Seminary of St. Pius X in Econe, Switzerland for 20 years, where he is currently teaching ecclesiology. He is the author of numerous articles in Courrier de Rome and is a consultant to the SSPX commission responsible for doctrinal discussions with the Holy See.
Part 3: Can a Pope Fall into Heresy?
At first glance it would seem that this is an improbable thesis. In fact, the negative answer to this question is the common opinion of theologians of the modern era. They say, in effect, that the pope could not become a formal, obstinate heretic, in other words a deliberate, culpable heretic, although he could become a material heretic, through non-culpable ignorance or because of a simple error and not by reason of ill will. The main advocates of this thesis are the Dutch theologian Albert Pighi (1490-1542) (author of the treatise Hierarchiae ecclesiasticae assertio, which examines this question), St. Robert Bellarmine (1542-1621) (De Romano Pontifice, Book 4, chapters 6-14), and Francisco Suarez (1548-1617) (De fide, disputatio 10, sectio 6, §11, Opera omnia, 2:319). Just before Vatican Council I, this opinion was held also by the French canonist Marie-Dominique Bouix (1808-1870).
During that Council, Bishop Zinelli, speaking in the name of the Deputation of the Faith, praises this opinion of Bellarmine and Suarez: according to him it is probable that the pope will never be a formal heretic:
Since these things have been entrusted to supernatural Providence, we think it sufficiently probable that they will never come about” (Mansi, vol. 52, col. 1109).
[size={defaultattr}]
In the wake of the Council, Cardinal Billot (1846-1931) reiterated the same opinion in L’Église, II–Sa constitution intime, question 14, thesis 29, part 2, nos. 940-949. Fr. Dublanchy too adopted it after him in “Infaillibilité du pape,” Dictionnaire de théologie catholique, 8/2:1716-1717. Finally, during the reign of Pius XII, the classic manual by Father Salaverri, De Ecclesia Christi, thesis 14, §657, mentions this question about the personal heresy of a pope as a matter for theological debate and presents as probable the opinion of Bellarmine and Suarez that was praised by Bishop Zinelli.
The Twofold Argument
The argument of this explanation is twofold, and it remains invariable in the writings of all the authors who adopt this position. First there is a theoretical argument that is presented as a matter of convenience: the infallibility of the office promised in Luke 22:32 would make personal indefectibility in the faith morally necessary. Indeed, St. Robert Bellarmine remarks in De Romano Pontifice, Book V, chapter 6 that the order established by God absolutely requires that the private person of the Supreme Pontiff not be able to fall into heresy, not even by losing his faith in a purely internal way.
[/size]
For the pope must not and cannot preach heresy; not only that, but he must also teach the truth always, and there is no doubt that he will always do so, since the Lord commanded him to strengthen his brethren. But how can a heretical pope strengthen his brethren in the faith, how will he always preach the true faith? No doubt, God is still capable of extracting the profession of the true faith from the heart of a heretic, just as he once made Balaam’s ass speak. But there would be violence in that, and not an action in keeping with divine providence, which arranges all things smoothly.”
[size={defaultattr}]
There is also a second factual argument, following from the first, which logically leads all the advocates of the theory to prove that never in all the history of the Church has any pope been formally heretical (see ibid., chapters 7-14).
The Premodern Opinion
Nevertheless, the theologians of the modern era are latecomers. And one might object that even before them, from the 12th-16th centuries, theologians commonly thought that the pope can fall into heresy. We encounter this idea in the 12th century in Gratian’s Decretum, specifically Book 1, distinction 40, chapter 6 entitled Si papa. Gratian says that the pope cannot be judged by anyone else, except in the case in which he strayed from the faith. This statement is attributed to St. Boniface, Archbishop of Milan, and it is cited under his name, before Gratian, by Cardinal Deusdedit and Yves de Chartres. It is the text that will serve as a basis for all the reflections of the medieval canonists and will henceforth support a common opinion: “The canonists of the 12th and 13th centuries,” Fr. Dublanchy says,
[/size]
...know the passage from Gratian and comment on it. All admit without difficulty that the pope can fall into heresy, as into any other serious sin; their only concern it to investigate how and in what conditions he can in this case be judged by the Church” (Dictionnaire de théologie catholique, col. 1715).
[size={defaultattr}]
Cajetan again supports this thesis. Albert Pighi in the 16th century would be the first to break with a theological and canonical tradition that had been unanimous until then. But even in the modern era, the new opinion introduced by Pighi would not be absolutely unanimous. In fact, Pighi was rather quickly refuted by Melchior Cano (1509-1560) (De locis theologicis, Book 6, chapter 8, §§21-23) and Domenico Bañez (1528-1604) (Commentary on II-II, q. 1, art. 10, folios 183-212 of the 1587 Venice edition). The Dominican Charles-René Billuart (1685-1757) shares the same opinion with these two theologians in his De fide, dissertatio 5, art. 3, §3, objectio 2; De regulis fidei, dissertatio 4, art. 8, §2, objectiones 2 et 6 and De incarnatione, dissertatio 9, art. 2, §2, objectio 2.
Finally, in the aftermath of the Vatican Council, Father Palmieri defends this thesis in Tractatus de romano pontifice, thesis 32, scholion, pp. 630-633.
(https://sspx.org/sites/sspx/files/styles/dici_image_full_width/public/news/lefebvre-1988-sermon.jpg?itok=YVbaA9HC) Archbishop Lefebvre, during the sermon of the 1988 consecrations, discussed this grave topic
Lessons from History and Today
Consider also that the facts of history are undeniable. There have been in the Church one or two popes who favored heresy, and there are today, since Vatican II, popes who have caused serious problems for the conscience of Catholics, who are rightly perplexed. For instance, Pope Honorius I (625-640) was anathematized by his successors, Ss. Agatho (678-681) and Leo II (682-684) during the Third Council of Constantinople in 681 for having favored the Monothelite heresy. (For more detailed information, see the article “Une crise sans précédents?” that appeared in the journal of the Institute Universitaire saint Pie X, Vu de haut 14 (Automne 2008), pp. 78-95.)
On the other hand, it is clear that since Vatican II, Popes Paul VI, John Paul II. and Benedict XVI have taught—and Pope Francis still teaches—theological opinions that would be difficult to reconcile with the substance of Catholic dogma. But in both cases, the import is essentially the same. And these facts have been noted by persons whose judgment has a certain moral authority, although it lacks juridical authority.
Consider the words of Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre, delivered in his sermon at the June 30, 1988 episcopal consecrations at Ecône.
[/size]
Indeed, since the Council, what we [the popes before 1962] condemned in the past the present Roman authorities have embraced and are professing. How is it possible? We have condemned them: Liberalism, Communism., Socialism, Modernism, Sillonism. All the errors which we have condemned are now professed, adopted and supported by the authorities of the Church. Is it possible?”
[size={defaultattr}]
Recent events, no doubt, are more serious than situations in the past. Here again is the Archbishop, this time from his March 30, 1986 Easter sermon:
[/size]
We find ourselves facing a serious, extremely serious dilemma that I think has never existed in the Church: the fact that the man seated on the chair of Peter participates in the worship of false gods. I do not think that this has ever happened in the history of the Church”
[size={defaultattr}]
And, finally, attention must also be paid to the comments Bp. de Castro-Mayer made to Archbishop Lefebvre in a letter dated December 8, 1969:
[/size]
This is a very serious matter. We are on the way to a new Church. Rome is the one driving souls into heresy. It seems to me that we cannot accept all the docuмents of Vatican II. There are some that cannot be interpreted according to Trent and Vatican I. What do you think?”
[size={defaultattr}]
All this leads us to think, no more no less, that the first opinion that regards as improbable the fall of a pope into heresy is itself improbable. In other words, the arguments from theological authority along the lines of a negative answer to the question posed are insufficient to win adherence. It must still be shown, therefore, how right reason, enlightened by faith, could justify an affirmative answer.
[/size]
-
At the end of the day, people can hold any number of positions on this subject provided that they do not violate Catholic teaching.
If in fact, the Magisterium and Universal Discipline of the Church had not become corrupt, then this would be an entirely academic question. If the Magisterium were intact and the Tridentine Mass were being offered, if Bergoglio was running around saying heretical things, it has no impact on me, and I would just write it off as "not my problem".
But we have a problem. If Vatican II and the New Mass are from the legitimate Pope, then I'm accepting them ... as should all Catholics ... without any fear of our displeasing God by doing so.
S&S and R&R will never admit that. R&R is a failed position. They are recognizing as the true pope that a demon-woshipping sodomite heretic is the true pope of the Holy Catholic Church and then they refuse to subject themselves to his doctrine just like they refuse to subject themselves to the pre-V2 theologians. Instead they cook up novel theories. They are just like their "holy" father, Frank.
-
According to the Salza & Siscoe theory, this historic opinion of an ipso jure divino loss of office for public heresy without an antecedent judgment is not one of the historic five opinions...
Are you capable of getting anything right?
Of course the ipso facto loss of office without an antecedent judgement is one of the Fiive Opinions. It's the 2nd Opinion, which Bellarmine refutes and which you defend.
Now, to anticipate you're objection, you believe a Pope cannot fall into heresy (1st Opinion), but you also say if he did he would fall from the Pontificate even if his heresy was committed entirely in secret, by an interior act alone (2nd Opinion).
-
Are you capable of getting anything right?
Of course the ipso facto loss of office without an antecedent judgement is one of the Fiive Opinions. It's the 2nd Opinion, which Bellarmine refutes and which you defend.
Now, to anticipate you're objection, you believe a Pope cannot fall into heresy (1st Opinion), but you also say if he did he would fall from the Pontificate even if his heresy was committed entirely in secret, by an interior act alone (2nd Opinion).
Let's be clear: the reason you think it's the second opinion is because your definition of "occult" heretic includes heretics whose heresy is open and quite public . . . they are "occult" until the Church declares them heretics by a particular and individual judgment, right?
-
http://sspx.org/en/news-events/news/question-papal-heresy-part-4-20547
More from Fr. Gleize, who holds the same position as Fr. Kramer, that a True Pope cannot fall into formal heresy.
After carefully defining terms, we review the essential question; can the Vicar of Christ be heretical, in the exact meaning of the word?
The author of this series, Fr. Jean-Michel Gleize, has been a professor in the SSPX's Seminary of St. Pius X in Econe, Switzerland for 20 years, where he is currently teaching ecclesiology. He is the author of numerous articles in Courrier de Rome and is a consultant to the SSPX commission responsible for doctrinal discussions with the Holy See.
Part 4: About the Pope and Heresy
Defining Heresy
Heresy must be understood first as a morally bad human act, in other words, a sin. But like the act of faith to which it is opposed, this act is complex, for it depends simultaneously on the intellect and the will. Inasmuch as it follows from the intellect, this act is an error, which can occur in two modes: pure and simple negation; mere doubt. Inasmuch as it follows from the will, this act is the refusal to give the support of the intellect to the truth that is denied or doubted.
Pertinacity or Error
This refusal itself can occur in two modes, depending on whether or not it is culpable. Heresy takes place specifically when there is a voluntary refusal, with full advertence precisely to the simple fact that the truths denied or doubted are proposed by the Church’s authority, and not to the additional fact that the Church’s authority represents that of God and therefore obliges morally. With regard to this second fact, advertence defines heresy not as such but inasmuch as it is culpable. This culpability is tantamount to pertinacity, in other words, to the rejection of the matter of faith inasmuch as, in the view of the person who rejects it, it appears clearly obligatory because it is proposed by the authority of God’s legitimate representative, in this case the Magisterium of the Church.
Non-culpable rejection occurs, on the other hand, in someone who, without fault on his part, does not know that this ecclesiastical Magisterium obliged him inasmuch as it represents the divine authority. It follows therefore that pertinacity concerns directly the internal act of heresy, which is the act of adherence to error.
Formal or Material
At the level of the external act, which is the act of professing truth or error, the simple refusal (culpable or not) to profess the truth proposed by the Magisterium is already sufficient to define heresy specifically. Consequently, when we describe heresy by saying that it is formal or material, depending on whether or not it involved pertinacity, this distinction concerns only the internal act of heresy.
Act of Heresy or Heretical Proposition?
On the level of the external act, the rejection of the authority of the ecclesiastical Magisterium already corresponds to heresy properly so-called, whatever the case may be with regard to possible pertinacity on the level of the internal act. This pertinacity becomes manifest in the external forum when the competent authority intervenes to impose a retraction on the interested party and the latter with full knowledge of the facts refuses to make a retraction. The term heresy designates, secondly, and by the analogy of attribution, the doctrinal value of a proposition that is opposed to and contradicts Catholic dogma. From this perspective, in order to make a determination of heresy, it is necessary and sufficient to apply the simple rules of formal logic. The determination is imposed automatically, like it or not, but it applies to a speculative utterance, a simple literal proposition, apart from the person who utters it.
Occult, Public or Notorious Heresy
On the other hand, understood in the first sense as a morally bad human act, external heresy as such is distinct from internal heresy, which is not manifest at all. It is expressed by signs (words, actions, omissions), even if no one notices them. It is sometimes occult, sometimes public and sometimes notorious. If the expression is known by a small number of discreet witnesses, the heresy is said to be occult. If it is known by most people, it is public. Notoriety is something else again, because it is of a juridical order and is equivalent of a higher degree of public knowledge. Legal notoriety results from a juridical determination by the authority (for example by a judicial sentence passed in a matter that has been adjudicated or by the admission of a delinquent before the tribunal).
Notoriety in fact occurs when the act was performed in such circuмstances that no artifice can conceal it and no juridical subtlety can excuse it, for example a flagrant delict (offense against the law) (cf. Raoul Naz, “Délit,”
Dictionnaire de droit canonique (Letouzey 1949), 4:1087-1088). Notorious heresy therefore is not a heresy that everyone knows about. It is the sort of heresy that results from acts that the hierarchical authority of the Church denounces juridically as incompatible with the common good of Catholic society. In a strictly juridical sense, we speak only about occult or notorious heresy, and the notion of public heresy is reduced to that of occult heresy. In this juridical sense (which is sense used in canon law), any external act that has not been noted by the authority is occult.
Infallibility and Heresy
Having made these distinctions and clarifications, let us try to frame the problem before us: can the Pope fall into heresy? The Pope is a man called by God to exercise the supreme and universal power of jurisdiction (and therefore of the Magisterium or teaching office) over the whole Church. As a man, he remains, like all his fellow human beings, subject to error. In order for him not to be subject to error, it is necessary for God to have given him an explicit assurance, while specifying the limits within which he will enjoy this infallibility; and this assurance was given by God in restricted circuмstances, outside of which there is no reason to say that the Pope is infallible. More precisely, any and all exercise of his function does not fall within these limits, but only one type of particular actions, the performance of which may appear clearly by means of the criteria of locutio ex cathedra (speaking from the teacher’s seat, authoritatively).
All theologians acknowledge that outside these limits the Pope is not infallible even though some of them have gone so far as to maintain that he would ordinarily be inerrant. (For further reading, see Jean-Baptiste Franzelin, De divina traditione (4th ed. 1896), thesis 12, appendix 1, principle 7 and its corollaries, pp. 118-141; Dublanchy, “Infaillibilité du pape, ”Dictionnaire de Théologie Catholique, col. 1711-1712; Straub, De Ecclesia, nos. 968 ff.; and Lucien Choupin, S.J., Valeur des décisions doctrinales et disciplinaires du Saint-Siège (Paris: Beauchesne, 1913), pp. 87-92). Consider also the words of the Dominican theologian Fr. Thomas Pègues, cited by Choupin, op. cit., p. 55.
It could be, strictly speaking, that this teaching would be subject to error. We have a thousand reasons to believe that it is not. It probably never has been and it is morally certain that it never will be. But absolutely it could be, in the sense that God does not guarantee it as He guarantees teaching that is formulated by way of definition.”
To What Point a Pope Can Err?
It is therefore not a contradiction that the man who is Pope should be mistaken, even in the exercise of his office, and even to the point of heresy. But this conclusion is drawn on the universal level, which is the level of mere possibility, that is, the compatibility of abstract notions; it does not apply to a real risk in matters of fact, or to a greater or lesser probability, much less to a frequency. Consequently, even though it may be indubitable, this conclusion would not be tantamount (at least not yet) to the statement that Pope Francis is heretical.
The Pope can err to the point of at least material heresy: no theologian disputes that. The question being debated is not whether he could fall as far as formal heresy, with pertinacity. In fact, the passage from material heresy to formal heresy depends as such on the internal forum and remains unverifiable. The only question that matters is what may happen in the external forum. From this perspective, it is plain that the Pope can fall into occult heresy: not only private heresy but even public heresy.
Can a Pope Fall in Notorious Heresy?
On the other hand, if we are talking about notorious heresy, it is obvious that he cannot during his lifetime: notorious heresy is in fact heresy that is declared by the competent superior, and since the Pope has no superior here on earth, no one is competent to declare his heresy canonically. From a strictly canonical perspective, the Pope therefore during his lifetime could fall only into occult heresy. Once he has died, his heresy can obviously be declared by his successor and become notorious. But that does not authorize us to say that the Pope could fall into notorious heresy, since by definition this fall could take place only during his lifetime.
This authorizes us only to say that a Pope could be anathematized posthumously, provided that we are not misled by the expression, since a deceased pope is no longer Pope. In reality, this anathema pertains strictly speaking not to his person but to his statements: the heresy is notorious, but it is so if it is understood not in the first sense, as a person’s moral act, but in the second sense, as the doctrinal description of a proposition.
(https://sspx.org/sites/sspx/files/styles/dici_image_full_width/public/news/fr-roger-calmel-op-portrait460.jpg?itok=pAt0QcuB) Fr. Roger-Thomas Calmel, OP, who discussed the question of modern papal heresy
Cases Before and After Vatican II
As for what has happened in fact, the response is twofold, depending on whether it concerns past facts from the period before Vatican II or present facts, from the period inaugurated by Vatican II. In the case of the former, only Pope Honorius was anathematized posthumously, strictly speaking not as heretical but as having favored heresy; on the other hand, his successors, St. Agatho and St. Leo II, never proclaimed the posthumous dethronement of Honorius, who never ceased to be recognized thereafter as a legitimate pope. (For a more detailed discussion, consult the article “Une crise sans précédents” that appeared in the journal of the Institut Universitaire saint Pie X, Vu de haut 14 (automne 2008), pp. 78-95).
In the case of the present period, no canonical declaration has yet occurred to declare juridically the notoriety of what might be the heresy of the conciliar popes. Can we speak nonetheless about an occult heresy? It is at least beyond doubt that the attitude of these popes complies with the presuppositions of liberalism and modernism, which have been condemned by the Magisterium, and that these popes therefore favor heresy, inasmuch as they preach and put into practice the teachings of Vatican Council II and carry out all the reforms that result from it.
Modern Theologians Say Papal Heresy is Impossible
This is why, considering the apparently unanimous statements by theologians of the modern era (who consider the heresy of a pope as improbable), we respond first that their opinion does not deny that the Pope could fall into heresy; it denies that he could fall into formal and public heresy, even if it were not notorious. We respond secondly that the theological tradition is fallible and capable of reform, even if it is temporarily unanimous, since it is not constant. For example, in considering the matter concerning the Scholastic theologians who all thought unanimously that the matter of the sacrament of Holy Orders was the conferral of the instruments, Franzelin comments, op. cit., thesis 17, nos. 360-362:
Even if one could demonstrate that the consensus existed temporarily, it was not constant and, as we said, it is an argument thanks to which we prove that such a consensus, if there was one, pertained not to a firm and certain way of thinking (avis) but to an opinion.”
The episode that we have been going through for fifty years could therefore lead theologians to revise and refine the position that had been followed since the sixteenth century. All the more since one among them, Fr. Dublanchy, op. cit., concluded in very measured terms: “This opinion is worth as much as the reasons that support it; but it is by no means guaranteed by the Church nor adopted by theologians as a whole.” We see clearly also that at the time of Vatican Council I, Msgr. Zinelli, likewise cited by the one raising the objection, affirms nothing categorical. Deeming it at most probable that the Pope will never fall into heresy, he immediately adds that, even if God were to permit it, He would not leave His Church defenseless and at the mercy of that tyranny.
As for the argument from reason which is thought to support this opinion, we respond that even if absolute personal infallibility was advisable for the exercise of the office, this would only be a matter of suitability [convenance]. Such a privilege is not included in the promise of papal infallibility, which concerns the office only; besides, revelation says nothing about it. Sound reason even leads us to think that this infallibility is not strictly necessary: someone who tries to prove too much proves nothing, and one would run the risk of devaluating infallibility while trying to extend it beyond its limits. Therefore it remains possible that the Pope might err personally in the faith, although his office would never be engaged solemnly in the service of heresy.
[size={defaultattr}]Recent Popes and Heresies
The events that followed Vatican Council II, incidentally, sufficiently show this. Here is the analysis of Fr. Roger-Thomas Calmel, taken from his unpublished 1973 manuscript L’Église plus grande que le pape, which is preserved in the personal archives of Archbishop Lefebvre at the Saint Pius X Seminary in Ecône.
[/size]
The privilege of infallibility will always preserve the Pope from changing the religion formally. But, even without formal changes, attempts [to make them] or acts of complicity or cowardice can go very far and become a very cruel trial for Holy Church. The modernist system, more precisely the modernist apparatus and procedures, offer the Pope a brand new occasion of sin, a possibility of evading his mission that had never before been proposed to him. Once the twofold modernist principle was admitted: first, universal reform, especially in the case of the liturgy, in the name of a certain pastoral openness to the modern world; secondly the abdication of regular, defined authority in favor of feigned, fleeting, anonymous sorts of authority that are typical of various forms of collegiality—in short, once the twofold principle of modernism penetrated into the Church, this destructive consequence followed: the apostolic tradition in matters of doctrine, morals and worship was neutralized, although it was not killed—without any need for the Pope officially and openly to deny the whole tradition and therefore to proclaim the apostasy.”
[size={defaultattr}]
As for the argument that would cite history as its authority, we respond that, certainly, no pope has ever fallen into notorious heresy, but nonetheless some popes favored heresy and some still do. And that one of them was anathematized as “favens haeresim” posthumously.
[/size]
Considering the statements by theologians from the medieval period, who consider papal heresy probable, even though these theologians think that the Pope can fall into not only material heresy but even formal and public heresy, it must be noted that they nevertheless do not maintain that the Pope’s heresy would be notorious.
[size={defaultattr}]As for the facts of history cited by these theologians, they prove at most that the Pope can be materially heretical and favor heresy publicly, but not that he should be formally heretical in a notorious manner.[/size]
-
Of course, the distinction here is that Bellarmine is discussing the secret/occult heretic, whom he believes are still members of the Church.
Here is my previous reply to Ladislaus.
Ladislaus. Why are you constantly ignoring the word OCCULT in this quotation? That is the key to understanding this quote properly.
I wasn’t ignoring it, just waiting for someone to bring it up before I addressed it.
The first point is that when considering how heresy separates a person from the Church, the distinction to be consider is between notorious and occult heresy. Material heretics, Formal heretics, Public heretics, etc., (when these terms are properly understood), are all notorious heretics and outside the Church. So only notorious and occult heresy relate to this question.
Now, occult heresy can be understood as the sin of heresy committed by an interior act alone (entirely occult), or the sin of heresy combined with externally heretical acts (externally occult.) Both legally and theologically, the internal mortal sin of heresy combined with externally heretics acts – even if the heretical acts are performed publicly for all the world to see– are only considered occult, if they do not rise to the level of heretical notoriety by fact. In other words, everything less than notorious by fact, is occult. (Whether you know it or not, the Material Hierarchy Thesis that you yourself hold is based on this.)
Cardinal Billot wrote: Heretics are divided into occult and notorious. Occult heretics are, in the first place, those who by a purely internal act disbelieve dogmas of faith proposed by the Church. Those also are occult, who do indeed manifest their heresy by external signs, but not by a public profession. You will easily understand that many men of our times fall into the latter category—those, namely, who either doubt or positively disbelieve matters of faith, and do not disguise the state of their mind in the private affairs of life, but who have never expressly renounced the faith of the Church, and, when they are asked categorically about their religion, declare of their own accord that they are Catholics.”
In case you’re wondering, the phrase “by a public profession,” means by a “notorious profession.” A notorious profession is essentially a public admission of heresy. Without getting to far into this point, suffice it to say that none of the recent Popes have been guilty of a notorious profession of heresy.
Fr. Glieze provides the canonical explanation for why heresy that is not notorious is reduced to occult: “In a strictly juridical sense, we speak only about occult or notorious heresy, and the notion of public heresy is reduced to that of occult heresy. In this juridical sense (which is the sense used in canon law), any external act that has not been noted by the authority is occult.”
Cardinal Billot provides the theological explanation. He begins by noting that “Baptism, of its very nature gathers men into the visible body of the Catholic Church, and its effect will always be joined to it, unless there be something in the recipient of baptism that prevents it—something incompatible with the social bond of ecclesiastical unity.” He goes on to explain that as long as heresy “stays within the mind, or is confined to manifestations that do not suffice for notoriety, it by no means prevents one from being joined to the visible structure of the Church; and by this fact the baptismal character (by which we are made to be of the body of the Church) necessarily continues to have its effect, or rather retains its natural corollary, since there is not yet anything contrary to impede or expel it.”
Only heresy that suffices for notoriety will sever the juridical bond (or social bond) of “profession of the true Faith." If the heresy is not notorious with a notoriety of fact, baptism will continue to produce its effect and the heretic will remain united to the Body of the Church - unless, of course, he openly leaves the Church of how own accord, which will sever the juridical bond of communion.
Here’s how the Catholic Encyclopedia defines notoriety:
Catholic Encyclopedia: “Notoriety is the quality or the state of things that are notorious; whatever is so fully or officially proved, that it may and ought to be held as certain without further investigation, is notorious. (…) Notoriety, in addition to this common idea, involves the idea of indisputable proof, so that what is notorious is held as proved and serves as a basis for the conclusions and acts of those in authority, especially judges. (…) Canonists have variously classified the legal effects of notoriety, especially in matters of procedure; but, ultimately, they may all be reduced to one: the judge, and in general the person in authority, holding what is notorious to be certain and proved, requires no further information, and therefore, both may and ought to refrain from any judicial inquiry, proof, or formalities, which would otherwise be necessary.”
For heresy to be deemed notorious by fact, a judge would have to consider it so clearly proven that no further investigation is required. And if the heretical acts do not meet that criterion, they are occult and the person is only considered an occult heretic, both legally and theologically.
This is essentially the argument Bishop Sanborn uses to explain why the recent Popes, the cardinals, and the other members of the hierarchy legally retain their offices.
-
I agree completely. S&S are twisting Bellarmine to agree with the position they hold. Again, there's nothing wrong with disagreeing with Bellarmine. I don't agree with 100% of everything he held/taught. But it's not honest to claim that Bellarmine agrees with you when he clearly doesn't. S&S try to claim that ALL the theologians agree with them ... by twisting Bellarmine.
Ladislaus, does this agree with your interpretation of Bellarmine?
Bellarmine: “the Roman Pontiff cannot be deprived of the right to summon a Council, and preside over it – a right he has possessed for 1500 years – unless he were first legitimately judged and convicted [discretionary judgment], and is not the Supreme Pontiff. (…) the Pope is not the only judged in a Council, but has many colleagues, that is, all the Bishops who, if they could convict him of heresy [discretionary judgment], could judge and depose him [coercive judgment] against his will.” (Bellarmine, De Concilii).
-
I observe all three sides in the debate (sede, bene, and R/R) accusing the other two of “misinterpreting St. Bellarmine.”
Specifically, on the issue of whether or not he taught/wrote that the Church would have to at least make a first declaratory statement acknowledging the fact of the pope’s heresy before said pope would be deposed by Christ.
If this teaching is truly the teaching of Bellarmine, then it should be easy enough to settle the matter definitively by posting and citing the passage in both Latin and English.
It would prove St. Bellarmine did NOT teach that a pope is deposed ipso facto, without any declaration by the Church (ie., that the quote so commonly cited by sedes pertains only to whether a 2nd declaration by the Church announcing the deposition is required, per Cajetan/JST, or whether the pope is deposed ipso facto AFTER THE FIRST DECLARATION, as S/S read Bellarmine).
So, let’s have the quote and citation in Latin and English, and be done with this never ending dispute!
-
Let's be clear: the reason you think it's the second opinion is because your definition of "occult" heretic includes heretics whose heresy is open and quite public . . . they are "occult" until the Church declares them heretics by a particular and individual judgment, right?
Yes, they arbitrarily redefined the terms.
-
Ladislaus, does this agree with your interpretation of Bellarmine?
Quote
Bellarmine: “the Roman Pontiff cannot be deprived of the right to summon a Council, and preside over it – a right he has possessed for 1500 years – unless he were first legitimately judged and convicted [discretionary judgment], and is not the Supreme Pontiff. (…) the Pope is not the only judged in a Council, but has many colleagues, that is, all the Bishops who, if they could convict him of heresy [discretionary judgment], could judge and depose him [coercive judgment] against his will.” (Bellarmine, De Concilii).
:popcorn:
-
Ladislaus, does this agree with your interpretation of Bellarmine?
As I've pointed out several times, this is one scenario, but the other is where he leaves the Church on his own, which you gratuitously limited to apostasy only ... something which the Canonists reject.
-
As I've pointed out several times, this is one scenario, but the other is where he leaves the Church on his own, which you gratuitously limited to apostasy only ... something which the Canonists reject.
How many times are you going to repeat that after I've already told you that's not what I hold?
-
So, let’s have the quote and citation in Latin and English, and be done with this never ending dispute!
The dispute is not with what +Bellarmine wrote, but with 2 things: 1) what does he mean, how does he define "manifest heresy"? 2) how does one get labeled a manifest heretic?
-
How many times are you going to repeat that after I've already told you that's not what I hold?
I've seen this in writing from (one of) you over and over again.
As quoted in the context of your dispute with Speray:
As we will see below in our discussion on canon 188, §4, the old 1917 Code of Canon Law taught that in the extreme case in which a prelate publicly defects from the Faith by joining a non-Catholic sect, he is deposed without the need of a declaratory sentence. (ibid. p. 281)
Tacit resignation for public defection from the faith occurs when a prelate joins a non-Cathlic sect, not when he simply makes a heretical statement (judged so by private judgment). Canon 2314, §3 confirms this… (Ibid. p. 286)
-
Lad, he has clearly made distinctions which you are ignoring.
-
Lad, he has clearly made distinctions which you are ignoring.
Hardly. He's fabricating distinctions that no other interpreter of Bellarmine agrees with.
-
How does +Bellarmine define "manifest heresy"? How is manifest heresy determined? In his 4th opinion, he says:
.
“The fourth opinion is that of Cajetan, for whom the manifestly heretical Pope is not “ipso facto” deposed, but can and must be deposed by the Church. To my judgment, this opinion cannot be defended. For, in the first place, it is proven with arguments from authority, and from reason, that the manifest heretic is “ipso facto” deposed. The argument from authority is based on Saint Paul, who orders that the heretic be avoided after two warnings, that is, after showing himself to be manifestly obstinate – which means before any excommunication or judicial sentence”. -- De Romano Pontifice, Bk. 2
.
+Bellarmine answers both these questions together, when he says that one is "manifestly obstinate" after "two warnings". +Bellarmine says that this argument is "from authority" meaning it's Scriptural.
.
Have any of the V2 popes been rebuked with 2 warnings? No. Can we say that they are "manifestly obstinate"? No. Have they then lost their office "ipso facto"? No.
.
Can this be any clearer?
-
How does +Bellarmine define "manifest heresy"? How is manifest heresy determined? In his 4th opinion, he says:
.
“The fourth opinion is that of Cajetan, for whom the manifestly heretical Pope is not “ipso facto” deposed, but can and must be deposed by the Church. To my judgment, this opinion cannot be defended. For, in the first place, it is proven with arguments from authority, and from reason, that the manifest heretic is “ipso facto” deposed. The argument from authority is based on Saint Paul, who orders that the heretic be avoided after two warnings, that is, after showing himself to be manifestly obstinate – which means before any excommunication or judicial sentence”. -- De Romano Pontifice, Bk. 2
.
+Bellarmine answers both these questions together, when he says that one is "manifestly obstinate" after "two warnings". +Bellarmine says that this argument is "from authority" meaning it's Scriptural.
.
Have any of the V2 popes been rebuked with 2 warnings? No. Can we say that they are "manifestly obstinate"? No. Have they then lost their office "ipso facto"? No.
.
Can this be any clearer?
There's no strict requirement for the two warnings, which is why Bellarmine adds, "that is, after showing himself to be manifestly obstinate". Two warnings is a rule of thumb for demonstrating obstinacy ... but it's not some kind of divine law condition. Obstinacy can be manifest in other ways.
-
Tacit resignation for public defection from the faith occurs when a prelate joins a non-Cathlic sect, not when he simply makes a heretical statement (judged so by private judgment). Canon 2314, §3 confirms this… (Ibid. p. 286)
-
I don't see any problem with this, Ladislaus.
There's plenty wrong with it, starting with the fact that S&S refused to cite all the Canonists who unanimously reject their interpretation (which they appear to have pulled out of thin air).
https://stevensperay.wordpress.com/2016/02/19/the-sin-of-heresy-why-john-salza-and-robert-siscoe-get-it-wrong-part-ii/ (https://stevensperay.wordpress.com/2016/02/19/the-sin-of-heresy-why-john-salza-and-robert-siscoe-get-it-wrong-part-ii/)
-
The argument from authority is based on Saint Paul, who orders that the heretic be avoided after two warnings
St Paul "orders" 2 warnings. This is in Scripture. The onus is on you to prove that this isn't required, in a literal sense.
There's no strict requirement for the two warnings, which is why Bellarmine adds, "that is, after showing himself to be manifestly obstinate". Two warnings is a rule of thumb for demonstrating obstinacy ... but it's not some kind of divine law condition. Obstinacy can be manifest in other ways.
Two warnings aren't strictly required? Maybe, maybe not. One could argue that it is of "Divine Law" since it's in Scripture. Is the Bible not infallible? If St Paul is wrong on this requirement, then so is +Bellarmine, who quoted St Paul. If St Paul is wrong, then the Bible is in error.
.
Even if it is granted that "two" warnings aren't necessary, then we are back at square one - what does +Bellarmine mean when he says "manifest heresy"? Since you want to argue that warnings/rebukes aren't necessary, then we are all left to guess at the process necessary to determine. You (and anyone else) can make up your own requirements to determine "manifest" heresy, but it would just be your opinion. You can no longer quote +Bellarmine with any integrity on this quote.
-
St Paul "orders" 2 warnings. This is in Scripture. The onus is on you to prove that this isn't required, in a literal sense. Two warnings aren't strictly required?
Obstinacy is required. One way of establishing obstinacy is the double warning, but it's just one test. Obstinacy can be determined in other ways. That is the meaning of Bellarmine's, "that is".
This text indicates that two warnings manifest obstinacy, but it does not state that obstinacy cannot be established by other means.
-
How does +Bellarmine define "manifest heresy"? How is manifest heresy determined? In his 4th opinion, he says:
.
“The fourth opinion is that of Cajetan, for whom the manifestly heretical Pope is not “ipso facto” deposed, but can and must be deposed by the Church. To my judgment, this opinion cannot be defended. For, in the first place, it is proven with arguments from authority, and from reason, that the manifest heretic is “ipso facto” deposed. The argument from authority is based on Saint Paul, who orders that the heretic be avoided after two warnings, that is, after showing himself to be manifestly obstinate – which means before any excommunication or judicial sentence”. -- De Romano Pontifice, Bk. 2
.
+Bellarmine answers both these questions together, when he says that one is "manifestly obstinate" after "two warnings". +Bellarmine says that this argument is "from authority" meaning it's Scriptural.
.
Have any of the V2 popes been rebuked with 2 warnings? No. Can we say that they are "manifestly obstinate"? No. Have they then lost their office "ipso facto"? No.
.
Can this be any clearer?
No, it isn’t as clear as you want to make it. Why do you keep distorting Saint Robert Bellarmine’s words?
You make his inclusion of the Pauline warning as somehow part of his argument when, in fact, his use of Saint Pauls words are there to support his teaching that as soon as a heretic becomes “manifestly obstinate” he ceases to be a member of the Church. In the Case of a “manifestly heretical Pope”, he is “ipso facto deposed”. Case closed!
In no way is he saying that the two warnings are absolutely necessary to depose a heretic pope, he is simply showing that his argument is based on the authority of Saint Paul by equating “two warnings” with “manifestly obstinate”. That is why he uses the words: “that is”
Now, can that be any clearer?
-
There's no strict requirement for the two warnings, which is why Bellarmine adds, "that is, after showing himself to be manifestly obstinate". Two warnings is a rule of thumb for demonstrating obstinacy ... but it's not some kind of divine law condition. Obstinacy can be manifest in other ways.
Sorry Lad, I just saw this. Didn’t mean to step on your toes.
-
There's plenty wrong with it, starting with the fact that S&S refused to cite all the Canonists who unanimously reject their interpretation (which they appear to have pulled out of thin air).
https://stevensperay.wordpress.com/2016/02/19/the-sin-of-heresy-why-john-salza-and-robert-siscoe-get-it-wrong-part-ii/ (https://stevensperay.wordpress.com/2016/02/19/the-sin-of-heresy-why-john-salza-and-robert-siscoe-get-it-wrong-part-ii/)
You're mixing and matching 2 different problems with 2 different solutions. As we both agree, there is the material and the spiritual aspect of the papacy. Or, there are human and the divine elements of the papacy. When Pius XII is talking about heresy severing one from the Body of Christ, he is speaking of the sin of heresy and of the spiritual office. It's fairly obvious to all of us that one can be guilty of excommunication (spiritually speaking) long before they would be deposed from office (materially speaking).
.
In his 4th opinion, when +Bellarmine says that a "manifest" heretic loses office immediately, he is speaking of the material office, which is the whole point of his debates. When +Bellarmine says that "2 rebukes" are necessary for manifest heresy to be proven, he is arguing that for the MATERIAL OFFICE to be lost, you must have a MATERIAL (i.e. human) proof or process. The rebukes/warnings are an EXTERNAL manifestation of the heretic's INTERNAL/SPIRITUAL error.
.
A heretic, whether formal or material (or occult/private), can still be severed from the Church SPIRITUALLY, which is what Pius XII rightly taught (and what +Chazal says). But this SPIRITUAL penalty does not affect his MATERIAL OFFICE, because, (from common sense) the internal forum cannot be known or be proven. So how does the Church depose (i.e. materially remove) someone from office? There has to be a process, which involves a HUMAN ELEMENT of the GOVERNING aspect of the Church. This process is St Paul's "2 warnings".
.
Thus, as soon as a pope were to speak heresy, they could be presumed to be spiritually impaired (not only for the grave scandal, but also based on the objective heresy they spoke or acted). But...this would not affect their material office, since obstinacy is necessary for removal from a temporal standpoint. We all know that +Bellarmine said that we must resist a bad pope and to me, this means we ignore a spiritually impaired pope who speaks objective heresy, even if we don't know if he's obstinate or not (that's for the Church to figure out anyways). A spiritually impaired pope would be a "doubtful" pope in the sense that he is not to be trusted; his orthodoxy is questionable. Yet...his material office is still intact, until a material process is followed to remove him.
.
Why can we all not agree that material heretic (not yet proven obstinate) pope is to be ignored, resisted, considered as severed (spiritually speaking)? All of this debating is over what happens to his MATERIAL office, which in the grand scheme of things, is lowly, as compared to his spiritual office. A non-yet-declared-manifest heretic pope, who still holds the material office, is practically the same as no pope.
-
Are you capable of getting anything right? Of course the ipso facto loss of office without an antecedent judgement is one of the Fiive Opinions. It's the 2nd Opinion, which Bellarmine refutes and which you defend.
Now, to anticipate you're objection, you believe a Pope cannot fall into heresy (1st Opinion), but you also say if he did he would fall from the Pontificate even if his heresy was committed entirely in secret, by an interior act alone (2nd Opinion).
Let's be clear: the reason you think it's the second opinion is because your definition of "occult" heretic includes heretics whose heresy is open and quite public . . . they are "occult" until the Church declares them heretics by a particular and individual judgment, right?
No, that's no why. The reason I said Fr. Kramer holds the second opinion is because he believes "the virtue of faith" is necessary for a Pope to remain Pope, and needless to say, the virtue of faith is lost even if the sin of heresy is committed by an internal act alone. Here's what he says:
Fr Kramer: “A heretic would necessarily cease to be pope because even if he were only externally a member of the Church, he would lack faith as the necessary disposition to exercise the charism of Infallibility, since Christ did not confer a magical power of infallibility on Peter (and his successors), but He conferred on him the gift of unfailing faith as the necessary disposition to exercise the charism of Infallibility. (…) faith as a necessary disposition to remain in the Church as a visible member does not suffice to account for why it is that faith, not merely the material and external profession of the objective content of faith, but the virtue of faith as a principium operationis is necessary to be in the soul of person of the pope as its subject in order to receive and preserve within himself the form of the supreme pontificate.”
So, Fr. Kramer doesn't hold the 5th Opinion as he claims (i.e., "that a manifest heretic is ipso facto deposed"). He holds the 2nd ("that an entirely occult heretic is ipso facto deposed"), which Bellarmine himself refuted.
And why does Fr. Kramer hold the 2th Opinion? Believe it or not, he does so based on his interpretation of what Bellarmine wrote in response to the 4th Opinion. He entirely misunderstood one of the arguments Bellarmine used in an attempt to refute Cajetan, and concluded that Bellarmine himself believes he virtue of faith is necessary - even he explicitly denies it three paragraph earlier and does so again at the end of the chapter, in his commentary on the 5th Opinion. But it gets even worse...
Fr. Kramer then constructed elaborate house of cards argument based on his misinterpretation of Bellarmine, replete impressive metaphysical terminology (that no one understands), sophisticated sounding theology (that no one understand), and lengthy untranslated Latin quotations from St. Thomas himself (that one can understand, with a few exceptions of course) - all of which prevents 99% of the people who read his disastrous argument from having the slightest clue what he's actually saying, and hence from realizing that it is a mess of errors from top to bottom. I'll explain why as soon as Fr. Kramer objects to what I just wrote.
-
You're mixing and matching 2 different problems with 2 different solutions. As we both agree, there is the material and the spiritual aspect of the papacy. Or, there are human and the divine elements of the papacy. When Pius XII is talking about heresy severing one from the Body of Christ, he is speaking of the sin of heresy and of the spiritual office. It's fairly obvious to all of us that one can be guilty of excommunication (spiritually speaking) long before they would be deposed from office (materially speaking).
.
In his 4th opinion, when +Bellarmine says that a "manifest" heretic loses office immediately, he is speaking of the material office, which is the whole point of his debates. When +Bellarmine says that "2 rebukes" are necessary for manifest heresy to be proven, he is arguing that for the MATERIAL OFFICE to be lost, you must have a MATERIAL (i.e. human) proof or process. The rebukes/warnings are an EXTERNAL manifestation of the heretic's INTERNAL/SPIRITUAL error.
.
A heretic, whether formal or material (or occult/private), can still be severed from the Church SPIRITUALLY, which is what Pius XII rightly taught (and what +Chazal says). But this SPIRITUAL penalty does not affect his MATERIAL OFFICE, because, (from common sense) the internal forum cannot be known or be proven. So how does the Church depose (i.e. materially remove) someone from office? There has to be a process, which involves a HUMAN ELEMENT of the GOVERNING aspect of the Church. This process is St Paul's "2 warnings".
.
Thus, as soon as a pope were to speak heresy, they could be presumed to be spiritually impaired (not only for the grave scandal, but also based on the objective heresy they spoke or acted). But...this would not affect their material office, since obstinacy is necessary for removal from a temporal standpoint. We all know that +Bellarmine said that we must resist a bad pope and to me, this means we ignore a spiritually impaired pope who speaks objective heresy, even if we don't know if he's obstinate or not (that's for the Church to figure out anyways). A spiritually impaired pope would be a "doubtful" pope in the sense that he is not to be trusted; his orthodoxy is questionable. Yet...his material office is still intact, until a material process is followed to remove him.
.
Why can we all not agree that material heretic (not yet proven obstinate) pope is to be ignored, resisted, considered as severed (spiritually speaking)? All of this debating is over what happens to his MATERIAL office, which in the grand scheme of things, is lowly, as compared to his spiritual office. A non-yet-declared-manifest heretic pope, who still holds the material office, is practically the same as no pope.
“ When +Bellarmine says that "2 rebukes" are necessary for manifest heresy to be proven”
Pax, do you see your error here?
-
This text indicates that two warnings manifest obstinacy, but it does not state that obstinacy cannot be established by other means.
Ok, fair. Would you agree that ONLY the Church/Cardinals can decide these "other means" to use in determining obstinacy? Would you agree that +Bellarmine's use of the term "manifest heresy" is therefore open for debate? Would you agree that ONLY the Church/Cardinals can decide who is or isn't "manifest" or obstinate?
-
Pax, do you see your error here?
No.
-
No.
That’s your problem. Saint Robert never says what you ascribe to him.
-
What are you talking about? Go read again the text in red.
-
That's nonsense. There was a reason for the 5 different opinions and why John of St. Thomas distinguished himself from Bellarmine and Cajetan ... and the two from one another.
I don't think that John of St. Thomas had distinguished himself from Cajetan, since he was in agreement with Cajetan. Don't mean, rather, that John of St. Thomas distinguished himself from Bellarmine and Suarez? That would make more sense.
-
What are you talking about? Go read again the text in red.
No, you keep distorting Saint Robert Bellarmine’s words?
Again:
You make his inclusion of the Pauline warning as somehow part of his argument when, in fact, his use of Saint Pauls words are there to support his teaching that as soon as a heretic becomes “manifestly obstinate” he ceases to be a member of the Church. In the Case of a “manifestly heretical Pope”, he is “ipso facto deposed”. Case closed!
In no way is he saying that the two warnings are absolutely necessary to depose a heretic pope, he is simply showing that his argument is based on the authority of Saint Paul by equating “two warnings” with “manifestly obstinate”. That is why he uses the words: “that is”
-
he is simply showing that his argument is based on the authority of Saint Paul by equating “two warnings” with “manifestly obstinate”. That is why he uses the words: “that is”
Ok, Ladislaus already pointed that out. One could argue that "2 warnings" are not necessary to establish "manifest obstinacy". But this begs the question, again: How does +Bellarmine determine "manifest obstinacy"? If "two warnings" are not ABSOLUTELY necessary, it is logical that a SIMILAR act by Church officials must still take place. In other words, "manifest obstinacy" HAS to be decided/discerned by Church officials, by some means. Nowhere does +Bellarmine suggest that laymen or priests or even Bishops can privately decide this important question.
.
If you disagree, then show me where +Bellarmine defines "manifest obstinacy", or "manifest heresy". +Bellarmine's use does NOT mean "public" or "open" or "obvious" or "said multiple times" or "gravely wrong". As it is, we are left his example of a CHURCH PROCESS to determine obstinacy. "2 warnings" (or something of a similar nature) means that to prove obstinacy requires some action on the part of the Church.
-
Ok, I don't have time to develop this in great detail, so I'll summarize my argument.
S & S hold UPA to be an "infallible sign" that an elected pontiff receiving UPA satisfied all of the conditions of being pope. Well, as Fr. Kramer says, a necessary condition for a pope is possession of the Catholic faith. Thus, S & S are pointing to a post-election occurrence or fact (UPA) as proof of a prior necessary condition.
Well, my position also sees a post-election occurrence or fact as a proof of the lack of a necessary condition, or an "infallible sign" that a condition was not satisfied - namely, the possession of the Catholic faith by the one elected: the post-election occurrence or fact being the promulgation or teaching of error in a "pope's" authoritative magisterium that contradicts Catholic dogma, doctrine or Tradition.
You don't understand UPA. First, it's not S&S who came up with the idea that UPA is an infallible sign of the legitimacy of a Pope. That's what the canonists and theologians teach. For example, here's what Dr. Boni, Professor of Canon Law at the University of Bologna and Advisor of the Pontifical Council for Legislative Texts, wrote in 2015 in response to Socci's book questioning Francis' election:
Fr. Boni: “Given the total legal groundlessness of these suppositions, even to want to give credit to the information on which it claims to take root, the bogeyman - rashly agitated - of the current assidarsi on Peter’s chair of a doubtful Pope also vanishes. However, the canonist have constantly and generally chorus that the peaceful "universalis ecclesiae adhaesio" is a sign and infallible effect of a valid election and a legitimate papacy: and the adhesion to Pope Francis of the people of God cannot be put in any way in doubt.” (Dr. Boni, “Beyond a Resignation. The Decision of Pope Benedict XVI and The Law,” Bologna, 2015.)
The universal acceptance of an Pope is an "infallible sign" that he is the true Pope. If his election is not immediately contested, it is proof that he's the Pope. That's what UPA means. Now, if it is infallibly certain that he is Pope, it follows quite logically that it is also infallibly certain that all the conditions required for him to become Pope were met. If not, he wouldn't have become Pope, and hence would not have been universally accepted as Pope.
Now, the reason you believe the two points you mentioned are "infallible signs" that he did not become Pope is because you have fallen for two of the common Sedevacantist errors. 1) extending the infallibility of the Pope beyond what the Church teaching (i.e., embracing a false understanding of papal infallibility); and 2) having a false understanding of what it means to "profess the true Faith."
Papal Infallibility only prevents the Pope from erring when he defines a doctrine, ex cathedra, according to the conditions set down in Chapter IV of Pastor Aeternus, No. 9. (https://www.ewtn.com/catholicism/teachings/vatican-is-dogmatic-constitution-pastor-aeternus-on-the-church-of-christ-243) It does not prevent a Pope from erring when he teaches by virtue of his authentic Magisterium. And making a post-election public "profession of faith" is not a condition to becoming Pope. He becomes Pope by being elected and accepting. The "profession of faith" is a social or juridical bond that unites the members of the Church, and it is only severed by notorious heresy. As bad as Francis is, he is not a notorious heretic, and therefore he still professes the faith to the extent necessary to retain his membership in the Church.
-
Fr. Boni: " and the adhesion to Pope Francis of the people of God cannot be put in any way in doubt."
:laugh1:
-
Papal Infallibility only prevents the Pope from erring when he defines a doctrine, ex cathedra, ...
Wrong doctrine. Indefectibility prevents the Church's Magisterium and Universal Discipline from becoming thoroughly corrupt and leading souls to hell.
St. Robert Bellarmine would have you burned at the stake as a heretic for saying otherwise.
-
Not even you R&R Trads "adhere to" Francis. Apart from the lip service you pay, you completely reject him and consider him unrecognizable as a fellow believer.
-
On the Deposition of a Pope (continued...)
The Opinion of Cajetan
John of St. Thomas wrote:
"Thus the opinion of Cajetan contains three points:
1. The first is that the heretical Pope is not deprived of the Pontificate and deposed by mere fact of heresy, considered separately.
2. The second is that the Church has neither the power nor superiority over the pope about his power, even in the case of heresy; never is the church's power above the power of the Pope absolutely.
3. The third is that the Church has for its object:
+ the application of the papal power, in designating him by election, and
+ the separation of the power with such a person, by declaring him heretical and to be avoided by the Faithful.
Therefore, although the declaration of the crime is like an antecedent disposition preceding the deposition itself and that it relates only in a ministerial manner; insofar as it reaches the disposition, so it aims immediately to the form: in the same manner as in the generation and corruption of man, the begetter neither produces or educts the form, and the second one the separation, immediately reaching the dispositions of the matter to the form, and through them, the form.
Cajetan's FIRST POINT:
The heretical pope is not deprived of the pontificate and deposed by the mere fact of heresy, considered separately.
The first point is obvious and is not legitimately opposed to Bellarmine. His truth appears thus:
- First, because the Pope, no matter how real and public may be his heresy, by the moment he is eager to be corrected, he cannot be deposed, and the Church cannot depose him by divine right, for she cannot nor should she avoid him since the Apostle [Paul] says, "avoid the heretic after the first and second correction;" therefore, before the first and second correction he should not be avoided, and consequently he should not be deposed; therefore it is wrong to say that the Pope is deposed (ipso facto) as soon as he is a public heretic, but not yet corrected by the Church, nor declared incorrigible.
- Then, because (as Azorius rightly noted) any heretical Bishop, no matter how visible his heresy, and although he incurs and excommunication, does not ipso facto lose the Episcopal jurisdiction and power until he is declared [such] by the Church and deposed; indeed only the excommunicated or those who manifestly struck a cleric (manifesti percussores clerici). Therefore, if a bishop or some other prelate loses not ipso facto his power by the mere external heresy, why would the Pope lose it [even] before the Church's declaration? Especially since the Pope cannot incur excommunication: on the one hand, no excommunication at all - I suppose - is carried by divine law itself; on the other hand, he cannot be excommunicated by divine right, because he is superior to any human right.
The Church has neither the power nor superiority over the Pope concerning his power of Pope, even in case of heresy."
http://www.dominicansavrille.us/on-the-deposition-of-the-pope-part-1-of-2/
-
Msgr. Fenton:
... God has given the Holy Father a kind of infallibility distinct from the charism of doctrinal infallibility in the strict sense. He has so constructed and ordered the Church that those who follow the directives given to the entire kingdom of God on earth will never be brought into the position of ruining themselves spiritually through this obedience. Our Lord dwells within His Church in such a way that those who obey disciplinary and doctrinal directives of this society can never find themselves displeasing God through their adherence to the teachings and the commands given to the universal Church militant. Hence there can be no valid reason to discountenance even the non-infallible teaching authority of Christ’s vicar on earth.
...
It is, of course, possible that the Church might come to modify its stand on some detail of teaching presented as non-infallible matter in a papal encyclical. The nature of the auctoritas providentiae doctrinalis within the Church is such, however, that this fallibility extends to questions of relatively minute detail or of particular application. The body of doctrine on the rights and duties of labor, on the Church and State, or on any other subject treated extensively in a series of papal letters directed to and normative for the entire Church militant could not be radically or completely erroneous. The infallible security Christ wills that His disciples should enjoy within His Church is utterly incompatible with such a possibility.
You guys will one day regret that you would rather smear the Holy Catholic Church than to denounce the heretically-depraved criminal Bergoglio, undoubtedly a deliberate conscious infiltrator and destroyer, and his predecessors.
Siscoe and Salza, your book will be a blight upon your names when the smoke clears and God reveals to everyone who these people are. Nor will you be exonerated, as St. Vincent Ferrer was due to his being a material error. You err gravely with regard to your impious denigration of the Holy Catholic Church by imputing these evil doctrines and harmful discipline to her rather than to her enemies. This savors of a sin against the Holy Spirit. Your attempt to portray Holy Mother Church as a harlot.
-
I find it fascinating and, at the same time disturbing, that you hold that the Church cannot adhere to a false pope, but then out of the opposite side of your mouth claim that the Church (and even the Pope) can adhere to false doctrine. That same infallibility/indefectibility of the Church that informs the one also informs the other, so you are in contradiction with yourselves.
-
I don’t see how any of what PC2 has said contradicts Fr Chazal. I’d really like to know the result of their correspondence. PaxChristi2, can you please summarize?
.
Secondly, UPA could still apply to +Francis, or any of the V2 popes, because (let’s not forget) the change in election laws of St Pius X and Pius XII. We must assume, based on the law, that their elections were universally accepted but this isn’t a problem, because immediately afterwards, they were (or resumed their former) excommunication. So, their spiritual office is impaired; material office intact. Again, Fr Chazal’s view explains this “problem”.
.
-
I don’t see how any of what PC2 has said contradicts Fr Chazal. I’d really like to know the result of their correspondence. PaxChristi2, can you please summarize?
I've already explained this. S&S hold that the Pope retains full papal authority, except for a very limited set of things, arbitrarily chosen, like whether he can dissolve a General Council or excommunicate his adversaries.
Father Chazal says that he is impounded completely and lacks the ability to exercise any authority whatsoever. Father Chazal's position makes 100x more sense. Father Chazal has asserted that these heretical V2 popes (and he states that they are obviously manifest heretics) are already vitandus.
All these things are there in his famous lengthy video exposition.
So Father Chazal concedes that these men are manifest heretics, states that they are already vitandi, and therefore that they lack authority altogether. That's completely different than what S&S claim.
-
If "two warnings" are not ABSOLUTELY necessary, it is logical that a SIMILAR act by Church officials must still take place. In other words, "manifest obstinacy" HAS to be decided/discerned by Church officials, by some means. Nowhere does +Bellarmine suggest that laymen or priests or even Bishops can privately decide this important question.
I appreciate your honesty, thank you! It seems to me that this is where your problem lies. You say that: “manifest obstinacy HAS to be decided by the Church”. Then you say that: “ Nowhere does +Bellarmine suggest that laymen or priests or even Bishops can privately decide this important question.”
I grant you that, but NOWHERE does St. Robert suggest that the Church (a council) has the authority to decide it as if they are above the pope. In other words, a council cannot depose a pope, however it can declare that he has been deposed. This is an important distinction.
When St. Robert and other authorities use the word manifest, it simply means that the heresy is obvious to all. You are complicating something that is quite easy to grasp. This is demonstrated by his use of the term “ipso facto”, by the fact itself.
-
Dr. Chojnowski puts it more eloquently that I did:
Where is the protection of the Holy Ghost, then, for his Magisterium? If that is the Church now then the Church is one of heresy and apostasy, liturgical evil, denial of the fundamental moral law, and syncretism. The Church your arguments push us towards is more the Harlot of Babylon than the Immaculate Bride of Christ. But the Church is the IMMACULATE Bride of Christ. In its doctrines, worship and practice it is totally pure of any defect. Are you destroying the very nature of the Church in order to save the claims of Francis?
-
So Father Chazal concedes that these men are manifest heretics
I don't recall him saying that. He said they are clearly heretics. If he did use the word 'manifest', I would challenge him that he is using the term 'manifest' in a different sense that did +Bellarmine, who beyond question, viewed 'manifest' as connected with 'obstinate'. Since Fr Chazal (nor you, nor I, nor any other Trad) is able to discern obstinacy, then we also cannot determine manifest heresy, in the sense used by +Bellarmine.
-
"PaxVobis2" (or is that Robert Siscoe), again resorts to the fraudulent tactic of a partial quotation out of context in order to invert my meaning and repeat the old and refuted Robert Siscoe lie: 《So, Fr. Kramer doesn't hold the 5th Opinion as he claims (i.e., "that a manifest heretic is ipso facto deposed"). He holds the 2nd ("that anentirely occult heretic is ipso facto deposed"), which Bellarmine himself refuted. 》
Here on this thread, and more fully in my book, I have explained my position on opinion no. 2, so PC2 has no excuse: He is deliberately engaging in deceotion by inverting my meaning. I have explained that according to Bellarmine, a heretic is an incapable subject of the form of the papacy. Bellarmine explains the intrinsic metaphysical reason why one who is without faith is incapable of being pope; and consequently he says that a pope who would fall into heresy would straightaway cease to be pope. However, he says this cannot actually happen, because of an extrinsic reason, namely, the effect would bring about the defection of the Church. Thus, opinion no. 2 is false because both its premise (it is premised on the metaphysical impossibility of there being a heretic pope), and the effect that would result from it are impossible. Since its premise is impossible, opinion no. 1 is necessarily true. Opinion no. 1 is the true opinion in actual reality. Opinion no. 2 is not applicable in reality, although in theory as a purely abstract hypothesis, its outcome would be of strict metyphysical necessity. At the same time, its metaphysically necessary outcome would be theologically impossible, because it would provoke the defection of the Church. Thus opinion no. 2 is ncessarily false because it has no possible applicability in reality. If it were possible for a pope to be a heretic, a manifest heretic would lose office automatically; but since it is not possible for a pope to be a heretic (possible according to nature, but not possible in view of the promise made by Christ that the pontiff's faith will not fail), opinion no. 5 is valid only as a purely abstract hypothesis.
-
I appreciate your honesty, thank you! It seems to me that this is where your problem lies. You say that: “manifest obstinacy HAS to be decided by the Church”.
This is what +Bellarmine says too, as he quotes St Paul and says that St Paul ORDERS a 2-warning process (and/or maybe something similar). Let's note that +Bellarmine is basing his opinion on Scripture; he uses the word "orders" (i.e. commands), which denotes authority, which authority comes from both St Paul's example towards St Peter (i.e. a Church official rebukes the pope) AND the authority comes from the infallible bible itself.
Then you say that: “ Nowhere does +Bellarmine suggest that laymen or priests or even Bishops can privately decide this important question.” I grant you that,
Good.
but NOWHERE does St. Robert suggest that the Church (a council) has the authority to decide it as if they are above the pope. In other words, a council cannot depose a pope, however it can declare that he has been deposed. This is an important distinction.
You're skipping ahead in the process. +Bellarmine is talking about deciding manifest obstinate heresy. This is STEP #1 - determining obstinacy. Nothing happens, from a governmental/material/office aspect, until obstinacy is determined.
.
Step 1b: HOW is obstinacy determined? Scripturally, as +Bellarmine quotes, we use St Paul's example (i.e. a church official) where he rebuked St Peter (a true pope). In this case, St Peter recanted his error and was not obstinate, so he kept his office. But if a heretic pope did not recant, after some process, then Church officials would deem him a heretic.
.
Step 1c: By what MEANS do Church officials use to rebuke/warn a pope of his error? It could be a council. It could be a committee. It could be an official letter (i.e. the "dubia" letter).
.
Step 1d: Once church officials rebuke the pope, AND HE DOES NOT RECANT HIS ERRORS, then they declare him an obstinate, manifest heretic.
.
....Ok, now that Church officials have declared the pope a manifest heretic...now +Bellarmine's penalties kick in.
.
Step 2: the officially-declared manifest heretic immediately loses his status as the pope. He is now a former pope, since he has "judged himself" as being a non-Catholic by his own obstinacy.
.
Step 2a: +Bellarmine, at this point, says that the former pope loses his office "ipso facto"; no deposition required. Cajetan says that a 2nd declaration is necessary to depose the former pope (or declare that he was already deposed). Whatever. Potatoe, potato. It's all semantics at this point.
.
In no way do the Church officials (or any council) depose the pope. They only rebuke and determine if he is obstinate. If he is obstinate, then the former-pope judges himself and loses office immediately, since the penalties of canon law now apply to him, as he is no longer "above canon law" since he's no longer the pope. Thus, once he is proven to be obstinate in error, a former pope "ipso facto" loses his office.
When St. Robert and other authorities use the word manifest, it simply means that the heresy is obvious to all. You are complicating something that is quite easy to grasp. This is demonstrated by his use of the term “ipso facto”, by the fact itself.
Absolutely, positively, 100% wrong. The fact that +Bellarmine quotes Scripture, means that Church officials are involved in rebuking the pope. "Obviousness" does not mean obstinate; "obviousness" only relates to the fact of being in error. Obstinate means the STUBBORN HOLDING TO ERROR, after being shown the truth. This "showing of the truth" or "correction" or "warning" or "rebuking" must be done in an official, formal capacity. Because the holding office and canon law are official, formal legal issues.
.
Neither you, nor I, nor anyone but the Cardinals can officially, formally correct, warn, or rebuke the pope.
-
When St. Robert and other authorities use the word manifest, it simply means that the heresy is obvious to all.
+Bellarmine uses both manifest AND obstinate together. Heresy can be obvious, sure. But obstinacy is not obvious, because it's of the internal forum. If +Bellarmine meant that manifest heresy can be "obvious to all" then that would contradict Scripture. St Paul didn't see St Peter's error and go "Ok, everyone, St Peter is obviously wrong, so he's no longer pope." No. St Paul saw the obvious error, and then had to determine obstinacy in error, so he rebuked St Peter and showed him the truth. Without this rebuke/warning process, obstinacy is not proved. Without obstinacy being proved, the heresy is material only, not manifest (as +Bellarmine uses the word...others use it differently).
This is demonstrated by his use of the term “ipso facto”, by the fact itself.
"By the fact" that a person is proved to be OBSTINATE, then they lose their office immediately. Not before. How are they proven to be obstinate? As +Bellarmine says, using the 2 warnings, as Scripture "orders" us to use, by way of St Paul.
-
I've already explained this. S&S hold that the Pope retains full papal authority, except for a very limited set of things, arbitrarily chosen, like whether he can dissolve a General Council or excommunicate his adversaries.
Father Chazal says that he is impounded completely and lacks the ability to exercise any authority whatsoever. Father Chazal's position makes 100x more sense. Father Chazal has asserted that these heretical V2 popes (and he states that they are obviously manifest heretics) are already vitandus.
All these things are there in his famous lengthy video exposition.
So Father Chazal concedes that these men are manifest heretics, states that they are already vitandi, and therefore that they lack authority altogether. That's completely different than what S&S claim.
Where does Fr. Chazal say that the Popes are manifest heretics, and that they lack authority altogether? He has said that Francis is a heretic, but we all agree with that.
I have a copy of Fr. Chazal's book, "Contra Cekadam," and I can't find where he says what you said he said. He doesn't even say it in his section on sedeprivationism, but he only writes about the problem of sedeprivationism and cuм Ex. Nothing about authority or jurisdiction that I can find.
What Fr. Chazal does do is to support Cajetan, which of course you may have no interest in reading about, but I'll provide it for those on the thread who might be interested in what Fr. Chazal has to say about Cajetan. We can see that he reiterates what John of St. Thomas has written concerning the views of Cajetan.
-------
Fr. Chazal writes, on page 12, in the Chapter called, "Part One, Doctors, Theologians":
"Therefore the famed Cardinal Cajetan, and great commentator of St. Thomas is set, and at great length, against sedevacantism, in his book, de Comparatione:
The Pope can be deposed legitimately, because, granted that power to depose a Pope resides in the council apart from the pope, it must be able to assemble its scattered members, in order to depose him; otherwise, while a Pope who must be deposed refused to summon a council, he could not be deposed. p. 66
"Three things have been established with certainty, namely 1) that the pope, because he has become a heretic, is not deposed ipso facto, by human or divine law; 2) that the pope has no superior on earth; and 3) that if he deviates from the Faith he must be deposed as in Canon Si Papa [D.40c.6]. Great uncertainty remains concerning how and by whom the Pope ought to be deposed will be judged to be deposed, for a judge, as such, is superior to one who is judged.
"In case of heresy, the connection between the Papacy and that particular person is subject to the decision of the Church and the universal council, so that the heretical pope can be deposed." p.94
It is hard to believe that Cajetan knew nothing of the injudicability or immunity of the pope (St. Augustine, Zozymus, St. Gelasius, St. Leo, Gratian, Innocent lll, Florence, V Lateran).
"...but the Pope is liable to the penalty of deposition on account of the crimes of heresy, as the doctors generally say, influenced by the Canon 'Si Papa' (dist.40, ch.6). p.102
"A heretic Pope should not be deposed before the admonition: for he is not excommunicated on account of heresy, but should be excommunicated by being deposed. Therefore the Apostles command concerning the double admonition, which need not be observed in the case of others, who are inferiors, on account of the addition of excommunication latae sententiae, which the Church imposes on heretics, should be observed to the letter with him"
Cajetan makes it abundantly clear that it is precisely because he is the pope, that he cannot lose office before the Church warns him, that the highest category of people who must be warned publicly by the Church for heresy, are popes. The expression, "should be excommunicated by being deposed" concurs with Bellarmine, and the fact of the injudicability or immunity of the Papal See."
------
-
Where does Fr. Chazal say that the Popes are manifest heretics, and that they lack authority altogether? He has said that Francis is a heretic, but we all agree with that.
In his video, his first on the subject that went on for over an hour.
-
Absolutely, positively, 100% wrong. The fact that +Bellarmine quotes Scripture, means that Church officials are involved in rebuking the pope.
No No No, I just demonstrated that you are mistaken about this. Saint Robert did not quote Saint Paul for the reason you stated, I thought you understood that?
-
In his video, his first on the subject that went on for over an hour.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VdgM1R0MH-Q (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VdgM1R0MH-Q)
1:53 - 2:06, "open public notorious heretic".
6:50 - 6:55 "manifest heretic"
7:00 - 7:06 "we do grant that this pope is a manifest and public heretic"
-
11:24 - 11:30 "Paul VI is a Mason and also gαy".
11:37-11:41 "possibly [Sister Lucia] was silenced and replaced after that"
-
Beginning at 13:15 - 13:40 ... he falsely characterizes St. Benedict Center as a group of "Feeneyite sedevacantists" who claim that Pius XII actually consecrated Russia to the Immaculate Heart of Mary.
He's clearly talking about the Dimond Brothers here.
-
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VdgM1R0MH-Q (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VdgM1R0MH-Q)
1:53 - 2:06, "open public notorious heretic".
6:50 - 6:55 "manifest heretic"
7:00 - 7:06 "we do grant that this pope is a manifest and public heretic"
Okay, I accept that he used the words.."manifest heretic."
How about where you said that he said the manifest heretic popes lack all authority?
-
Okay, I accept that he used the words.."manifest heretic."
How about where you said that he said the manifest heretic popes lack all authority?
Haven't gotten to that part of the video yet. Listening in the background while doing something else.
-
Saint Robert did not quote Saint Paul for the reason you stated,
Please explain the reference to St Paul and the use of the word "order" and the use of the phrase "2 warnings", in reference to obstinacy. You already admitted that no layman, or priest, or bishop can decide obstinacy in a pope. Then you contradictorily said that obstinacy is "obvious". Obvious to whom? Obstinacy is the KEY REQUIREMENT to +Bellarmine's manifest heresy definition. Please explain how this is determined, and how Scripture fits into this.
-
According to theologians post Bellarmine and pre Vatican II, manifest/public heretics depends on the large number of people their heresy is made manifest to. It does not matter if they are ignorant (material) nor willful (formal). See Van Noort Dogmatic Theology, Members of the Church.
-
7:00 - 7:06 "we do grant that this pope is a manifest and public heretic"
Ok, but +Bellarmine ties manifest AND obstinacy together, before office is lost "ipso facto". I agree that all of the V2 popes were manifest (in the typical use of the word). I do not agree they are manifest in the sense that +Bellarmine uses the word.
.
Really, it doesn't matter, because Fr Chazal is not arguing that they have lost their office (being he holds they still retain the material office), so I can agree with him that they are public heretics, but not obstinate (only because none of us can determine obstinacy). I think him using the term "manifest" is confusing, but that's a minor quibble.
.
PaxChristi, where do you agree/disagree with Fr Chazal? Fr's main opponent is the dogmatic-sedeism of Fr Cekada, so I don't see how his view is totally opposite of yours.
-
According to theologians post Bellarmine and pre Vatican II, manifest/public heretics depends on the large number of people their heresy is made manifest to. It does not matter if they are ignorant (material) nor willful (formal). See Van Noort Dogmatic Theology, Members of the Church.
And that is why many sedes wrongly interpret +Bellarmine and assume that a "manifest" heretic (i.e. heresy is made public) lose their office automatically. They don't use the word 'manifest' in the same sense that +Bellarmine was using it. This is Quo Vadis' problem, but he can't see it (or won't admit it).
-
Please explain the reference to St Paul and the use of the word "order" and the use of the phrase "2 warnings", in reference to obstinacy. You already admitted that no layman, or priest, or bishop can decide obstinacy in a pope. Then you contradictorily said that obstinacy is "obvious". Obvious to whom? Obstinacy is the KEY REQUIREMENT to +Bellarmine's manifest heresy definition. Please explain how this is determined, and how Scripture fits into this.
This is getting frustrating. As I stated above:
You make his inclusion of the Pauline warning as somehow part of his argument when, in fact, his use of Saint Pauls words are there to support his teaching that as soon as a heretic becomes “manifestly obstinate” he ceases to be a member of the Church. In the Case of a “manifestly heretical Pope”, he is “ipso facto deposed”. Case closed!
In no way is he saying that the two warnings are absolutely necessary to depose a heretic pope, he is simply showing that his argument is based on the authority of Saint Paul by equating “two warnings” with “manifestly obstinate”. That is why he uses the words: “that is”
Yes, no one can judge the pope authoritatively . Period.
Any person can judge someone a heretic who obstinately, publicly and manifestly promotes and embraces heresy. That is a private judgement. That is the judgement I am making.
-
as soon as a heretic becomes “manifestly obstinate” he ceases to be a member of the Church. In the Case of a “manifestly heretical Pope”, he is “ipso facto deposed”.
How do we know that a person is manifestly obstinate, if not by a rebuke/warning? You are not explaining anything, you just keep repeating the same thing. Under your definition, St Paul would have deemed St Peter as an obstinate heretic and, with no warnings at all, judged him to have lost his office. That’s ridiculous.
.
by equating “two warnings” with “manifestly obstinate”.
Exactly. 2 warnings = Church officials determine obstinacy = Church process.
.
2 warnings may not be EXACTLY necessary but...the process of rebuking IS NECESSARY. This is the whole point of the citation of Scripture - to show HOW St Paul ACTED towards a wayward St Peter.
.
no one can judge the pope authoritatively . Period.
+Bellarmine and Torquemada and others say that Church officials can discern if the pope is obstinate in heresy, as St Paul discerned that St Peter was not. If the pope is found obstinate, then he’s no longer pope and immediately loses office.
.
Any person can judge someone a heretic who obstinately,
How have you determined that the pope is obstinate, which is a judgment of the internal forum? Have you warned him twice? Please explain.
.
That is a private judgement. That is the judgement I am making.
If you’ve already admitted that +Bellarmine authorizes no laymen, priest or bishop to determine obstinacy, then by what authority do you act?
.
If your judgment is a private one, what is the purpose of it? If you can’t impose your judgment on anyone else, what’s the point? What do you solve in reality by this imaginary action?
.
Thank you for admitting that your opinion carries no legal, moral, ecclesiastical, theological or real-life weight.
-
St Peter was not a heretic of any sort and St Paul never thought he was a heretic. He was guilty of sin. Read Haydock.
-
And that is why many sedes wrongly interpret +Bellarmine and assume that a "manifest" heretic (i.e. heresy is made public) lose their office automatically. They don't use the word 'manifest' in the same sense that +Bellarmine was using it. This is Quo Vadis' problem, but he can't see it (or won't admit it).
Are you saying that the Catholic theologians that came after St Robert Bellarmine are disagreeing with him? Why don't theologians include "warnings" in their discussion of what constitutes a manifest heretic? Why do theologians simply say that manifest heretics are not members of the Church with no mention of the Church needing to give them "warnings" to become said manifest heretics? What theologian after Bellarmine states that a manifest heretic requires warnings?
-
Here on this thread, and more fully in my book, I have explained my position on opinion no. 2, so PC2 has no excuse: He is deliberately engaging in deceotion by inverting my meaning. I have explained that according to Bellarmine, a heretic is an incapable subject of the form of the papacy. Bellarmine explains the intrinsic metaphysical reason why one who is without faith is incapable of being pope; and consequently he says that a pope who would fall into heresy would straightaway cease to be pope. However, he says this cannot actually happen, because of an extrinsic reason, namely, the effect would bring about the defection of the Church. Thus, opinion no. 2 is false because both its premise (it is premised on the metaphysical impossibility of there being a heretic pope), and the effect that would result from it are impossible. Since its premise is impossible, opinion no. 1 is necessarily true. Opinion no. 1 is the true opinion in actual reality. Opinion no. 2 is not applicable in reality, although in theory as a purely abstract hypothesis, its outcome would be of strict metyphysical necessity. At the same time, its metaphysically necessary outcome would be theologically impossible, because it would provoke the defection of the Church. Thus opinion no. 2 is ncessarily false because it has no possible applicability in reality. If it were possible for a pope to be a heretic, a manifest heretic would lose office automatically; but since it is not possible for a pope to be a heretic (possible according to nature, but not possible in view of the promise made by Christ that the pontiff's faith will not fail), opinion no. 5 is valid only as a purely abstract hypothesis. Just like "PaxChristi2", "Pax Vobis" indulges in the outright deception and sophistry of John Salza and Robert Siscoe: "Neither you, nor I, nor anyone but the Cardinals can officially, formally correct, warn, or rebuke the pope." No one on earth possesses the jurisdiction to "officially" warn or correct the pope. Ecclesiastical warnings are of the nature of an act of a superior over a subject. A formal correction done as a charitable act can be done by any private person, as Ballerini explains. "But obstinacy is not obvious, because it's of the internal forum." False. Sometimes it is not obvious; sometimes it is obvious. If the obstinacy is manifest, it is perciptible to the senses and is manifested in such a manner that is seen to be obvious, such as when one refuses correction, or otherwise manifests the dolus of heresy without correction. When the obstinacy is manifest, it is public or will become public, and pertains to the external forum. If the obstinacy is occult, it is either 1) internal, 2) external but not perceived, or 3) external and perceived privately in such a manner that it will not become public. "If +Bellarmine meant that manifest heresy can be "obvious to all" then that would contradict Scripture." The proposition is absurd on its face. That which is manifest is by definition plainly obvious. If it is not obvious it is not manifest. If the obstinacy of heresy is manifested in such a manner that the dolus of heresy is obvious even without correction, then the form of heresy is already manifest entirely by itself, even without warnings (as Bordoni and de Lugo explain); and therefore is manifest even before being judged and declared by the Church. If the form of heresy is not evident, but only the matter is manifest; the heresy is materially manifest but formally occult. Once the manifest material heretic remains obstinate even after being corrected by someone (by anyone who is capable) with an explanation that would suffice to convince a reasonable man (as Fr. Charles Augustine and St. Alphonsus explain), then the formal heresy is obvious and manifest, even before any judgment or declaration is made by the Church. "Without this rebuke/warning process, obstinacy is not proved. Without obstinacy being proved, the heresy is material only, not manifest" The proposition is pure sophistry. It is a half-truth. Now A proof is sufficient evidence or a sufficient argument for the truth of a proposition. If there already exists such evidence which sufficiently manifests the obvious truth of a proposition, (such as, Bergoglio is a formal heretic), then there no need to prove by providing evidence of the truth of a proposition when the evidence of its truth is already manifestly known and obvious. To assert that it is necessary to prove the truth of that which is already manifestly evident and true is absurd on its face. " 'By the fact' that a person is proved to be OBSTINATE, then they lose their office immediately. Not before" False. By the fact of the manifestly evident obstinacy , one loses his office immediately by himself; regardless of whether it was manifestly evident per se, or if it needed to be proven to become manifest. The public act of defection from the faith into manifestly obvious formal heresy is the fact by which per se the statutory loss of office takes place according to Bellarmine and according to canon law: If the pertinacity is manifest per se, then no further evidence by way of proof is needed; and if it is occult, then by means of proof, the pertinacity becomes manifest, and by the fact of becoming manifest, the office is lost per se. It is not "by the fact" of the proving by the cardinals or by a council, but by the fact of the act of pertinacity becoming manifest, regardless of whether or not proof by an external agent was needed as a dispository act for the pertinacity to become manifest, that the office is lost ipso facto and per se.
-
Just like "PaxChristi2", "Pax Vobis" indulges in the outright deception and sophistry of John Salza and Robert Siscoe:
"Neither you, nor I, nor anyone but the Cardinals can officially, formally correct, warn, or rebuke the pope."
No one on earth possesses the jurisdiction to "officially" warn or correct the pope. Ecclesiastical warnings are of the nature of an act of a superior over a subject. A formal correction done as a charitable act can be done by any private person, as Ballerini explains.
"But obstinacy is not obvious, because it's of the internal forum."
False. Sometimes it is not obvious; sometimes it is obvious. If the obstinacy is manifest, it is perciptible to the senses and is manifested in such a manner that is seen to be obvious, such as when one refuses correction, or otherwise manifests the dolus of heresy without correction. When the obstinacy is manifest, it is public or will become public, and pertains to the external forum. If the obstinacy is occult, it is either 1) internal, 2) external but not perceived, or 3) external and perceived privately in such a manner that it will not become public.
"If +Bellarmine meant that manifest heresy can be "obvious to all" then that would contradict Scripture."
The proposition is absurd on its face. That which is manifest is by definition plainly obvious. If it is not obvious it is not manifest. If the obstinacy of heresy is manifested in such a manner that the dolus of heresy is obvious even without correction, then the form of heresy is already manifest entirely by itself, even without warnings (as Bordoni and de Lugo explain); and therefore is manifest even before being judged and declared by the Church. If the form of heresy is not evident, but only the matter is manifest; the heresy is materially manifest but formally occult. Once the manifest material heretic remains obstinate even after being corrected by someone (by anyone who is capable) with an explanation that would suffice to convince a reasonable man (as Fr. Charles Augustine and St. Alphonsus explain), then the formal heresy is obvious and manifest, even before any judgment or declaration is made by the Church.
"Without this rebuke/warning process, obstinacy is not proved. Without obstinacy being proved, the heresy is material only, not manifest".
The proposition is pure sophistry. It is a half-truth. Now A proof is sufficient evidence or a sufficient argument for the truth of a proposition. If there already exists such evidence which sufficiently manifests the obvious truth of a proposition, (such as, Bergoglio is a formal heretic), then there no need to prove by providing evidence of the truth of a proposition when the evidence of its truth is already manifestly known and obvious. To assert that it is necessary to prove the truth of that which is already manifestly evident and true is absurd on its face.
" 'By the fact' that a person is proved to be OBSTINATE, then they lose their office immediately. Not before".
False. By the fact of the manifestly evident obstinacy , one loses his office immediately by himself; regardless of whether it was manifestly evident per se, or if it needed to be proven to become manifest. The public act of defection from the faith into manifestly obvious formal heresy is the fact by which per se the statutory loss of office takes place according to Bellarmine and according to canon law: If the pertinacity is manifest per se, then no further evidence by way of proof is needed; and if it is occult, then by means of proof, the pertinacity becomes manifest, and by the fact of becoming manifest, the office is lost per se. It is not "by the fact" of the proving by the cardinals or by a council, but by the fact of the act of pertinacity becoming manifest, regardless of whether or not proof by an external agent was needed as a dispository act for the pertinacity to become manifest, that the office is lost ipso facto and per se.
-
So, Fr. Kramer doesn't hold the 5th Opinion as he claims (i.e., "that a manifest heretic is ipso facto deposed"). He holds the 2nd ("that anentirely occult heretic is ipso facto deposed"), which Bellarmine himself refuted.
And why does Fr. Kramer hold the 2th Opinion? Believe it or not, he does so based on his interpretation of what Bellarmine wrote in response to the 4th Opinion. He entirely misunderstood one of the arguments Bellarmine used in an attempt to refute Cajetan, and concluded that Bellarmine himself believes he virtue of faith is necessary - even he explicitly denies it three paragraph earlier and does so again at the end of the chapter, in his commentary on the 5th Opinion. But it gets even worse...
Fr. Kramer then constructed elaborate house of cards argument based on his misinterpretation of Bellarmine, replete impressive metaphysical terminology (that no one understands), sophisticated sounding theology (that no one understand), and lengthy untranslated Latin quotations from St. Thomas himself (that one can understand, with a few exceptions of course) - all of which prevents 99% of the people who read his disastrous argument from having the slightest clue what he's actually saying, and hence from realizing that it is a mess of errors from top to bottom. I'll explain why as soon as Fr. Kramer objects to what I just wrote.
This is all a heap of idle and empty verbiage which I have amply refuted. It is a smoke screen -- it is pure obfuscation. Read my earlier comments; and if that isn't enough to convince you, read my book. I have totally refuted all this Salza-Siscoe-esque pseudo-theological sophistry. Their tactic is to obfuscate the essential argument by misrepresenting, twisting, and inverting it; and then "refuting" the caricature of their own making by arguing on and on, repeating over and over again their thoroughly discredited arguments, until they are the only ones left speaking -- creating the impression that no one can refute the verbal detritus which they endlessly spin. Soon they will find out that their sophistry has been exposed, and they will continue voicing their worthless opinions and listening in themselves in their echo chamber, where no one else except like minded bigots will be listening.
-
《So, Fr. Kramer doesn't hold the 5th Opinion as he claims (i.e., "that a manifest heretic is ipso facto deposed"). He holds the 2nd ("that an entirely occult heretic is ipso facto deposed"), which Bellarmine himself refuted. And why does Fr. Kramer hold the 2th Opinion? Believe it or not, he does so based on his interpretation of what Bellarmine wrote in response to the 4th Opinion. He entirely misunderstood one of the arguments Bellarmine used in an attempt to refute Cajetan, and concluded that Bellarmine himself believes he virtue of faith is necessary - even he explicitly denies it three paragraph earlier and does so again at the end of the chapter, in his commentary on the 5th Opinion. But it gets even worse... Fr. Kramer then constructed elaborate house of cards argument based on his misinterpretation of Bellarmine, replete impressive metaphysical terminology (that no one understands), sophisticated sounding theology (that no one understand), and lengthy untranslated Latin quotations from St. Thomas himself (that one can understand, with a few exceptions of course) - all of which prevents 99% of the people who read his disastrous argument from having the slightest clue what he's actually saying, and hence from realizing that it is a mess of errors from top to bottom. I'll explain why as soon as Fr. Kramer objects to what I just wrote.》
This is all a heap of idle and empty verbiage which I have amply refuted. It is a smoke screen -- it is pure obfuscation. Read my earlier comments; and if that isn't enough to convince you, read my book. I have totally refuted all this Salza-Siscoe-esque pseudo-theological sophistry. Their tactic is to obfuscate the essential argument by misrepresenting, twisting, and inverting it; and then "refuting" the caricature of their own making by arguing on and on, repeating over and over again their thoroughly discredited arguments, until they are the only ones left speaking -- creating the impression that no one can refute the verbal detritus which they endlessly spin. Soon they will find out that their sophistry has been exposed, and they will continue voicing their worthless opinions and listening in themselves in their echo chamber, where no one else except like minded bigots will be listening.
-
Are we to believe that Fr. Kramer and all the canonists and theologians he quoted have misunderstood Bellarmine's arguments on the fourth and fifth opinions; and that only now, Salza & Siscoe finally got it right?
-
Are we to believe that Fr. Kramer and all the canonists and theologians he quoted have misunderstood Bellarmine's arguments on the fourth and fifth opinions; and that only now, Salza & Siscoe finally got it right?
Yeah, that's my big problem with their spin on Bellarmine. I've seen no other theologian or canonist interpret Bellarmine the way they do.
Again, if someone wants to agree with John of St. Thomas or Cajetan or whoever else, that's up to them, but this need to twist Bellarmine seems dishonest.
-
I'm re-reading Fr. Chazal's book, "Contra Cekadam," I came across an interesting passage on page 93, in which Father mentions the debates between Fr. Kramer and John Salsa and Robert Sisco. Though he has for sympathy for Per Se (Fr. Kramer's stance), in that it rightly says that something happens before God when a Pope proffers heresy, he emphasizes that we should wait for the restoration of the juridical order of the Church to be restored before it can be resolved, and that it's not something we can resolve ourselves. Father he warns about the problem of "Anarchical refusal of the Juridical Order of the Church." Hopefully I'm properly understanding what Father is saying here.
Fr. Chazal writes:
"Anarchical refusal of the Juridical Order of the Church
"You (addressing Fr. Cekada) say emphatically that you are not arguing on a canonical standpoint; that the matter cannot be resolved canonically, but only by divine law: DULY NOTED, yet 1. This is anarchy 2. Why do you use Canonists in your argument?
"The violent debates that pits Fr. Kramer, who argues along the PER SE line, and John Salza and Robert Siscoe, who elaborate more on the QUOAD NOS line, simply confirm that a crime has distinct consequences, one before God and in itself, and secondly before men and in the life of the Church as a public and juridical society.
"Mgr. Guerard des Laurier should have adhered to the theological distinction held by his Dominican predecessors: PER SE/QUOAD NOS. Things that have happened before God may not have yet happened before men, while something happens immediately when a Pope proffers a heresy. Should a phenomenon happen per se, suapte natura, ex natura, ipso facto, by itself, from the very fact, yet we remain human, social beings, carrying on in a visible society endowed with a public life and juridical bond. That is the way we are: social beings.
"Quoad Nos
"We stand against the opposite notion which is anarchy, and anarchy breeding: an almost protestant high opinionatedness. We are Catholics, not protestants, especially because when a difference emerges amongst us, we wait patiently and charitably, until it can be resolved by an instrument established by Our Lord to prevent the fragmentation of the Church. Luther was surprised, disappointed, that after having thrown the Pope out, many popes immediately proliferated: a similar chaos reigns over the sede movement as a whole. Who can make the extensive list of sects sedevacantism has bred since the days of Fr. Saenz? (At least the sedeplenists are divided only in three: Ecclesia Dei, the neo-SSPX, and the Resistance). Without denying that our present Popes are insane, why not wait patiently for the restoration of the juridical order of the Church? Why not accept that the situation is not in our hands, begging God to return the public life of the Church to the normalcy it enjoyed for so many centuries?"
-
"Mgr. Guerard des Laurier should have adhered to the theological distinction held by his Dominican predecessors: PER SE/QUOAD NOS. Things that have happened before God may not have yet happened before men, while something happens immediately when a Pope proffers a heresy. Should a phenomenon happen per se, suapte natura, ex natura, ipso facto, by itself, from the very fact, yet we remain human, social beings, carrying on in a visible society endowed with a public life and juridical bond. That is the way we are: social beings.
In a sense, he does, though, as the formaliter lines up with the QUOAD SE and the materialiter with the QUOAD NOS.
Not 100%, but they line up in a way.
-
In a sense, he does, though, as the formaliter lines up with the QUOAD SE and the materialiter with the QUOAD NOS.
Not 100%, but they line up in a way.
I don't understand what your first sentence means exactly, but what I see in what Fr. Chazal is saying is that a distinction should be made between the two: Yes, something happens before God... BUT...we must wait for a proper juridical authority to resolve it, since we are only human.
We can't see the divine side of things; and as such we have to rely on (wait for) the juridical order of the Church, or we may fall into a anarchical stance. That's my take on it, which is maybe over-simplifying it, but Fr. Chazal isn't writing for theologians. He tries to keep it simple (for people like me ;D)
-
I'm re-reading Fr. Chazal's book, "Contra Cekadam," I came across an interesting passage on page 93, in which Father mentions the debates between Fr. Kramer and John Salsa and Robert Sisco. Though he has for sympathy for Per Se (Fr. Kramer's stance), in that it rightly says that something happens before God when a Pope proffers heresy, he emphasizes that we should wait for the restoration of the juridical order of the Church to be restored before it can be resolved, and that it's not something we can resolve ourselves. Father he warns about the problem of "Anarchical refusal of the Juridical Order of the Church." Hopefully I'm properly understanding what Father is saying here.
Fr. Chazal writes:
"Anarchical refusal of the Juridical Order of the Church
"You (addressing Fr. Cekada) say emphatically that you are not arguing on a canonical standpoint; that the matter cannot be resolved canonically, but only by divine law: DULY NOTED, yet 1. This is anarchy 2. Why do you use Canonists in your argument?
"The violent debates that pits Fr. Kramer, who argues along the PER SE line, and John Salza and Robert Siscoe, who elaborate more on the QUOAD NOS line, simply confirm that a crime has distinct consequences, one before God and in itself, and secondly before men and in the life of the Church as a public and juridical society.
"Mgr. Guerard des Laurier should have adhered to the theological distinction held by his Dominican predecessors: PER SE/QUOAD NOS. Things that have happened before God may not have yet happened before men, while something happens immediately when a Pope proffers a heresy. Should a phenomenon happen per se, suapte natura, ex natura, ipso facto, by itself, from the very fact, yet we remain human, social beings, carrying on in a visible society endowed with a public life and juridical bond. That is the way we are: social beings.
"Quoad Nos
"We stand against the opposite notion which is anarchy, and anarchy breeding: an almost protestant high opinionatedness. We are Catholics, not protestants, especially because when a difference emerges amongst us, we wait patiently and charitably, until it can be resolved by an instrument established by Our Lord to prevent the fragmentation of the Church. Luther was surprised, disappointed, that after having thrown the Pope out, many popes immediately proliferated: a similar chaos reigns over the sede movement as a whole. Who can make the extensive list of sects sedevacantism has bred since the days of Fr. Saenz? (At least the sedeplenists are divided only in three: Ecclesia Dei, the neo-SSPX, and the Resistance). Without denying that our present Popes are insane, why not wait patiently for the restoration of the juridical order of the Church? Why not accept that the situation is not in our hands, begging God to return the public life of the Church to the normalcy it enjoyed for so many centuries?"
Is Father really intimating rashness and impatience (not to mention lack of charity) in Sedevacantists today? After 60 years of Vatican 2 with its false ecclesiology and ecuмenism, today coming to fruition in Francis? The argument is certainly dated now after Pachamama appeared with the "pope" on the altar of St. Peters . . . if it wasn't when Father made it.
His argument might have flown in 1969 (even maybe give a decade or 2) but when he made it. . . but TODAY?
-
You don't understand UPA. First, it's not S&S who came up with the idea that UPA is an infallible sign of the legitimacy of a Pope. That's what the canonists and theologians teach. For example, here's what Dr. Boni, Professor of Canon Law at the University of Bologna and Advisor of the Pontifical Council for Legislative Texts, wrote in 2015 in response to Socci's book questioning Francis' election:
The universal acceptance of an Pope is an "infallible sign" that he is the true Pope. If his election is not immediately contested, it is proof that he's the Pope. That's what UPA means. Now, if it is infallibly certain that he is Pope, it follows quite logically that it is also infallibly certain that all the conditions required for him to become Pope were met. If not, he wouldn't have become Pope, and hence would not have been universally accepted as Pope.
Now, the reason you believe the two points you mentioned are "infallible signs" that he did not become Pope is because you have fallen for two of the common Sedevacantist errors. 1) extending the infallibility of the Pope beyond what the Church teaching (i.e., embracing a false understanding of papal infallibility); and 2) having a false understanding of what it means to "profess the true Faith."
Papal Infallibility only prevents the Pope from erring when he defines a doctrine, ex cathedra, according to the conditions set down in Chapter IV of Pastor Aeternus, No. 9. (https://www.ewtn.com/catholicism/teachings/vatican-is-dogmatic-constitution-pastor-aeternus-on-the-church-of-christ-243) It does not prevent a Pope from erring when he teaches by virtue of his authentic Magisterium. And making a post-election public "profession of faith" is not a condition to becoming Pope. He becomes Pope by being elected and accepting. The "profession of faith" is a social or juridical bond that unites the members of the Church, and it is only severed by notorious heresy. As bad as Francis is, he is not a notorious heretic, and therefore he still professes the faith to the extent necessary to retain his membership in the Church.
I see you didn't address Paul IV and cuм Ex. Gee, what was Paul IV thinking in pooh poohing the "universal acceptance" of a heretic? Poor pope. He lacked the benefit of seeing UPA "evolve."
Do you accept the law of contradiction (or non-contradiction if you prefer)? Tell me no and I'll be done with you.
If you do, explain how a true Vicar of Christ can teach something to the Church in his "authentic Magisterium" that contradicts the teaching of Tradition, even de fide and dogmatic teachings of the Church.
You give us a Church with two tongues to go with the current two "heads." Forgive us here for not thanking your "wisdom," but taking you to task.
Now, the reason you believe the two points you mentioned are "infallible signs" that he did not become Pope is because you have fallen for two of the common Sedevacantist errors. 1) extending the infallibility of the Pope beyond what the Church teaching (i.e., embracing a false understanding of papal infallibility); and 2) having a false understanding of what it means to "profess the true Faith."
No, the "infallible sign" is my faith in the Church as the organ of TRUTH and the acceptance of the law of contradiction (or non-contradiction). No, Mr. S, I have "fallen" for the belief that the Catholic faith is the truth revealed by the Creator of the universe, and that a true pope is the guardian of that truth and could never teach or promulgate contradiction to what true popes have taught.
I believe the Catholic faith is truth, and that truth doesn't contradict itself. If I'm wrong, what does any of this matter?
The ecclesia docens, the authentic Magisterium, is indefectible, and will never tell the world 2 + 2=4 one day, and 5 the next. Whether it is speaking infallibly or solemnly, or speaking with less solemnity but teaching the world and speaking about truth nonetheless.
Your failure to believe that is why you "fall" and trip all over yourself, kneeing the Church Our Mother in her speaking and teaching mouth in the process. .
-
Is Father really intimating rashness and impatience (not to mention lack of charity) in Sedevacantists today? After 60 years of Vatican 2 with its false ecclesiology and ecuмenism, today coming to fruition in Francis? The argument is certainly dated now after Pachamama appeared with the "pope" on the altar of St. Peters . . . if it wasn't when Father made it.
His argument might have flown in 1969 (even maybe give a decade or 2) but when he made it. . . but TODAY?
Yes, I think he is intimating that rashness and impatience can be aproblem. But I can't speak for him. I can only quote what is in his book, and try to understand it. Keep in mind that Fr. Chazal is also sympathetic to those who are sedevacantists; but he takes issue with the dogmatic ones, like Fr. Cekada. That how Resistance priests and bishops operate. They strive to be clear and truthful but they are also charitable. No other trad group does this. It's why I support them.
In his closing statement in his book he writes:
"Let us leave the last word with Catejan: "If somebody for a reasonable motive holds as a suspect the person of the Pope, and refuse his presence, even his jurisdiction, he does not commit any delict of schism, nor any other delict as long as he is ready to accept the Pope if he were not suspect. It is obvious that we have the right to avoid what is causing damage and to prevent dangers. "
"Catejan does not say one has to refuse the jurisdiction of the suspect pontiff, as you (Cekada) contend, but that someone could, with good reasons. He differed with Bellarmine on the question of the heretical Pope, but understood, almost prophetically, what could happen in our sorrowful years.
"It is much better to be a sedevacantist and separate from heretics than not be one, and connive with them, even though, quoad aliquos sedevacantistas, there is a risk of schism, as in the case of the three Thuc bishops (Dominguez, Laborie, Datessen), schism in progress."
--------
Fr. Chazal published his book about two years ago, or may be a little longer ago than that. I can't speak for him, but I don't see that the level of heresy/Modernism is a factor. Though I understand that it's a factor for sedevacantists; though I think that most of the sedevacantists on the forum here were already sedevacantists before Francis was Pope.
Fr. Chazal says in his book that our popes today are insane. I take that to mean ALL of the conciliar popes. I don't see that the level of insanity (seeming to be elevated in Francis) would cause him to change his views.
-
St Peter was not a heretic of any sort and St Paul never thought he was a heretic. He was guilty of sin. Read Haydock.
I said that St Peter was not obstinate in his error. Technically, it could be argued he was materially in error/heresy, as Fr. Cornelius a Lapide says:
.
It may be urged that in this act of Peter’s there was at least something sinful, if not actually erroneous in faith, as some have rashly asserted. By his action it may be thought that he thoughtlessly made a profession of Judaism, and so put a stumbling-block in the way of the Gentiles, and tempted them to Judaise with him. He had previously lived with the Gentiles, but he afterwards withdrew from them suddenly, went over to the Jєωs, and lived with them. From this the Gentiles might properly infer that Judaism was necessary to salvation, both for him and themselves, and was binding on Christians ; for though the Old Law, with its ceremonies, was not yet the cause of death, and might be preserved so as to secure for itself an honourable burial, and also to draw the Jєωs to the faith of Christ, yet it was dead, and in one sense death-giving, viz., to any one who should keep it on the supposition that it was binding on Christians. Although Peter, however, did not so regard it, yet his action was so imprudent as to give the Gentiles good reason for thinking that he did.
.
St Paul did not, and would not, rebuke St Peter for something trivial...not in the manner in which he rebuked him. St Paul would not have been enlightened by the Holy Ghost to put this as part of Scripture, if we can just ignore it as some minor misunderstanding between he and St Peter. No, St Peter's actions were a scandal (even if he did not mean them as such) and grave enough for St Paul to stop what he was doing, pack up and travel to St Peter's location, and rebuke him publically, in an attempt to stop the action and to set an example for those in St Peter's city. St Paul was correcting an unorthodox practice. No one has ever said that St Peter was unorthodox or a heretic, but his ACTIONS were unorthodox and heretical, in an objective and material way.
.
Haydock says that St Peter's action was a venial sin. Such a sin was obviously against the Faith. Can not a venial sin of Faith be considered a material heresy? Of course. Heresy simply means "a belief or opinion contrary to orthodox practices." Material heresy means the person is UNKNOWINGLY or UNWILLINGLY holding a belief or opinion contrary to orthodoxy. By extension, a materially heretical act is of the same nature. It simply means the act is unorthodox or is scandalous to orthodoxy. It's certainly clear that St Peter's actions were materially heretical. This is why St Paul rebuked him; to stop the unorthodox (i.e. heretical) scandal.
-
Are you saying that the Catholic theologians that came after St Robert Bellarmine are disagreeing with him?
No, I'm saying that in the course of 400+ years since +Bellarmine, that new theological terms are created or changed, in order to provide greater clarity and depth of understanding to theological and doctrinal principles. This type of thing happens all the time, so it's important to interpret quotes from saints by using THEIR definitions of words. You can't ASSUME that the definition of 'manifest' today means the same thing as in +Bellarmine's day. How many iterations of canon law have there been since the 1600s? Many. With each one, as with each different theologian, they create new terms to explain new distinctions they make.
.
Why don't theologians include "warnings" in their discussion of what constitutes a manifest heretic?
Because 'manifest' today does not include the idea of obstinacy; today 'manifest' heresy means open/public. Since obstinacy is not part of the idea, then warnings aren't part of the definition.
.
Today, 'formal heresy' includes the idea of obstinacy. Formal heresy, today, requires the determination of obstinate holding to error, in the face of truth.
.
.
The ultimate question still has not been answered: What does +Bellarmine mean when he says "manifest"? How does he define this term?
.
I provided my opinion, using +Bellarmine's own words. If you disagree, then find out how +Bellarmine defined the term. Until this is solved, it is not clear of the type of heretic he is talking about. I'll wait.
-
Salza & Siscoe say Suárez was of the fifth opinion, not the fourth; and that Bellarmine was of the same opinion as Suárez. According to Suárez, the Church deposes a heretic pope by rendering "juridical" judgment of the crime, and then Christ deposes the heretic from the papacy; and consequently, the pope falls from office "ipso facto". The dispository nature of the judgment logically opposes the nature of an ipso facto effect, but Suárez remained undaunted by this technicality. According to Bellarmine's exposition on the fifth opinion, the fall is ipso facto, and takes place"per se"; which logically excludes any need for a dispository judgment by an external agent. This "fifth opinion" is the historical opinion formulated already by the early Decretists in the late twelfth century, which Bellarmine lists as the fifth; and is obviously a different argument than that of the opinion of Suárez. Suárez's opinion was an entirely new argument, not one of the historical "five opinions" Bellarmine outlines; so Bellarmine does not even mention it; because it is only an unremarkable variation of the fourth opinion which incoherently combines elements of the fourth and fifth opinions. Bordoni argues against the fifth opinion, and also refutes Suárez's opinion; clearly distinguishing between the two opinions. This is all lost on the obtuse minds of Salza & Siscoe who continue to blindly assert that Suárez and Bellarmine were both of the same "fifth opinion".
-
I believe the Catholic faith is truth, and that truth doesn't contradict itself. If I'm wrong, what does any of this matter?
Well put.
And I'll add this:
If the occupant of the Holy See can teach error to the Church and promulgate harmful disciplines, in short, if the occupant of the Holy See can lead souls to hell, then what does it matter if the See is vacant? In fact, it would be better for such a See to remain vacant as often and for as long as possible.
R&R claim to be defending the Papacy when in fact they are absolutely undermining and destroying it.
They would rather defend Jorge Bergoglio tooth and nail than to defend the Holiness of the Church; in fact, they throw the latter overboard in order to save Bergoglio.
R&R really is some kind of a psychological problem ... in the final analysis, some kind of pacifier that they can't stop sucking on.
-
"PaxVobis" says that "obstinacy is not obvious, because it's of the internal forum." On this point he follows the absurd doctrine of John Salza & Robert Siscoe, who assert against the perpetual Catholic teaching that "Sin is internal". If the sin of heresy is committed with an external act, the sin is external; and if the pertinacity is public and obvious in the commission of the sin, the obstinacy is public; and in this manner the sin of heresy separates the heretic from the body of the Church by its very nature (as Pius XII teaches in Mystici Corporis). Salza & Siscoe say no -- only the crime, but not the 'sin of heresy' separstes one from the body by its very nature. I have quoted St. Thomas on how the sin of heresy separates one from the body of the Church. I have quoted verbatim Msgrs. Fenton and Van Noort, as well as Canon George Smith, who all explain that the "sin of heresy" separates one from membership in the body of the Church. Salza & Siscoe blindly refuse correction and continue to insist that, "Sin is internal", and therefore obstinacy pertains to the intetnal forum. This is also the plainly stated error of the Salza clone, Pax Vobis.
-
"PaxVobis" says that "obstinacy is not obvious, because it's of the internal forum." On this point he follows the absurd doctrine of John Salza & Robert Siscoe, who assert against the perpetual Catholic teaching that "Sin is internal". If the sin of heresy is committed with an external act, the sin is external; and if the pertinacity is public and obvious in the commission of the sin, the obstinacy is public; and in this manner the sin of heresy separates the heretic from the body of the Church by its very nature (as Pius XII teaches in Mystici Corporis). Salza & Siscoe say no -- only the crime, but not the 'sin of heresy' separstes one from the body by its very nature. I have quoted St. Thomas on how the sin of heresy separates one from the body of the Church. I have quoted verbatim Msgrs. Fenton and Van Noort, as well as Canon George Smith, who all explain that the "sin of heresy" separates one from membership in the body of the Church. Salza & Siscoe blindly refuse correction and continue to insist that, "Sin is internal", and therefore obstinacy pertains to the intetnal forum. This is also the plainly stated error of the Salza clone, Pax Vobis.
I do still wonder sometimes about the status of an internal heretic. Could one of these only be a member of the Church's body secundum quid?
If there were an evil infiltrator who managed to conceal his heresy who had the intention of becoming pope only to promulgate false doctrines, and even declare an erroneous dogma, all in order to damage the Church, would this man really still have papal authority?
One could argue that the intention to accept the papacy was defective? Or perhaps he's not FULLY a member of the Church's body and is only materially in possession of the office?
Of course, in the practical order, God would undoubtedly expose such a one ... to those at least who have the eyes to see ... but is someone like that REALLY a member of the Catholic Church?
-
"PaxVobis" says that "obstinacy is not obvious, because it's of the internal forum." On this point he follows the absurd doctrine of John Salza & Robert Siscoe, who assert against the perpetual Catholic teaching that "Sin is internal". If the sin of heresy is committed with an external act, the sin is external; and if the pertinacity is public and obvious in the commission of the sin, the obstinacy is public; and in this manner the sin of heresy separates the heretic from the body of the Church by its very nature (as Pius XII teaches in Mystici Corporis). Salza & Siscoe say no -- only the crime, but not the 'sin of heresy' separstes one from the body by its very nature. I have quoted St. Thomas on how the sin of heresy separates one from the body of the Church. I have quoted verbatim Msgrs. Fenton and Van Noort, as well as Canon George Smith, who all explain that the "sin of heresy" separates one from membership in the body of the Church. Salza & Siscoe blindly refuse correction and continue to insist that, "Sin is internal", and therefore obstinacy pertains to the intetnal forum. This is also the plainly stated error of the Salza clone, Pax Vobis.
Right. They confuse the sin of heresy with the crime of heresy.
I have a challenge for them. I attach the quotes from canonists, put in an appendix to Father Cekada's pamphlet Traditionalists, Infallibility and the Pope (http://www.traditionalmass.org/images/articles/TradsInfall.pdf (http://www.traditionalmass.org/images/articles/TradsInfall.pdf)). These canonists declare, point blank and without any equivocation, that the loss of office and jurisdiction for manifest public heresy by a pope occurs without a declaration.
Clear, honest, no hiding. No smoke screen of words, no movements of shells on a table . . . no "look here, look there, now here at this swath of words . . ."
So the challenge to S & S: cite one canonist or theologian after Vatican I who discusses this specific issue of a heretic pope (as the attached canonists do) who says that a declaration would be necessary to remove a manifest public heretic who is pope (if it were to happen). Says it straight out without any nonsense, like the attached canonists say a declaration is not necessary.
All I've see from S & S is leaps and arguments from sources not discussing the specific issue of a heretic pope and whether a declaration is necessary for loss of office in this specific case.
-
I have a challenge for them. I attach the quotes from canonists, put in an appendix to Father Cekada's pamphlet Traditionalists, Infallibility and the Pope (http://www.traditionalmass.org/images/articles/TradsInfall.pdf (http://www.traditionalmass.org/images/articles/TradsInfall.pdf)). These canonists declare, point blank and without any equivocation, that the loss of office and jurisdiction for manifest public heresy by a pope occurs without a declaration.
Clear, honest, no hiding. No smoke screen of words, no movements of shells on a table . . . no "look here, look there, now here at this swath of words . . ."
See, this is what is refreshing about Father Chazal vs. S&S. Father admits that theologians in the past have held both views. He, rightly, criticizes Father Cekada and some of the sedevacantists for pretending that there was absolute consensus on the "ipso facto without any declaration" position, where some like Cajetan and John of St. Thomas felt otherwise. But S&S then go do the opposite, and even more; they not only implicitly claim this as the sedevacantists do, by ignoring the opposite opinion, they go farther and explicitly assert that the theologians all unanimously agree with them ... by twisting and distoring Bellarmine, in addition to ignoring authors like those cited by DR.
Here's the bottom line: it's a disputed question, and Catholics MAY hold either opinion in this matter, and various ones in between. It has not been settled by the Church. If you want to argue that your position is better than the other one and is in fact, right, go right ahead, but this game of pretending that there's unanimous consensus requiring a Church declaration is incredibly dishonest.
It could not have been laid out more explicitly than in Coronata's quote.
-
I do still wonder sometimes about the status of an internal heretic. Could one of these only be a member of the Church's body secundum quid?
If there were an evil infiltrator who managed to conceal his heresy who had the intention of becoming pope only to promulgate false doctrines, and even declare an erroneous dogma, all in order to damage the Church, would this man really still have papal authority?
One could argue that the intention to accept the papacy was defective? Or perhaps he's not FULLY a member of the Church's body and is only materially in possession of the office?
Of course, in the practical order, God would undoubtedly expose such a one ... to those at least who have the eyes to see ... but is someone like that REALLY a member of the Catholic Church?
I wonder the same.
How could someone who lacks the faith receive the grace that their faith not fail? There's no faith to preserve there to begin with.
-
See, this is what is refreshing about Father Chazal vs. S&S. Father admits that theologians in the past have held both views. He, rightly, criticizes Father Cekada and some of the sedevacantists for pretending that there was absolute consensus on the "ipso facto without any declaration" position, where some like Cajetan and John of St. Thomas felt otherwise. But S&S then go do the opposite, and even more; they not only implicitly claim this as the sedevacantists do, by ignoring the opposite opinion, they go farther and explicitly assert that the theologians all unanimously agree with them ... by twisting and distoring Bellarmine, in addition to ignoring authors like those cited by DR.
Here's the bottom line: it's a disputed question, and Catholics MAY hold either opinion in this matter, and various ones in between. It has not been settled by the Church. If you want to argue that your position is better than the other one and is in fact, right, go right ahead, but this game of pretending that there's unanimous consensus requiring a Church declaration is incredibly dishonest.
It could not have been laid out more explicitly than in Coronata's quote.
Sure, it's an open question. Which position is more reasonable and has more authority? We're discussing the issue.
I note also that Cajetan and St. John of Thomas opined before Paul IV and cuм Ex, and of course before Vatican I. Father Cekada notes in a video that cuм Ex was binding since I think Paul IV was alive when St. John of Thomas expressed his views. This is a relevant consideration. Any canonists or theologians after Vatican I, or even cuм Ex?
-
No one on earth possesses the jurisdiction to "officially" warn or correct the pope. Ecclesiastical warnings are of the nature of an act of a superior over a subject.
Cardinals who rebuke a pope are not doing so jurisdictionally; they are not "pulling rank". They are rebuking per Scripture, as St Paul explains where he rebuked St Peter. Even +Bellarmine says that St Paul "orders" that "2 warnings" be given, to determine 'manifest obstinacy'. You're falsely inserting the idea of jurisdiction.
.
A formal correction done as a charitable act can be done by any private person, as Ballerini explains.
Ok, but not in the case of the pope. It's very clear that Cardinals elect the pope and they are allowed to rebuke him (by way of council, committee or letter, etc).
If the obstinacy is manifest, it is perceptible to the senses and is manifested in such a manner that is seen to be obvious, such as when one refuses correction,
Exactly! Correction = St Paul's 2 warnings = rebuke = official warning.
.
When the obstinacy is manifest, it is public or will become public, and pertains to the external forum.
Obstinacy can only be determined by a rebuke/correction process. A passionate, open or public assertion of error is not obstinacy.
.
Once the manifest material heretic remains obstinate even after being corrected by someone (by anyone who is capable) with an explanation that would suffice to convince a reasonable man (as Fr. Charles Augustine and St. Alphonsus explain), then the formal heresy is obvious and manifest, even before any judgment or declaration is made by the Church.
Agree, except for your insertion of the phrase "by anyone who is capable". In the matter of fraternal correction, we are allowed to fraternally correct those who are our peers, and only correct superiors if they have given us permission, or if we know that such correction can be done in a respectful way. In the case of a pope, since the Cardinals are the "princes of the Church" and they elected him, only they are allowed to rebuke him.
.
If the obstinacy of heresy is manifested in such a manner that the dolus of heresy is obvious even without correction, then the form of heresy is already manifest entirely by itself, even without warnings (as Bordoni and de Lugo explain); and therefore is manifest even before being judged and declared by the Church
This is the crux of the debate. The V2 popes claim that their novelties are consistent with Tradition, or at least, they are "pastoral" applications of orthodox doctrine. They continue to deny that they are heretics; they continue to explain that their novelties are catholic. Thus while the heresy is obvious; the obstinacy is not. The heresy may be manifest (in the sense that it is open and public) but it is not "manifest obstinate" heresy, per +Bellarmine's use. Until they are formally rebuked, their obstinacy is not legally established, no matter how open is the error.
.
Let's not forget that the PURPOSE of the rebuke/warning/correction is to bring back the heretic from his sin. The purpose is the salvation of his soul. The purpose of all canonical penalties (including excommunication) is to "shock the system" so that the heretic/schismatic will "wake up" from his unorthodox views and come back to Truth. Many of you want to rush to judgement, to see obstinacy where it is not yet been proven. You have no patience for the Church's processes, which as history shows, can take YEARS to develop. Let's not forget that from the day that Martin Luther nailed his 99 heresies on the church door, to the day he was excommunicated, was over a year and a half. Was anyone more of a clear-cut case of heresy than Martin Luther? Yet, he was not declared obstinate for months and months.
.
I still say, you need to provide +Bellarmine's definition of "manifest" heresy, before you can apply his quote properly. You are interpreting 'manifest' incorrectly, according to the current use by theologians, over 400 years after +Bellarmine lived. The use of this term has changed.
.
By the fact of the manifestly evident obstinacy,
Manifest does not equal obstinate. Obstinate does not equal manifest. You use these terms as if they were connected and they are not. They have 2 COMPLETELY separate meanings, both in law and in theology.
-
Obstinacy can only be determined by a rebuke/correction process. A passionate, open or public assertion of error is not obstinacy.
This is absolutely false.
-
Sure, it's an open question. Which position is more reasonable and has more authority? We're discussing the issue.
I note also that Cajetan and St. John of Thomas opined before Paul IV and cuм Ex, and of course before Vatican I. Father Cekada notes in a video that cuм Ex was binding since I think Paul IV was alive when St. John of Thomas expressed his views. This is a relevant consideration. Any canonists or theologians after Vatican I, or even cuм Ex?
Yes, this is relevant. I didn't know about that chronology relative to cuм Ex.
So it would seem that the so-called Bellarmine position was the general theological consensus since cuм Ex? [Of course, most of these other theologians just misunderstood Bellarmine.]
-
Father Cekada's response, in the one posting from his pamphlet by DR, also explains the Bellarmine distinction between the Pope essentially leaving on his own or being forced out against his will. According to Father Cekada, if such a Pope were to continue to act de facto as the Pope (i.e. refuse to leave), then the Cardinals would be required de jure to declare the See vacant so that they could elect another.
-
Yes, this is relevant. I didn't know about that chronology relative to cuм Ex.
So it would seem that the so-called Bellarmine position was the general theological consensus since cuм Ex? [Of course, most of these other theologians just misunderstood Bellarmine.]
Cajetan died in 1534. Paul IV wrote cuм Ex in 1555. St. John of Thomas wasn't even born during Paul IV's pontificate, so I'm not sure what Father Cekada was talking about. I'll go check the video again. But St. John of Thomas looks to have opined after cuм Ex.
Anyone else? Anyone after Vatican I "take the declaration necessary" view?
The Bellarmine view seems to be the consensus, but I'm just a layman seeking wisdom here and ask the experts.
-
"PaxVobis" says that "obstinacy is not obvious, because it's of the internal forum." On this point he follows the absurd doctrine of John Salza & Robert Siscoe, who assert against the perpetual Catholic teaching that "Sin is internal".
If you tell me that you don't believe in the Immaculate Conception, because of "x" reason, your obstinacy is not obvious because you have yet to be rebuked. If I tell you you're wrong, and show you why, but you continue to hold your error, then your obstinacy is proven and is now public.
If the sin of heresy is committed with an external act, the sin is external;
yes.
and if the pertinacity is public and obvious in the commission of the sin, the obstinacy is public;
Using the same example as above...If you, instead of telling me personally, you go to a church parking lot and get a megaphone, and declare that you don't believe in the Immaculate Conception for "x" reason, your obstinacy is not obvious, just because your heresy is now public. Public heresy has NOTHING TO DO with obstinacy. Do you even understand what obstinacy or pertinacity means? It means "stubborn refusal" or "difficult to change".
.
Just because heresy is public, does not mean that this person has REFUSED CORRECTION. It does not mean they have REJECTED A CHALLENGE OR CHANGE to their error.
.
and in this manner the sin of heresy separates the heretic from the body of the Church by its very nature (as Pius XII teaches in Mystici Corporis). Salza & Siscoe say no -- only the crime, but not the 'sin of heresy' separates one from the body by its very nature. I have quoted St. Thomas on how the sin of heresy separates one from the body of the Church. I have quoted verbatim Msgrs. Fenton and Van Noort, as well as Canon George Smith, who all explain that the "sin of heresy" separates one from membership in the body of the Church. Salza & Siscoe blindly refuse correction and continue to insist that, "Sin is internal", and therefore obstinacy pertains to the intetnal forum. This is also the plainly stated error of the Salza clone, Pax Vobis.
The sin of heresy, even before obstinacy is proven, can separate one from the Church (spiritually speaking). As in sedeprivationism, this sin can separate one from the SPIRITUAL office. But...obstinacy is necessary to establish for the removal of the MATERIAL office. You are failing to make a distinction between the spiritual penalties for heresy and the temporal. A manifest-only heretic may very well be in a grave state of sin. He could be uneducated on the Faith, or actually rejecting Truth. That's between him and God. All we can say is that he's objectively wrong. +Bellarmine says that obstinacy is required for the loss of office because the MATERIAL office is lost by MATERIAL proof (i.e. proof of obstinacy, by some human process).
.
+Bellarmine's debate on the deposition of a pope is primarily concerned with the MATERIAL, GOVERNING ASPECT OF THE CHURCH. The whole point of the debate is what happens to the TEMPORAL OFFICE. He's not discussing sin, or the evils of heresy, or loss of membership of the church (which is a spiritual penalty). They are discussing PRACTICAL problems, in LEGAL terms, for a HUMAN office.
.
Pius XII is speaking of the SPIRITUAL loss of Church membership for heresy. You can't apply Pius XII's words to +Bellarmine's analysis. That's just retarded.
-
This is absolutely false.
No it's not. Who was more passionate, open or public in his profession of heresy than Martin Luther, who nailed is 99 heresies to the door of the Church and started an open revolt against the Faith? Was he automatically defrocked, ignored and removed from his office? No, he was not. He was put through a process, and rebuked for his errors. Only after he REFUSED correction and was STUBBORN in error, was he finally excommunicated and deemed a heretic.
-
I won't assume anything here, I'll guarantee that the definition of manifest, today, is the same definition back in Bellarmine's day.
Prove it. Show us all where/how +Bellarmine defined 'manifest'.
.
-
"PaxVobis" says that "obstinacy is not obvious, because it's of the internal forum." On this point he follows the absurd doctrine of John Salza & Robert Siscoe, who assert against the perpetual Catholic teaching that "Sin is internal". If the sin of heresy is committed with an external act, the sin is external; (...) Salza & Siscoe say no -- only the crime, but not the 'sin of heresy' separstes one from the body by its very nature.
If the sin of heresy is committed by an external act, it is by definition a crime. That's the difference between the sin of heresy and the crime of heresy. Any external act of heresy, even if it is committed when no one is around to see it [external occult], is by definition the crime of heresy. But only if the crime of heresy is notorious does it sever a person from the Body of the Church; the sin severs them from the Soul. But don't take my word for it, here's what you wrote in 2016:
Fr. Kramer: “The sin of heresy can be distinguished from the crime solely according to the circuмstances, or whether or not the sin was committed internally, i.e., in thought, or by an external act (crime). The internal sin severs one from the soul of the Church, because it is by the internal act of faith that one is united to the soul of the Church; but the internal act of infidelity does not sever one from the body of the Church … until the act of severing communion by an external act has been committed. The public heretic [i.e., notorious heretic] ceases to be in communion with the Church by the very fact of his crime.”
The "sole" difference between the sin and the crime is that the latter includes an external act. I agree. Please explain why you now believe what you wrote in 2016 is wrong.
Fr. Kramer: I have quoted verbatim Msgrs. Fenton and Van Noort, as well as Canon George Smith, who all explain that the "sin of heresy" separates one from membership in the body of the Church. Salza & Siscoe blindly refuse correction and continue to insist that, "Sin is internal", and therefore obstinacy pertains to the intetnal forum. This is also the plainly stated error of the Salza clone, Pax Vobis.
Blindly refused correction? Siscoe and Salza responded to your arguments (http://www.trueorfalsepope.com/p/formal-reply-to-fr-framer-part-ii.html) and proved that the authors you referenced don't teach what you claim. On the contrary, they teach what you used to believed, before falling into the Sedevacantist errors. After posting the refutation on their website, Siscoe and Salza received a note from a well-known and highly respected Traditional Monastery, dedicated to the study of theology, saying they destroyed your arguments. http://www.trueorfalsepope.com/p/formal-reply-to-fr-framer-part-ii.html (http://www.trueorfalsepope.com/p/formal-reply-to-fr-framer-part-ii.html)
-
Where do you come up with this stuff Pax? Where are you getting your information?
The quote has been posted on this thread at least twice.
-
What's interesting is that, of the sine-declarationists cited by DR from Father Cekada's booklet, most of them cite papa a nemine judicandus as the reason why no declaration is necessary ... it's because no declaration is possible.
In other words, they seem to reject the notion of a declaration being purely discretionary and therefore only "ministerially deposing". THEY argue that any declaration, whether disceretionary or ministerial or otherwise, violates the rule that the Pope cannot be judged.
-
Now, with the sine-declarationists, I add the caveat that they must be talking about the situation where the heresy is simply obvious to everyone.
If the Church were divided, then there would have to be an agreement, and a declaration. But the declaration has nothing to do with the Pope, but would merely be a clarification regarding the mind of the Church: "we've all come to agree that Bergoglio is a heretic".
-
What's interesting is that, of the sine-declarationists cited by DR from Father Cekada's booklet, most of them cite papa a nemine judicandus as the reason why no declaration is necessary ... it's because no declaration is possible.
In other words, they seem to reject the notion of a declaration being purely discretionary and therefore only "ministerially deposing". THEY argue that any declaration, whether disceretionary or ministerial or otherwise, violates the rule that the Pope cannot be judged.
Yes, and that's why I asked about canonists/theologians post-Vatican I particularly.
I think Father Kramer believes the S & S view post-Vatican I is heretical.
-
Yeah, that's my big problem with their spin on Bellarmine. I've seen no other theologian or canonist interpret Bellarmine the way they do.
Again, if someone wants to agree with John of St. Thomas or Cajetan or whoever else, that's up to them, but this need to twist Bellarmine seems dishonest.
This is what I’ve been saying, they are distorting what St. Robert teaches. Very dishonest. It reminds me of what the Democrats are doing right now in the House of Representatives.
-
PAX VOBIS:《You're falsely inserting the idea of jurisdiction. 》
No, it was you who inserted the word “officially”, thereby strictly implying that it pertains to the office of the cardinals to formally correct the pope with an authority that no one else in the Church possesses – which makes that function jurisdictional.
《Ok, but not in the case of the pope. It's very clear that Cardinals elect the pope and they are allowed to rebuke him (by way of council, committee or letter, etc).》
I cited Ballerini who explained that such charitable correction lies within the competency of any private person – or does one need to hold the rank of cardinal to do this act of charity to the pope? Commenting on St. Paul’s correction of St. Peter, St. Thomas says such a correction lies within the competency of any person. However, these are not official ecclesiastical warnings, which require jurisdiction. They are not ecclesiastical but are done in a private capacity. You deliberately misquoted me, leaving out the most important clause, “If the obstinacy is manifest, it is perceptible to the senses and is manifested in such a manner that is seen to be obvious, such as when one refuses correction,".This is what I actually wrote: “If the obstinacy is manifest, it is perceptible to the senses and is manifested in such a manner that is seen to be obvious, such as when one refuses correction, or otherwise manifests the dolus of heresy without correction.” You then refer to these corrections done in a private capacity as “official warnings” which they are not, because they can be performed by any private individual.
《 Obstinacy can only be determined by a rebuke/correction process. 》
The assertion is absurd, and is refuted by such eminent authorities as de Lugo and Bordoni, both of whom I have quoted enough times already. You are blindly entrenched in your error – which is to say, you are blindly obstinate.
《 In the case of a pope, since the Cardinals are the "princes of the Church" and they elected him, only they are allowed to rebuke him. 》
Rubbish. Ballerini and St. Thomas say the opposite.
《 Until they are formally rebuked, their obstinacy is not legally established, no matter how open is the error. 》
Again, you have Fr. Francesco Bordoni (a qualificator of the Holy Inquisition), and Cardinal de Lugo against you on this point.
《 You are interpreting 'manifest' incorrectly, according to the current use by theologians, over 400 years after +Bellarmine lived. 》
Rubbish. Your assertion is gratuitous. I have carefully examined the texts and context in which Bellarmine uses the term in question. You have no excuse.
《Manifest does not equal obstinate. Obstinate does not equal manifest. You use these terms as if they were connected and they are not. They have 2 COMPLETELY separate meanings, both in law and in theology. 》
If you had taken the time to carefully examine Bellarmine’s usage of the terms “heretic” and “manifest heretic”, you would know that when he refers to a “heretic” simpliciter, he is speaking properly of one who is to be considered a formal heretic; and a manifest heretic is such a one whose formal heresy is manifestly evident or virtually so. According to the jurisprudence of the time in which he lived, a person who manifests the indicia of one who is violenter suspectus is morally certain to be a formal heretic but not so certain as to eliminate the need for canonical admonition; but one who manifests the indicia of actual formal heresy, according to which the pertinacity is manifestly evident even beyond all degrees of suspicion, then all warnings are considered superfluous, and even counterproductive. I quoted Bordoni and de Lugo. You have no excuse. Your assertion that I am “interpreting 'manifest' incorrectly, according to the current use by theologians, over 400 years after +Bellarmine lived,” is an outright lie.
-
Is English your first language? I honestly can’t follow your arguments sometimes.
-
Don Paolo,
Can you show me how/where +Bellarmine defines 'manifest' heresy? If you can, I will accept the definition as it applies to your assertion of 'ipso facto' loss of office. Until this definition is settled, we are all debating this word's meaning and to go any further is pointless.
-
So the challenge to S & S: cite one canonist or theologian after Vatican I who discusses this specific issue of a heretic pope (as the attached canonists do) who says that a declaration would be necessary to remove a manifest public heretic who is pope (if it were to happen). Says it straight out without any nonsense, like the attached canonists say a declaration is not necessary.
All I've see from S & S is leaps and arguments from sources not discussing the specific issue of a heretic pope and whether a declaration is necessary for loss of office in this specific case.
Here's two. I posted the first one previously. It is from the former rector of the Gregorian, who not only taught canon law for most of his adult life, but is one of the relatively few that has studied the past 1000 years of canonical tradition on the subject.
Father Ghirlanda, S.J., (2013): “The vacancy of the Roman See occurs in case of the cessation of the office on the part of the Roman Pontiff, which happens for four reasons: 1) Death, 2) Sure and perpetual insanity or complete mental infirmity; 3) Notorious apostasy, heresy, schism; 4) Resignation. In the first case, the Apostolic See is vacant from the moment of death of the Roman Pontiff; in the second and in the third from the moment of the declaration on the part of the cardinals; in the fourth from the moment of the renunciation." (…) There is the case, admitted by doctrine, of notorious apostasy, heresy and schism, into which the Roman Pontiff could fall, but as a ‘private doctor,’ that does not demand the assent of the faithful (…) However, in such cases, because ‘the first see is judged by no one’ (Canon 1404) no one could depose the Roman Pontiff, but only a declaration of the fact would be had, which would have to be done by the Cardinals, at least of those present in Rome.” ("La Civiltà Cattolica" March, 2, 2013)
The Church judges and declares the fact, and at that "moment" the See becomes vacant.
The next is from Elements of Ecclesiastical Law (1881):
Elements of Ecclesiastical Law (1881): “Question: Is a Pope who falls into heresy deprived, ipso jure, of the Pontificate? “Answer: There are two opinions: one holds that he is by virtue of divine appointment, divested ipso facto, of the Pontificate; the other, that he is, jure divino, only removable. Both opinions agree that he must at least be declared guilty of heresy by the church, i.e., by an ecuмenical council or the College of Cardinals. The question is hypothetical rather than practical”. (Smith, Sebastian B. Elements of Ecclesiastical Law (revised third edition), New York: Benzinger Brothers, 1881)
The Preface of the Third Edition of 'Elements' explains that Cardinal Simeoni, Prefect of the Propaganda Fide, “appointed two Consultors, doctors in canon law, to examine the ‘Elements’ and report to him. The Consultors, after examining the book for several months, made each a lengthy report to the Cardinal-Prefect”. Their detailed reports noted five minor inaccuracies or errors that required revision before the third edition could be printed, but no objections were raised against the quotation above, which confirm that it is not contrary to anything taught by Vatican I.
-
PaxChristi2:
《If the sin of heresy is committed by an external act, it is by definition a crime. 》
False. The sin of heresy committed as an external act is not by definition a crime, but is in the nature of an external sin only. There is nothing intrinsic to the external sin of heresy that makes it a crime. It is a crime only in virtue of an extrinsic accidental circuмstance, namely, that penal legislation makes it an ecclesiastical delict. I have explained this point at length in my book. You have all the expert canonists unanimously against you on this point.
《 Please explain why you now believe what you wrote in 2016 is wrong. 》
You are perpetrating a deliberate fraud: There is no contradiction between what I say now and what I said before. You are perfectly aware of this but you deliberately twist out of context of my words to make them appear to mean something else than what I intended – the desperate tactic of a crooked and corrupt lawyer. If you read the text of what I wrote in their proper context, you will see that there is obviously no contradiction. The public sin of manifest formal heresy, by the very nature of the sin, severs one from the body of the Church. I quoted St. Thomas who explains this point. I have quoted Van Noort, Fenton and Canon Smith, who state explicitly that the SIN of heresy, by its nature, separates one from the body of the Church. Now you say, “Siscoe and Salza responded to your arguments and proved that the authors you referenced don't teach what you claim.” I posted the verbatim quotations on this thread. How can you possibly say they don’t teach what they explicitly assert? And finally, if the priests at that well known traditional monastery dedicated to the study of theology believe that Salza & Siscoe have really destroyed my arguments, then let them read my book and publish their response, rather than sending worthless little notes containing gratuitous assertions.
-
Yeah, that's my big problem with their spin on Bellarmine. I've seen no other theologian or canonist interpret Bellarmine the way they do.
Again, if someone wants to agree with John of St. Thomas or Cajetan or whoever else, that's up to them, but this need to twist Bellarmine seems dishonest.
Yes, the argument against Bellarmine used to be, "Well, Bellarmine is just one opinion, so other opinions can be correct too"....to..."Well, that opinion by Bellarmine? You're not understanding it correctly...he didn't really mean what you thought he meant....". :furtive:
-
Salza & Siscoe say Suárez was of the fifth opinion, not the fourth; and that Bellarmine was of the same opinion as Suárez.
You're only proving that you don't understand the opinions. Suarez attempted to refute the 4th Opinion of Cajetan, and he named him when doing so.
Suarez De Fide, dist x: sect vi. The Third Dubium. – The Response of Cajetan is Refuted. –
“From here the Third uncertainty arises, by what law could the Pope be judged by that congregation, since he would be superior to it? Cajetan is marvelously vexed in the matter, lest he would be compelled to admit the Church or a Council stands above the Pope in the case of heresy; he concludes they indeed stand above the Pope, but as a private person, not as Pope. This distinction does not satisfy, for in the same mode that he affirms the Church validly judges the Pope and punishes him, not as Pope but as a private person; likewise, because the Pope is superior in so far as he is Pope, it is nothing other than that person by reason of his dignity that is exempt from all jurisdiction of another man, and has jurisdiction over others, as is clear from each and every other dignity; and it is explained, for the pontifical dignity does not make one abstractly and metaphysically superior, but really in the individual superior and subject to none; therefore etc. Moreover, the Council gathered on this matter in the time of Pope Marcellus, when it declared “The First see is judged by no one,” it said that concerning the very person of Marcellus, who was certainly a private person; so also Pope Nicholas relates in his epistle to the Emperor Michael, where he mentions a similar decree published in the Roman Council under Sylvester I, and we could bring many more things to bear.
John of St. Thomas held the 4th Opinion, and defended it against the objections raised by Suarez and Bellarmine. Here's his reply to the objection Suarez raised above:
John of St. Thomas: "Suarez also, in the disputation that we have frequently cited, sect. 6, num. 7, attacks Cajetan for saying that, in the case of heresy, the Church is superior to the Pope, not insofar as he is Pope, but insofar as he is a private individual. Cajetan, however, did not say this; he only said that, even in the case of heresy, the Church is not absolutely superior to the Pope, but instead is superior to the bond between the papacy and the person, dissolving it in the same way that she forged it at his election; and this power of the Church is ministerial, for only Christ our Lord is superior to the Pope without qualification. Hence, Bellarmine and Suarez are of the opinion that, by the very fact that the Pope is a manifest heretic and declared to be incorrigible, he is deposed [ipso facto] by Christ our Lord without any intermediary, and not by any authority of the Church.
Not only does John of St. Thomas defend Cajetan's opinion against Bellarmine and Suarez, but he explicitly states that the two Jesuits held the same opinion - "Bellarmine and Saurez are of the opinion," etc.
The only difference between the opinion of Suarez and Bellarmine is that the latter said a Pope who publicly separated from the Church would fall from the pontificate without having to be convicted of heresy, and would only have to be declared deposed, whereas Suarez believed a declaratory sentence was necessary in all cases.
Fr. Kramer: According to Bellarmine's exposition on the fifth opinion, the fall is ipso facto, and takes place"per se"; which logically excludes any need for a dispository judgment by an external agent.
Logically excludes the need for a judgment? Not according to Bellarmine himself.
Bellarmine: “But it is certain, whatever one or another may think, that an occult heretic, if he be a bishop or even the supreme Pontiff, does not lose his jurisdiction, or dignity, or the title of head in the Church, until either he publicly separates himself from the Church or, being convicted of heresy, is separated against his will.”
Since Bellarmine teaches that an heretical Pope who does not publicly separate from the Church will retain the pontificate "until" he is "convicted of heresy," it proves that he does not believe the loss of the pontificate "logically excludes" the "judgement of an external agent." This quote proves that you have misunderstood his opinion.
-
S&S hold that the Pope retains full papal authority, except for a very limited set of things, arbitrarily chosen, like whether he can dissolve a General Council or excommunicate his adversaries.
I would like this spelled out. I've yet to see this explained on this thread in detail.
Father Chazal says that he is impounded completely and lacks the ability to exercise any authority whatsoever.
Partially true, partially false. +Chazal says that they still retain material jurisdiction, so they do have some authority.
.
Generalities cause most of the confusion on this issue. Precision matters.
-
PaxChristi2 says: 《Siscoe and Salza responded to your arguments (http://www.trueorfalsepope.com/p/formal-reply-to-fr-framer-part-ii.html) and proved that the authors you referenced don't teach what you claim. 》
So, what did I claim? This:
《I have quoted verbatim Msgrs. Fenton and Van Noort, as well as Canon George Smith, who all explain that the "sin of heresy" separates one from membership in the body of the Church. 》
Now, here are the verbatim quotations:
The TEACHING of the CATHOLIC CHURCH - Canon George F. Smith, D.D., Ph.D. London, Second Edition, 1952 XX THE CHURCH ON EARTH — § VI : MEMBERSHIP [706]
«Pius XII has reaffirmed in the clearest language what are the conditions for membership of the Church. “Only those are to be accounted really members of the Church who have been regenerated in the waters of Baptism and profess the true faith, and have not cut themselves from the structure of the Body by their own unhappy act or been severed there from, for very grave crimes, by the legitimate authority.”» … [707] «Nevertheless the melancholy possibility must be envisaged of those who may have “cut themselves off from the structure of the Body by their own unhappy act or been severed there from, for very grave crimes, by the legitimate authority.” In other words, the Church, as being a perfectly constituted society, has the right for grave reasons of excluding from membership. She may pass sentence of, or lay down conditions which involve excommunication.» … [708] «Certain sins — viz., apostasy, heresy and schism [Can. 1325, § 2.] — of their nature cut off the guilty from the living Body of Christ. […] Heresy, objectively considered, is a doctrinal proposition which contradicts an article of faith; from the subjective point of view it may be defined as an error concerning the Catholic faith, freely and obstinately persisted in by a professing Christian.» […] «It can hardly be denied that those who take up any of these positions — [I.e. heresy, schism, or apostasy] … sever themselves by their own act from membership of the Church.»
Mons. Van Noort (quoted by Salza & Siscoe in their own book): “b. 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 that faith. Obviously, therefore, they lack one of three factors—baptism, profession of the same faith, union with the hierarchy—pointed out by Pius XII as requisite for membership in the Church. 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’.” (Dogmatic Theology, Volume II, Christ’s Church, p. 241-242.)
Salza & Siscoe quote Fenton (True or False Pope? p. 158):
« Fr. Fenton wrote: “In the encyclical, the Holy Father speaks of schism, heresy, and apostasy, as sins [admissum] which, of their own nature, separate a man from the Body of the Church. He thereby follows the traditional procedure adopted by St. Robert himself in his De Ecclesia Militante. The great Doctor of the Church devoted the fourth chapter of his book to a proof that [public] heretics and apostates are not members of the Church.” »
Now how can it be said that these authors did not teach what they explicitly assert, namely that the sin of heresy, by its own nature separates one from the body of the Church?
-
Don Paulo: Are we to believe that Fr. Kramer and all the canonists and theologians he quoted have misunderstood Bellarmine's arguments on the fourth and fifth opinions; and that only now, Salza & Siscoe finally got it right?
.
Ladislaus: Yeah, that's my big problem with their spin on Bellarmine. I've seen no other theologian or canonist interpret Bellarmine the way they do.
Can you both be more specific? What "spin" are you referring to? Honest question. This thread has so many quotes and angles that I'm lost here.
-
You are perpetrating a deliberate fraud: There is no contradiction between what I say now and what I said before. You are perfectly aware of this but you deliberately twist out of context of my words to make them appear to mean something else than what I intended – the desperate tactic of a crooked and corrupt lawyer. If you read the text of what I wrote in their proper context, you will see that there is obviously no contradiction.
Two points. First, I've read what you wrote in context and there is a direct contradiction between what you wrote then and now. If you believe there's not, please explain how.
Second, if there's no contradiction, why did you call what you wrote in 2016 "incredibly ignorant" and "patently absurd" when Siscoe and Salza responded to one of your e-mails by quoting it back to you without telling you that you wrote it?
The following is taken from the article I linked to previously:
Siscoe and Salza: “Now, since Fr. Kramer’s new argument is clearly contrary to what he wrote a mere 18 months ago, and because Fr. Kramer always denies contradicting himself when the contradiction is pointed out, we decided to respond to the e-mail in which he sent out the above argument, by quoting his own words without telling him the words were his own. How did he respond? Did he recognize his own writing style, as we suspected would happen, or perhaps see the truth in his former position when it was presented to him, as he himself formulated it? Nope. Instead, he responded by declaring his own previous teaching to be “incredibly ignorant” and “patently and absurdly false.” Here is his reply (the underlined words are his own):
Fr. Kramer: “You ignorant rants have descended to the level of lunacy: The external act of heresy is in its nature a sin, but is not in its nature a crime. … The specific nature of heresy (as I pointed out in my book) is identically defined in Moral Theology as a sin, and in Canon Law as a crime (i.e. “the pertinacious denial or doubt of a revealed truth which must be believed with divine and Catholic faith”). Thus, the nature of heresy is the same for the internal sin, the external sin, and the crime. … Your incredibly ignorant statement that, ‘The sin of heresy can be distinguished from the crime solely according to the circuмstances of whether or not the sin was committed internally’ is patently and absurdly false. … you only succeed in manifesting your utter incompetence and your profound ignorance of the subject matter.” (source (http://www.trueorfalsepope.com/p/formal-reply-to-fr-framer-part-ii.html))
-
Ladislaus,
Another question for you. +Fr Chazal says that +Francis is a 'manifest heretic'. According to +Bellarmine, manifest heretics automatically lose their office. Yet Fr Chazal says that +Francis does not automatically lose his office. This contradiction leads to questions:
.
1. Does not +Chazal's view "spin" +Bellarmine's quote?
1a. Or... does he ignore it and consider it wrong?
2. Or...is Fr Chazal using 'manifest' in a different sense than +Bellarmine?
3. Or...is +Bellarmine's definition of the word 'manifest' in agreement with Fr Chazal's definition, but disagree with the "commonly held" opinion of Sedevacantists (Fr Cekada) and most on this board?
4. Or...maybe another alternative?
.
I think this is a fair question. Maybe Fr Chazal can answer it. Does anyone converse with him?
-
Ladislaus,
Another question for you. +Fr Chazal says that +Francis is a 'manifest heretic'. According to +Bellarmine, manifest heretics automatically lose their office. Yet Fr Chazal says that +Francis does not automatically lose his office. This contradiction leads to questions:
.
1. Does not +Chazal's view "spin" +Bellarmine's quote?
1a. Or... does he ignore it and consider it wrong?
2. Or...is Fr Chazal using 'manifest' in a different sense than +Bellarmine?
3. Or...is +Bellarmine's definition of the word 'manifest' in agreement with Fr Chazal's definition, but disagree with the "commonly held" opinion of Sedevacantists (Fr Cekada) and most on this board?
4. Or...maybe another alternative?
.
I think this is a fair question. Maybe Fr Chazal can answer it. Does anyone converse with him?
Yes, I re-listened to the first video yesterday. Father Chazal explains Bellarmine in the usual way, the ipso facto loss of office way. He himself, however, opts for the John of St. Thomas & Cajetan positions (or some combination of the two). So, unlike Bellarmine, he himself does NOT believe that the manifest heretic loses office before the Church's declaration.
He laid out that there were, basically, two sides to this issue, and he takes the one side over the other.
-
PaxChristi2, YOU ARE A BOLD FACED LIAR. THERE IS NO CONTRADICTION IN MY WORDS:
SALZA & SISCOE FRAUDULENTLY ALTER MY MEANING AND FALSIFY MY WORDS On 21 January, I wrote to Siscoe: 《Your ignorant rants have descended to the level of lunacy: The external act of heresy is in its nature a sin, but is not in its nature a crime. The sinfulness of heresy pertains to the specific nature of the act, regardless of the circuмstance of whether the sin is committed with an internal or external act. Such a circuмstance does not alter the specific nature of the sin, which is the same for both the internal and the external sin. The specific nature of heresy (as I pointed out in my book) is identically defined in Moral Theology as a sin, and in Canon Law as a crime (i.e. the pertinacious denial or doubt of a revealed truth which must be believed with divine and Catholic faith)*. Thus, the nature of heresy is the same for the internal sin, the external sin, and the crime. The internal sin of heresy differs from the crime of heresy not in an essential difference in the [specific] nature of the act, but according to the circuмstance of it being an internal act, and according to its formal aspect considered as a violation of divine law. The external sin of heresy differs from the crime of heresy, neither according to its nature, nor according to any circuмstance of the act; but only according to the formal aspect of the act considered as a sin (i.e as a violation of divine law) as distinguished from its formal aspect considered as a crime (i.e. as a violation of ecclesiastical law). The intrinsic nature of the act, considered under both formal aspects remains the same. The thing that distinguishes the external sin of heresy from the crime of heresy is not the specific nature of the act (which is identical in both), but the circuмstance extrinsic to its nature, namely, the fact that the legislator enacted a law [or added a penalty] that made that external sin a crime. Your incredibly ignorant statement that, "The sin of heresy can be distinguished [in its specific nature] from the crime solely according to the circuмstances of whether or not the sin was committed internally" is patently and absurdly false, since the external sin of heresy is by definition identical to the external act defined in law as the crime of heresy; and both are therefore indistinguishable in their nature. The external sin of heresy is not in its nature a crime; and therefore, it was not a crime before penal legislation made it a crime; and it would not be a crime today if there were no law enacted against it, thereby making it a crime. The external sin of heresy is identical in nature to the crime of heresy, and therefore the crime of heresy can only be distinguished from the external sin of heresy not according to its nature, but according to its formal aspect of its being considered as a violation of ecclesiastical positive law. However, whether considered according to its formal aspect of being a criminal violation of Church law; or a sin against Divine law; the specific nature of the act of heresy, as defined in Canon Law and Moral Theology, is identical in both cases. The difference between the specific nature of a crime as such (as defined in Canon Law), and the specific nature of a sin as such (as defined in Moral Theology), is a difference of circuмstance and formal aspect of an act; but the intrinsic nature of the criminal act is identical to the intrinsic nature of the sinful act if the act is of the same species. The nature of sin, considered under the formal aspect of sin, is of a violation of divine law; whereas the nature of crime, considered under the formal aspect of crime, is of an external violation of ecclesiastical or human positive law; but the objective nature intrinsic to the act is the same for both the sin and the crime of the same species. The sinful act does not differ in nature from the criminal act, and therefore the sin and the crime of the same species are distinguishable solely according to the circuмstances of the act and the differing formal aspect under which they are considered, but not according to the [specific] nature of the act which is identical in both. You would understand all of this if you had a proper, formal education in Moral Theology and Canon Law, but you obviously lack a proper education in these academic disciplines; yet you ignorantly pontificate on Canon Law and Theology, presenting yourself as if you were one who is academically qualified to expound on matters pertaining to these disciplines, but you only succeed in manifesting your utter incompetence and your profound ignorance of the subject matter. * "Can. 751 — Dicitur hæresis, pertinax, post receptum baptismum, alicuius veritatis divina et catholica credendæ denegatio, aut de eadem pertinax dubitatio; apostasia, fidei christianæ ex toto repudiatio". "Hæresis est error intellectus, et pertinax contra Fidem, in eo qui Fidem suscepit. ... Unde patet, ad Hæresim, ut et Apostasiam, duo requiri, 1. Judicium erroneum, quod est ejus quasi materiale. 2. Pertinaciam; quæ est quasi formale. Porro pertinaciter errare non est hic acriter, et mordicus suum errorem tueri; sed est eum retinere, postquam contrarium est sufficienter propositum: sive quando scit contrarium teneri a reliqua universali Christi in terris Ecclesia, cui suum iudicium præferat” – St. Alphonsus M. De Liguori, Lib. II. Tract. I. De præcepto Fidei. Dubium III. Fr. Paul Kramer B.Ph., S.T.B., M. Div., S.T.L. (Cand.) 》 On 22 January I wrote: 《Salza & Siscoe also make the incredibly stupid assertion that, "The external act of heresy is, by its nature, a crime." This statement is absurd on its face, because if that were true, then the external act of heresy would be a crime even if there were no law (!) – but a crime is defined as an external violation of a LAW [i.e. an ecclesiastical law]. Siscoe errantly explains further that, "there’s a difference between the definition of the sin of heresy, and the definition the crime of heresy: there is a difference between the nature of the respective acts". Now that's about as insanely ignorant as one can get, since both the sin (in Moral Theology) and the crime (in Canon Law) are identically defined as "the pertinacious denial or doubt of a revealed truth which must be believed with divine and Catholic faith". I have already explained this point fully and quoted the authoritative sources in my latest reply to Siscoe. Salza & Siscoe have manifested their utter incompetence in Theology and Canon Law by nonsensically asserting that the external act of heresy is in its nature a crime (!). Every theologian and canonist on earth knows that the act of heresy, both internal and external, in its nature is a sin; and that only the law [i.e. an ecclesiastical law], (which is extrinsic to the nature of the act whether internal or external, and does not enter into the definition of the external act) makes the external sin a crime. The circuмstance of being an "external violation of a law" [i.e. of an ecclesiastical law] defines the nature of a crime; but it does not enter into the definition of the act of heresy, which is the same definition, specifying the same nature for both the internal and external SIN of heresy. The circuмstance of being an "external violation of a law" is merely an accidental circuмstance that does not pertain to the nature of the external act of heresy. That is why it is the sin of heresy, committed as a public act, which separates one from the body Church suapte natura and not the crime, since a crime separates one from the Church not by its nature, but "by legitimate authority" [i.e. excommunication], as Pius XII explains in Mystici Corporis. Similarly, the sin of public defection from the faith by formal heresy effects the ipso jure, i.e. automatic loss of any office whatsoever, without any official judgment; as is plainly set forth in the relevant canons, and clearly explained in the commentaries on Canon Law written by the Faculties of Canon Law of the PONTIFICIA UNIVERSIDAD ECLESIÁSTICA DE SALAMANCA and the UNIVERSIDAD DE NAVARRA , which I quoted in my manuscript. 》 Siscoe's reply desperately resorts to extremely dishonest verbal trickery, saying: «Fr. Kramer: The intrinsic nature of the act, considered under both formal aspects remains the same. The thing that distinguishes the external sin of heresy from the crime of heresy is not the specific nature of the act (which is identical in both), but the circuмstance extrinsic to its nature, namely, the fact that the legislator enacted a law that made that external sin a crime. Your incredibly ignorant statement that, "The sin of heresy can be distinguished from the crime solely according to the circuмstances of whether or not the sin was committed internally" is patently and absurdly false. Siscoe, But Father, I was quoting you verbatim. The "ignorant statement" that you condemned as "patently and absurdly false," is your own. You'll see the entire quotation in part II. Now, since you can't even get your own argument straight, condemning as "patently and absurdly false" today, what you yourself explicitly taught yesterday, it is clearly a waste of time to continue this discussion. » This is the same kind of malicious sophistry Siscoe resorted to when he dishonestly attempted to make it appear that I had contradicted myself on the question of Opinion No. 2, regarding the deposition of an occult heretic pope. I exposed Siscoe's fraud on that point in my manuscript, and I will presently expose his latest fraud here: The statement, "The sin of heresy can be distinguished [in its specific nature] from the crime [in its specific nature] solely according to the circuмstances of whether or not the sin was committed internally" is indeed "patently and absurdly false", if in its plainly stated context the the proposition is expressly intended to posit a distinction of specific nature between the nature of the sin and the nature of the criminal act; i.e. that there is a difference in specific nature of the act between the sin of heresy and the crime of heresy, [which in fact is not distinguished by specific nature, but is only distinguished by the sin of heresy belonging to the genus of internal acts, and the crime of heresy to the genus of external acts]. [That is exactly what Siscoe attempted to prove, namely, that the sin of heresy, and the external act of the crime of heresy, are of two different specific natures; i.e., sins of different species.] However, in the context that I made the statement, it did not refer to a distinction in specific nature, but to the distinction of the circuмstance which distinguishes their generic nature which [alone] distinguishes the sin from the crime, which are acts of the same specific nature of heresy. Now it is manifestly evident that the external act of heresy, whether occult or public, is a criminal act; and the only thing that distinguishes the materially criminal act from the merely sinful act is the circuмstance that the internal sin is not a crime – what disgtinguishes the external criminal act from the merely sinful internal act is not a difference in specific nature. Hence, it is thus plainly evident that Robert Siscoe's statement, "Now, since you can't even get your own argument straight, condemning as 'patently and absurdly false' today, what you yourself explicitly taught yesterday, it is clearly a waste of time to continue this discussion", is a skilfully crafted, deliberate lie; written for the purpose of defending his heresy which asserts that only the delict of heresy, but not the public sin as such, suapte natura separates one from the body of the Church; and similarly that only the notorious crime of heresy, but not the mere sin of public defection into heresy ipso jure results necessarily in the automatic loss of office (as is clearly explained in the passages I quoted in the commentaries of the Canon Law faculties of Navarra and Salamanca) – and they still heretically insist that even in the latter case, a juridical pronouncement is required for the actual loss of office to take place. So this is how Siscoe attempts to end the discussion, with lying sophistry expressed with the deliberate intention to deceive. Even after I explained this point on 22 January, Salza & Siscoe stated the same premeditated and very deliberate lie in Part II of their Formal Reply: «Fr. Kramer Explicitly Condemns His Very Own Words! Now, since Fr. Kramer’s new argument is clearly contrary to what he wrote a mere 18 months ago (sic), and because Fr. Kramer always denies contradicting himself when the contradiction is pointed out (sic), we decided to respond to the e-mail in which he sent out the above argument, by quoting his own words, without telling him the words were his own. How did he respond? Did he recognize his own writing style, as we suspected would happen, or perhaps see the truth in his former position when it was presented to him as he himself formulated it? Nope. Instead, he responded by declaring his own previous teaching to be “incredibly ignorant” and “patently and absurdly false. » As I pointed out, in the context in which Siscoe made the statement, the abusive taking of my words out of their proper context to assert an erroneous distinction of specific nature between the internal sin of heresy and the crime of heresy is indeed “incredibly ignorant” and “patently and absurdly false.” It was his proposition (which I condemned), which made use of my words to assert something I have never asserted; to wit, a proposition which erroneously and most ignorantly posits a difference between the specific nature of the sin of heresy and the specific nature of the crime of heresy, thereby nonsensically making internal heresy and external heresy two different species of sin. It was not my own previous teaching, which asserted the same specific nature and only an accidental distinction of qualitative circuмstance pertaining to the generic nature, and not of specific nature, that I condemned. Siscoe’s proposition and mine use the same words to express something entirely different, since each proposition addresses a different formal aspect of the same matter. Thus it can be clearly seen that Siscoe’s statements, 1) “Fr. Kramer Explicitly Condemns His Very Own Words!”; and, 2) “Fr. Kramer’s new argument is clearly contrary to what he wrote a mere 18 months ago”, are deliberately crafted lies. The entire argument that Salza & Siscoe present in their Formal Reply, which attempts to prove that I have changed my position, is based on fraudulently altered quotations of my words by which they deceitfully attempt to make me appear to deny what I actually affirm. Here is a typical example of their fraudulent alteration of my words: «Fr. Kramer: “Salza's error …[is this]: ‘Separation from the Soul of the Church is intrinsic to the nature of the internal act of heresy, and separation from the Body of the Church is intrinsic to the nature of the external act of [notorious] heresy, even if external heresy were not a crime in canon law.’» They deleted my words which specify Salza’s error, “[the internal sin and the external sin are not of the same nature]”; and changed my meaning by adding in their place the words, “[is this]”, (“Salza's error …[is this] . . .”) From this falsified quotation, one would easily be led to the conclusion that I reject the quoted proposition as as an error; which in fact, I have consistently upheld as true, and amply demonstrated it to be true in this work. What I actually condemned and clearly explained to be Salza’s error is the doctrine that, according to the proper interpretation of Mystici Corporis, the internal sin and the external sin are not of the same specific nature; and accordingly: «Salza's error (the internal sin and the external sin are not of the same nature): "Separation from the Soul of the Church is intrinsic to the [specific] nature of the internal act of heresy, and separation from the Body of the Church is intrinsic to the [specific] nature of the external act of heresy, even if external heresy were not a crime in canon law." »
-
(https://www.cathinfo.com/crisis-in-the-church/tony-la-rosa-benedict-xvi-is-the-true-pope!/msg675270/#msg675270)
Quote from: DecemRationis on Yesterday at 10:46:35 AM (https://www.cathinfo.com/crisis-in-the-church/tony-la-rosa-benedict-xvi-is-the-true-pope!/msg675270/#msg675270)
So the challenge to S & S: cite one canonist or theologian after Vatican I who discusses this specific issue of a heretic pope (as the attached canonists do) who says that a declaration would be necessary to remove a manifest public heretic who is pope (if it were to happen). Says it straight out without any nonsense, like the attached canonists say a declaration is not necessary.
All I've see from S & S is leaps and arguments from sources not discussing the specific issue of a heretic pope and whether a declaration is necessary for loss of office in this specific case.
Here's two. I posted the first one previously. It is from the former rector of the Gregorian, who not only taught canon law for most of his adult life, but is one of the relatively few that has studied the past 1000 years of canonical tradition on the subject.
Quote
Father Ghirlanda, S.J., (2013): “The vacancy of the Roman See occurs in case of the cessation of the office on the part of the Roman Pontiff, which happens for four reasons: 1) Death, 2) Sure and perpetual insanity or complete mental infirmity; 3) Notorious apostasy, heresy, schism; 4) Resignation. In the first case, the Apostolic See is vacant from the moment of death of the Roman Pontiff; in the second and in the third from the moment of the declaration on the part of the cardinals; in the fourth from the moment of the renunciation." (…) There is the case, admitted by doctrine, of notorious apostasy, heresy and schism, into which the Roman Pontiff could fall, but as a ‘private doctor,’ that does not demand the assent of the faithful (…) However, in such cases, because ‘the first see is judged by no one’ (Canon 1404) no one could depose the Roman Pontiff, but only a declaration of the fact would be had, which would have to be done by the Cardinals, at least of those present in Rome.” ("La Civiltà Cattolica" March, 2, 2013)
The Church judges and declares the fact, and at that "moment" the See becomes vacant.
The next is from Elements of Ecclesiastical Law (1881):
Quote
Elements of Ecclesiastical Law (1881): “Question: Is a Pope who falls into heresy deprived, ipso jure, of the Pontificate? “Answer: There are two opinions: one holds that he is by virtue of divine appointment, divested ipso facto, of the Pontificate; the other, that he is, jure divino, only removable. Both opinions agree that he must at least be declared guilty of heresy by the church, i.e., by an ecuмenical council or the College of Cardinals. The question is hypothetical rather than practical”. (Smith, Sebastian B. Elements of Ecclesiastical Law (revised third edition), New York: Benzinger Brothers, 1881)
The Preface of the Third Edition of 'Elements' explains that Cardinal Simeoni, Prefect of the Propaganda Fide, “appointed two Consultors, doctors in canon law, to examine the ‘Elements’ and report to him. The Consultors, after examining the book for several months, made each a lengthy report to the Cardinal-Prefect”. Their detailed reports noted five minor inaccuracies or errors that required revision before the third edition could be printed, but no objections were raised against the quotation above, which confirm that it is not contrary to anything taught by Vatican I.
Pax Christi,
Thank you for your response.
So you have studied this in depth for years and written a 700 page or so book and you respond to my question by citing a statement from a Novus Ordo Jesuit in a Jesuit periodical whose editor-in-chief is Fr. Spadaro, "the pope's mouthpiece." The other scholarly support for your position is a textbook that takes your odd position that "both opinions" in this dispute require a declarative sentence by "an ecuмenical council or the College of Cardinals" for a heretic pope to be deprived "de juro" of the pontificate. And you note that the latter has been edited also, though this time of course not by Spadaro.
Well, at least you are not "alone."
But does this paucity of authority for your view give you pause? I'd love to know what's going through your mind if in fact it does give you pause.
It should, at a minimum, cause you to pause calling those Catholics who reject Francis as pope "heretics" and/or "schismatics" for taking sides on the mountain of authority overlooking your valley. At the very bare, very bare minimum I should think.
I hope for your sake you can come up with some other authority that states a declaration is necessary in light of your bold claims regarding fellow Catholics who affirm the Creed and refuse to recognize the authority of a heretic - taking to heart the command of St. Paul and the Holy Ghost in Galatians 1:8-9.
DR
-
Pax, why would Bellarmine define the word manifest?
+Bellarmine was a professor of theology. You obviously don't understand what theologians do or how they are trained.
-
PaxChristi2, YOU ARE A BOLD FACED LIAR. THERE IS NO CONTRADICTION IN MY WORDS:
SALZA & SISCOE FRAUDULENTLY ALTER MY MEANING AND FALSIFY MY WORDS On 21 January, I wrote to Siscoe: 《Your ignorant rants have descended to the level of lunacy: The external act of heresy is in its nature a sin, but is not in its nature a crime.
I can only hope that the incoherent rant of half truths, errors, and absurdities that you just posted, is in print in your book, since that alone should be enough to discredit you in the eyes of any knowledgeable Catholic.
This is very simple to understand. The sin of heresy can be committed by an internal act alone, or it can be committed by an external act. If it is committed by an external act it is, by definition, a crime.
What you are doing is affirming one truth, and using it to deny another. What's true is that if heresy is committed by an internal act alone, or by an internal act combined with an external act, it is of its nature a sin. That's the part you have right.
What you deny is that if the sin of heresy is committed by an external act it is ALSO in the nature of a crime. What distinguishes the nature of a sin from the nature of a crime, is that the latter requires an external act whereas the former does not. Here's how the quote you yourself provided in the e-mail exchange (only in Latin, of course, in the hope that no one could understand it) defines the nature of a crime.
“CIC 1917, Book V Part I defines "the nature of a crime Can. 2195. §1: A crime is an external and morally imputable transgression of a law to which is attached a canonical sanction (Nomine delicti, iure ecclesiastico, intelligitur externa et moraliter imputabilis legis violatio cui addita sit sanctio canonica saltem indeterminata."
If the sin of heresy is committed by an external act it is in the nature of a crime, period. Yet you say: " The external act of heresy is in its nature a sin, but is not in its nature a crime." Again, you affirm one truth and and use it to deny another - just like your predecessor Martin Luther.
-
I do not see any contradiction in Fr. Kramer's statement here:
"The external act of heresy is, by its nature, a crime." This statement is absurd on its face, because if that were true, then the external act of heresy would be a crime even if there were no law (!) – but a crime is defined as an external violation of a LAW [i.e. an ecclesiastical law]
And this one here:
“CIC 1917, Book V Part I defines "the nature of a crime Can. 2195. §1: A crime is an external and morally imputable transgression of a law to which is attached a canonical sanction (Nomine delicti, iure ecclesiastico, intelligitur externa et moraliter imputabilis legis violatio cui addita sit sanctio canonica saltem indeterminata."
Because both have qualifiers which are 1.) an external and 2.) morally imputable transgression of a law 3.) to which is attached a canonical sanction. (Which Fr. Kramer sums up as "an external violation of a LAW [i.e. an ecclesiastical law]"
Plus it seems Fr. Kramer is talking about the "nature of heresy" whereas PaxChriti2 in the CIC 1917 Book V Part I which he quotes is regarding the "nature of a crime".
I would suggest both sides to first list definitions of terms and then once the meaning of terms and definitions are agreed upon, then begin the deabte on specific issues. But if each side has different meanings, then nothing will be resolved.
-
The fallacious Salza/Siscoe argument that external heresy is in its nature an ecclesiastical crime, is that since, according to Canon Law the external act of heresy conforms to the specifications required for an act to qualify as a crime, external heresy is therefore, in its nature a crime. The nonsensical fallacy of their thinking is exposed in the consideration that what pertains to the definition of a crime, does not intrinsically pertain to the nature of exernal heresy (whether considered formally in its specific nature as heresy or materially in its generic nature as an external act); and therefore, the external act of heresy is not in its nature a crime. Heresy in its nature is directly and per se opposed to faith, but it is not in its nature intrinsically opposed to ecclesiastical law, since the penal sanction added to it in ecclesiastical law is an accidental circuмstance extrinsic to its nature. Salza & Siscoe fallaciously argue that since external heresy falls within the parameters of the definition of a crime in canon law (i.e. an external violation of a law or precept, etc.), external heresy is consequently by definition a crime, and therefore it is in its intrinsic nature a crime. The false conclusion is based on an elementary error of logic: External heresy is indeed a crime because it falls within the parameters of the canonical definition of a delict; but that only accidently qualifies external heresy as a crime, because the specifications of the nature of a crime which fall within the canonical definition of a crime do not fall within the canonical or theological definition of heresy. Being a crime is an accidental quality of external heresy due to the circuмstance that external heresy is a delict according to ecclesiastical law; but that quality does not pertain per se to the essential nature of external heresy, because its being an external violation of a penal law does not pertain to the definition of external heresy as it is defined in canon law and moral theology. Furthermore, to be a crime, the external act must be morally imputable; and hence, the merely material and therefore inculpable external act of heresy is not a crime; and therefore, it follows necessarily that the act of external heresy is manifestly not in its nature a crime. Additionally (as is explained below), to be a crime, it does not suffice that it violate a precept of divine law, but it must also violate an ecclesiastical law or precept; and therefore, without a law or precept of ecclesiastical law, or at least a divine law to which is added a penal censure, the external act is not a delict, nor is it punishable in the external forum by the Church. Thus, it is patent, that the external act of heresy per se, is not in its nature a crime.
be an “externa et moraliter imputabilis legis violatio cui addita sit sanctio canonica saltem indeterminata”. A morally imputable violation of divine law, whether internal or external, is by definition, and therefore in its very nature a sin , but not a crime. It is thus, patently clear that by leaving out the important material in the cited section of Fr. Augustine’s work, Salza & Siscoe deliberately intend to deceive their readers into thinking that Fr. Augustine says exactly the opposite of what he actually says. When one reads the text of Fr. Augustine’s commentary on canon 2195 in its proper context, the fraudulent verbal sleight off hand becomes obvious: On page 10 – 11: «A crime, in ecclesiastical law, is an external and morally imputable transgression of a law to which is attached a canonical sanction, at least in general. Delictum is taken from the word delinquere (de and linquere, to forsake, to leave, to omit) and means an offense in the general sense. However, by common usage the term is restricted to a public offense or crime against the juridical order or law. Therefore it is called a transgression of the law, whether divine or human, i.e., merely ecclesiastical. It is the law, either eternal or positive, that governs order, the relation of man to God and of man to man, and any defection from that order constitutes a frustration of the designs of Providence. » «2. But the transgression which the ecclesiastical law considers is not merely the guilty mind (mens rea), but the act, – i.e., an outward manifestation of a vicious intention, or a breach of the law as externally apprehensible . . . It is essential to the notion of delictum that it be an external act, either of speech or deed, although it is not necessary to be provable. » After the paragraph on externality, Fr. Augustine then elaborates on the legal element on page 12, 13 and 14: «4. But what does the addition “cui addita sit sanctio canonica saltem indeterminata” mean? The transgression is accompanied by penal sanction, at least in general terms. This means that there is neither crime nor punishment without a penal law.4 [“Nullum crimen, nulla poena sine lege poenali,” was the adage of the School; Eichmann, l. c., p. 27.] It is therefore, as stated above, the law which is infringed and which punishes. […] Take, for instance, the reading of forbidden books, which is not punished generally (can. 1395) but only in particular cases (can. 2318); hunting by clergymen (can.138), etc. Yet these forbidden actions cannot be called crimes in the sense of ecclesiastical law.” […] The sanctio canonica indeterminata signifies a penalty to be meted out according to the good pleasure of the judge or superior (can. 2217, § I, n. I). It follows that, although no special penalty is provided for the transgression of a law, yet if that law embodies the provision that the punishment of the transgressor is left to the prudent judgment of the Ordinary, this is sufficient to mark the transgression as a crime, provided that the other necessary marks are not wanting. » Thus, one of the great authorities on Canon Law explains those marks and elements necessary for a sin to be considered a cime in ecclesiastical law; and all of those marks and elements together do not pertain to the intrinsic nature of any external sin. The commentary of the Salamanca Canon Law Faculty explains on page 783, the definition of a crime in essentially the same sense as Fr. Augustine, but expounding on the necessary elements that constitute a delict in ecclesiastical law more concisely and with greater precision: «2195 Tres son los elementos constitutivos del delito por derecho ecelesiástico: a) violación externa de una ley; b) que la violación sea moralmente imputable, y c) que la ley lleve aneja una sanción canonica, por lo menos indeterminada. A estos tres elementos suelen los autores llamarles, respectivamente, elemento objetivo, elemento subjetivo y elemento legal. A dicha terminología nos atendremos, por ser la más común. » Those three elements necessary for a sin to be constituted as a crime in ecclesiastical law are 1) the external violation of a law (the objective element), 2) moral imputability of the violation (the subjective element), 3) a penal sanction connected to the law (legal element). The objective element is comprised of a) an external violation, b) of a law, c) that damages the juridico-social order of the Church . The canon uses the word ‘law’ in the broad sense of an obligatory norm of objective law, which includes in its scope a law properly so-called, or a simple jurisdictional precept or admonition. The law must be ecclesiastical, it does not suffice for a crime that a law merely natural or divine be transgressed, however grave it might be. In order for a natural or divine law to be of ecclesiastical character, it would suffice that the Church sanction it with a canonical penalty. Also pertaining essentially to the nature of a crime, is the legal element, as Fr. Augustine explained (in the portion of the text that Salza & Siscoe left out when quoting it), and summed up with the words, “This means that there is neither crime nor punishment without a penal law.” The catedráticos of the Canon Law faculty of Salamanca elaborate even more fully on this point, and what is most essential is that, «[P]or derecho eclesiástico, lo mismo que ocurre en la legislación de los Estados, la violación no constituye delito, aunque pueda ser pecado externo, si no hay una norma legal objetiva – en sentido lato, según hemos expuesto – que amenace previamente con una pena. De no ser asi, se daría lugar a inumerables arbitrariedades, lo que cedería en ultimo lugar en detrimento mayor y trastorno del orden social. » In this passage, the Salamanca canonists explain why it is that the legal element necessarily pertains essentially to the nature of a crime – and that is because it is necessary for a penalty to be connected to the violation of a law, for the violation to constitute a crime; because it is essential to the preservation of the social order which necessarily requires it. Hence, the mere omission of any mention of the legal element in the characterization of a crime in the 1983 Code (which falls short of a proper definition), cannot imply that the absence of inclusion of the legal element in the canons of the 1983 Code alters the essential definition of a crime; firstly because the legal element pertains intrinsically to the nature of a crime, which lies outside of the power of a legislator to eliminate; and secondly [as the Canon Law faculty of Navarre explain in the passage cited below] because one of the general principles applied in the 1983 revision of the Code of Canon Law was the elimination of all the definitions that were given in the 1917 Code, since they pertain to canonical doctrine rather than legislation; and thus remain applicable for the interpretation of the canons of the 1983 Code. Salza & Siscoe fail to make the most elementary distinctions when they say in Part II of their Formal Reply:
The only distinction that can be made when considering the nature of heresy is between: (1) the sin of heresy that is completely concealed in the heart and has never been externalized at all, and (2) the crime of heresy that has been externalized, even if no one was around to hear it (i.e., external, occult heresy). Cajetan explains that the reason the two are distinct, according to their nature, is because the sin of heresy that remains entirely hidden in the heart can only be judged by God, according to 1 Kings 16:7 - “man seeth the things that appear, but God beholdeth the heart,” whereas the crime of heresy that has been externalized (the external act renders it a crime by its nature) is subject to the judgment of men - even if, due to the circuмstances (e.g., no one around to hear it) it cannot be judged. In other words, the former is not divulged at all (hidden by its nature); the latter is divulged (external by its nature), even if no one heard it. The former is judgeable only by God; the latter can be judged by men. Heresy that has not been externalized at all is a sin, but not a crime; heresy that has been externalized (even if no one was around to hear it), is both a sin and a crime. Hence, the crime of heresy is more restrictive in its meaning than is the sin of heresy; and the external act is what makes it a crime, by its nature. The first distinction they fail to make is between the internal sin and the external sin; and the second is the distinction between the external sin and the crime. The second I have already sufficiently explained above; so it will suffice here to point out firstly, that an act that in its nature is only a crime against divine law, but does not in any manner violate an ecclesiastical law, does not fall under the jurisdiction of the Church in the external forum as a crime; and therefore, is not subject to the public penal judgment of the Church. Secondly, although every crime is an external sin, every exernal sin is not a crime in the sense of an ecclesiastical delict that is subject to the public penal judgment of the Church. Thirdly, the Salza/Siscoe self-contradictory notion of an “externalized internal sin”, is a failed oxymoron, based on the non sequitur that since the formal component of sin is internal; therefore sin is internal, even if it is committed with an external act. This grave error against Catholic moral doctrine fails to recognize that sin is in its essential nature a composite act consisting of two constituent components: matter and form. The form alone is not the sin, but the composite of the form and the matter together constitute the essence of a sin, which specifies its nature. All sins are actions – thoughts, words or deeds; actions which are either internal or external. The matter of the sin is the action itself which transgresses the law of God, as St. Alphonsus (quoted below) explains; and if that action is external, then the sin is an external sin. The classic definition of sin is that of St. Augustine (Contra Faustum XXII 27): «Dictum, factum vel concupitum contra legem æternam». The form, consists in the intention of the will to knowingly commit an act of transgression against the divine law, and is the principle from which the sinful action is brought into being. Internal sin is an action which terminates within the mind in such a manner that there does not proceed from the act of the will an action which is perceptible to the senses. External sin is a transgression of the law of God which begins in the will, as do all sins, and terminates in the external commission of words or deeds that are perceptible to the senses. The form of a sin is only a constitutive component of the sin, but not the sin itself; because the sinful action itself is the matter of the transgression which specifies the nature of the sin. Form without matter is a mere abstraction – a principle without any specific determination of any transgression of divine law; and therefore, there is no sin without both matter and form. Hence, if the action is internal, the sin is internal; but if the action is external, then the sin is an external sin. On the basis of their bizarre doctrine that the sin of heresy is internal, and is of a different specific nature than the external sin, i.e. the crime of heresy; and that only the crime of heresy, but not the act of public heresy considered formally as a sin, separates one from the body of the Church; Salza & Siscoe, heretically interpret the words of Mystici Corporis to mean that only the canonical ecclesiastical crime of notorious heresy (i.e. according to their own uncanonical definition of “notorious heresy”) separates one from membership in the Church by its own nature by severing the juridical bond of membership in the Church, without a public judgment of the Church. From this point of departure, they eventually arrive at the conclusion that for anything less than canonically notorious heresy (according to their own definition of the term), the juridical bond that unites one to the Church is not actually severed until a judgment of the crime is pronounced. In their Formal Reply, they begin by quoting their own book: True or False Pope?, explaining that it is, «the public offense (the crime) of heresy, which, of its nature, severs a person from the Body of the Church with no further censure attached to the offense. (…) Jerome is referring to the nature of the crime [of heresy], which severs one from the body of the Church with no additional censure attached to it. In this sense, the crime of heresy differs in its nature from other crimes, such as physically striking the Pope or procuring an abortion, which are crimes that only sever a person from the Church by virtue of the additional censure attached to the act. » They continue by arguing that only the crime of notorious heresy separates one from the body of the Church: «The Crime of Notorious Heresy: What separates a Catholic from external union with the Body of the Church is not the nature of the sin of heresy (again, as Kramer argues above), but rather the nature of the external act (crime[4]) [[4]The external act of heresy is, by its nature, a crime.] of notorious heresy. » «This is confirmed by Cardinal Billot, who said “only notorious heretics are excluded from the body of the Church.” (De Ecclesia, Thesis II). The reason notorious heresy, of its nature, separates a Catholic from the Body of the Church is because it severs the juridical bond[5] [[5] See Mystici Corporis Christi, No. 70.] The legal separation from the Church has nothing to do with the nature of the sin of heresy, and everything to do with the nature of the public act (crime) of notorious heresy. This is confirmed from the fact that Bellarmine, Cajetan and John of St. Thomas unanimously teach that a notoriously heretical Pope can be deposed, or declared deposed, even if, per accidens, he is not subjectively guilty of the sin. » In the quoted paragraph, Salza & Siscoe have just provided the premises for their own refutation. Firstly, as mentioned above, material heresy, if not qualified by schism, which places one outside the Church, does not separate one from the Church, nor does it effect the loss of office ex natura hæresis, because merely material heresy does not formally oppose the faith of the Church, and therefore does not sever the juridical bond. Salza & Siscoe say, “Bellarmine, Cajetan and John of St. Thomas unanimously teach that a notoriously heretical Pope can be deposed, or declared deposed, even if, per accidens, he is not subjectively guilty of the sin”; but they do not provide any direct quotation or reference to back up this claim; so, from the information provided, it is not possible to determine exactly what these authors really wrote nor determine what was their meaning. In Part III of this work I quote Bellarmine in lib. iv cap. ii of De Romano Pontifice, where he says that all authors, Catholic and non-Catholic are in agreement that a pope can be materially in heresy due to ignorance. So, no matter how notoriously known the materially heretical opinion of a pope may be; he is not properly a heretic, and therefore not a “notorious heretic” as the Church understands that term, unless he visibly separates himself from the Church; thus qualifying his material heresy by a visible act of schism. Secondly, according to the definition of ‘crime’ in canon 2195 § 1, and what is prescribed concerning imputability and dolus of crime in cann. 2199 and 2200; heresy cannot be considered a crime notorious by fact, nor is it even a crime at all if there is no moral imputability, which only exists when there is subjective guilt: If one is not subjectively guilty of the sin, then there is no crime; because, there is lacking in the act the grave moral imputability, which depends directly on the dolus, (i.e. «deliberata voluntas violandi legem») or culpability that are intrinsic to the nature of a crime, as defined in the canons; and without which the material act would not fulfil the conditions necessary for the act to be qualified as, and actually be constituted as a crime. Nevertheless, one who formally defects from the Catholic faith or communion with the Church, expressly rejecting the authority of the Church inculpably, separates himself from visible union with the Church and severs the juridical bond without committing the crime of heresy, schism, or apostasy; since there is no crime without grave moral imputability. Furthermore, mere material heresy on one or several points of doctrine, no matter how publicly or notoriously known, does not separate a Catholic from the Church, nor effect the loss of office; because an officeholder who is only materially in heresy has not defected from the faith by rejecting its formal cause, nor has he intended to leave the Church; nevertheless, given that the external violation of the law has occurred, the dolus of crime, which is defined as the deliberate intention to violate the law (Can. 2200. §1), is presumed in the 1917 Code until the contrary is proven (2200. §2): « Posita externa legis violatione, dolus in foro externo præsumitur, donec contrarium probetur. » In the 1983 Code it is presumed unless it appears otherwise. ( nisi aliud appareat — Can. 1321 § 1) Yet, heresy schismatically qualified as a public act of formal defection from the Church (as opposed to simple heresy), committed by one who happens to not be subjectively guilty of sin but who wilfully departs from the Church, although not having committed an actual crime, is nevertheless visibly and juridically separated from the body of the Church, by the very nature of the defection; and therefore loses office ipso jure (can. 194; 188. 4° in the 1917 Code), apart from any consideration of penal legislation, or the lack of dolus or culpa which would need to be present to make the act a grave and morally imputable crime. Thus, it can be seen that Salza & Siscoe contradict themselves again when they assert, «heresy includes everything from the internal sin alone, to the public crime of notorious heresy - and only the latter [i.e. the crime] automatically severs a person from external union with the Church “without a declaration.” » So, the premise, “the fact that Bellarmine, Cajetan and John of St. Thomas unanimously teach that a notoriously heretical Pope can be deposed, or declared deposed, even if, per accidens, he is not subjectively guilty of the sin,” does not prove or confirm that “the legal separation from the Church has nothing to do with the nature of the sin of heresy, and everything to do with the nature of the public act (crime) of notorious heresy;” – but what it does prove, is that the juridical bond that unites one to the Church as an actual member is sundered ipso jure as a direct result of the fact of the severing of the visible external bond, which is accomplished per se by the act of public defection; regardless of whether or not that act be also a sin or a crime. The public sin of manifest formal heresy, by its very nature as a visible rejection of the formal cause of faith, and not because it is a crime in ecclesiastical law, but because it per se severs the visible external bond of faith that formerly united the heretic to the Church as a visible member, suapte natura dissolves the juridical bond, and separates the heretic from the body of the Church in such a manner that heretics (as Mystici Corporis teaches) “miserably separate themselves” from the body of the Church by that very sin; and not “by legitimate authority” for having committeed a crime. This is precisely what Pius XII taught in Mystici Corporis, and not that the “offense”, (considered only under its formal aspect as a crime in ecclesiastical law), separates one suapte natura from the body of the Church; as Salza & Siscoe heretically assert against the clear and perpetual teaching of the universal and ordinary magisterium of the Church.
The latter quoted statement of Salza & Siscoe is also plainly false, because not only an act of notorious heresy, but even public heresy separates one from the Church, and as a direct consequence, results in an ipso jure loss of office: In its Prot. N. 10279/2006 (Actus Formalis Defecionis ab Ecclesia Catholica) approved by the Supreme Pontiff, Benedict XVI, the Pontifical Council for Legislative Texts. on 13 March 2006, clarified the Church’s position on formal defection from the Church, explaining, «The concept therein presented is new to canonical legislation and is distinct from the other – rather “virtual” (that is, deduced from behaviors) – forms of “notoriously” or “publicly” abandoning the faith (cfr. can. 171, § 1, 4°; 194, § 1, 2°; 316, § 1; 694, § 1, 1°; 1071, § 1, 4° and § 2). In the latter circuмstances, those who have been baptized or received into the Catholic Church continue to be bound by merely ecclesiastical laws (cfr. can. 11). » The docuмent distinguishes between « forms of “notoriously” or “publicly” abandoning the faith», both of which constitute a defection from the Church, and effect the ipso jure loss of office. This proves that it is not only canonically notorious heretics who are outside the Church, as Salza & Siscoe claim, (quoting Billot, who uses the word according to its common meaning, synonymous with “public”: “only notorious heretics are excluded from the body of the Church.”); but also public heretics. Furthermore, whoever publicly defects from the Catholic faith, apart from any consideration of penal law, crime, or the imputability of the act, loses office ipso jure according to the prescription of Canon 194, § 1, 2°. The ipso jure loss of office takes place “by the action of the law itself”, and as Canon 188. 4° prescribed, “automatically” (ipso facto) and “without any declaration” (sine ulla declaratione), and from “whatsoever offices” (quælibet officia), because the loss of office ultimately does not result from any human law, but from the nature of heresy; as Bellarmine explains in the earlier cited passage: “Nam Patres illi cuм dicunt hæreticos amittere jurisdictionem, non allegant ulla jura humana, quæ etiam forte tunc nulla extabant de hac re: sed argumentantur ex natura hæresis.” Salza & Siscoe continue: «It should be further noted – and this is also a critical point - that notorious heresy does not sever a person from the Church because it is listed as a crime (delict) in canon law, or because of the censure of excommunication that the Church attaches to the crime . . . Rather, notorious heresy separates a person from the Church due to the nature of the public act itself, which severs a juridical bond (i.e., “profession of the faith”). Notorious heresy would sever a person from the Church even if it were not listed as a crime in canon law.” » First of all, if it were not listed as a crime in canon law, then heresy would not be an ecclesiastical delict, and would therefore not be judicable and punishable in the external forum by the Church. Furthermore, as I explained above, it is in the nature of notorious heresy, (as the word ‘notorious’ is commonly understood as interchangeable with ‘public’), as being intrinsically an act of public defection (i.e. as a fact), and not because it is a crime (i.e. a penal offense or delict), that it severs the juridical bond ipso jure apart from any penal laws. Since Salza & Siscoe profess that the external act of heresy is in its nature a crime; according to them, the crime of notorious heresy severs the juridical bond and thus separates heretic from the body of the Church without a declaration – but if the crime is not public and notorious, then, according to Salza & Siscoe, the juridical bond is not severed automatically, but only by a penal sentence pronounced by Church authority: «Now, in the case of a Catholic who is guilty of the sin of heresy and has even externalized his heresy, yet who is not deemed to be a notorious heretic by fact, he would still incur the censure of excommunication ipso facto (since the censure is even incurred by external occult heretics) but, in such a case, it would require a “pronounced judgment of the Church” (rendering him notorious by law), before he would be legally severed from the Body of the Church. The ipso facto excommunication he incurred (in the internal forum) would not, per se, have the juridical effect (in the external forum) of legally separating him from the visible society of the Church since, as Pope Benedict IV said, “a sentence declaratory of the offence is always necessary in the external forum, since in this tribunal no one is presumed to be excommunicated unless convicted of a crime that entails such a penalty.” » The Salza/Siscoe conclusion is a non sequitur, because in the cited passage, Benedict XIV does not state or imply that a declaratory sentence of a penal offense is necessary for the juridical bond with the Church to be severed; but only that no one is to be presumed to have incurred the penalty of excommunication without a declaratory sentence of the crime. For the public crime of heresy, the juridical bond is not severed by the penalty of excommunication, but is severed suapte natura by the act of public heresy. Thus it is that Salza and Siscoe have fallen into heresy for their clearly heretical opinion that holds that a manifest formal heretic who is guilty of the public sin of heresy, but is not guilty of the crime of heresy canonically notorious by fact (as they understand it), remains a member of the Church until he is juridically judged to be a heretic, unless 1) he has left the Church by an explicit act of formal defection, or 2) has explicitly rejected the magisterium as the rule of faith, 3) has expressly admitted that his opinion is heretical. Those guilty of heresy, as heretics are defined in Canon 1325 § 2, if the sin is public (Canon 2197. 1°), have publicly defected from the Catholic faith, and are therefore by the very nature of that act of defection, separated from the body of the Church, apart from the latæ sententiæ excommunication prescribed in the canon. Such a defection provokes the ipso jure removal from ecclesiastical office (Canon 194, § 1, 2°). The proposition, «The ipso facto excommunication he incurred (in the internal forum) would not, per se, have the juridical effect (in the external forum) of legally separating him from the visible society of the Church since, as Pope Benedict IV said, “a sentence declaratory of the offence is always necessary in the external forum, since in this tribunal no one is presumed to be excommunicated unless convicted of a crime that entails such a penalty,» is fallacious in so far as it presumes 1) on the basis of the previous sentence, that the “externalized” public sin of heresy, incurs an ipso facto excommunication “in the internal forum”, because “sin is internal” – and “the Church does not judge internals”. In fact, the public sin of heresy is an external sin, and because it publicly violates an ecclesiastical law, its excommunication pertains to the external forum. However, notwithstanding the fact of the crime of external heresy and the penalty incurred by it, 2) the public sin of heresy, as an act of public defection from the Catholic faith, by its very nature severs the juridical bond of union with the Church apart from any penal censure or any human law, as has been amply demonstrated above, and therefore, as Bellarmine explained in the above quoted passage, “heretics are outside the Church, even before excommunication, and deprived of all jurisdiction, for they are condemned by their own judgment, as the Apostle teaches to Titus; that is, they are cut from the body of the Church without excommunication, as Jerome expresses it.” For this reason, the public sin of manifest formal heresy of itself severs the juridical bond, and thus suapte natura produces the effect of separating the heretic from the visible society of the Church ipso jure, notwithstanding the merely penal requirement mentioned by Benedict XIV, (“a sentence declaratory of the offence is always necessary in the external forum, since in this tribunal no one is presumed to be excommunicated unless convicted of a crime that entails such a penalty”), which is merely necessary to confirm the penalty of excommunication, but not to effect the severing of the juridical bond – because heresy already directly and per se separates one from the Church without any excommunication, i.e. by its very nature; and not “by legitimate authority”, i.e. by excommunication, as Pius XII teaches in Mystici Corporis. It is this last consideration which exposes the absurdity of the Salza/Siscoe thesis which would reason against reason, arguing that since external heresy is in its nature a crime, therefore a public judgment of the Church would be necessary for the juridical bond to be severed, and for the heretic to lose office. However, even if we grant solely for the sake of argument that the external act of heresy is in its nature a crime; it remains that the very act of manifestly formal heresy suapte natura, as an act of severing the bonds of communion, directly and per se severs the heretic visibly from the body of the Church entirely by itself, and therefore directly and per se severs the juridical bond ipso jure and causes the loss of office; and therefore necessarily it does so without any judgment of Church authority. An action which actually accomplishes the severing of the bonds of communion directly and per se, is manifestly not merely dispositive in nature, disposing the heretic to be severed upon judgment by the Church, since the act itself by its own nature accomplishes that severing entirely by itself.
-
Mr. G says: 《I would suggest both sides to first list definitions of terms and then once the meaning of terms and definitions are agreed upon, then begin the deabte on specific issues. But if each side has different meanings, then nothing will be resolved.》 Hello Mr. G, You have made a suggestion of something which is not only important, but, as St. Thomas explains, is absolutely necessary to carry on with a discussion involving opposing sides of an argument. In my book, I have very carefully considered and employed the accepted and authoritative definitions. Salza & Siscoe have spun their own definitions; and for the most part conceal their ambiguous positions and meanings, in order to avoid being pinned down and have their errors and deviations from Catholic Doctrine exposed. It is really breath-taking to see how many times they contradict themselves, adopting opposing opinions on some aspect of a question; and then saying they have "qualified" their statement -- or they will say they have no definitive position on a point; but if you examine their writings carefully, you do indeed find their expressed position; which, more often than not, is contrary to Catholic teaching.
-
Mr. G says: 《I would suggest both sides to first list definitions of terms and then once the meaning of terms and definitions are agreed upon, then begin the deabte on specific issues. But if each side has different meanings, then nothing will be resolved.》 Hello Mr. G, You have made a suggestion of something which is not only important, but, as St. Thomas explains, is absolutely necessary to carry on with a discussion involving opposing sides of an argument. In my book, I have very carefully considered and employed the accepted and authoritative definitions. Salza & Siscoe have spun their own definitions; and for the most part conceal their ambiguous positions and meanings, in order to avoid being pinned down and have their errors and deviations from Catholic Doctrine exposed. It is really breath-taking to see how many times they contradict themselves, adopting opposing opinions on some aspect of a question; and then saying they have "qualified" their statement -- or they will say they have no definitive position on a point; but if you examine their writings carefully, you do indeed find their expressed position; which, more often than not, is contrary to Catholic teaching.
Yes, they make clever use of equivocal terms.
-
The fallacious Salza/Siscoe argument that external heresy is in its nature an ecclesiastical crime, is that since, according to Canon Law the external act of heresy conforms to the specifications required for an act to qualify as a crime, external heresy is therefore, in its nature a crime. The nonsensical fallacy of their thinking is exposed in the consideration that what pertains to the definition of a crime, does not intrinsically pertain to the nature of exernal heresy (whether considered formally in its specific nature as heresy or materially in its generic nature as an external act); and therefore, the external act of heresy is not in its nature a crime. Heresy in its nature is directly and per se opposed to faith, but it is not in its nature intrinsically opposed to ecclesiastical law, since the penal sanction added to it in ecclesiastical law is an accidental circuмstance extrinsic to its nature. Salza & Siscoe fallaciously argue that since external heresy falls within the parameters of the definition of a crime in canon law (i.e. an external violation of a law or precept, etc.), external heresy is consequently by definition a crime, and therefore it is in its intrinsic nature a crime. The false conclusion is based on an elementary error of logic: External heresy is indeed a crime because it falls within the parameters of the canonical definition of a delict; but that only accidently qualifies external heresy as a crime, because the specifications of the nature of a crime which fall within the canonical definition of a crime do not fall within the canonical or theological definition of heresy. Being a crime is an accidental quality of external heresy due to the circuмstance that external heresy is a delict according to ecclesiastical law; but that quality does not pertain per se to the essential nature of external heresy, because its being an external violation of a penal law does not pertain to the definition of external heresy as it is defined in canon law and moral theology. Furthermore, to be a crime, the external act must be morally imputable; and hence, the merely material and therefore inculpable external act of heresy is not a crime; and therefore, it follows necessarily that the act of external heresy is manifestly not in its nature a crime. Additionally (as is explained below), to be a crime, it does not suffice that it violate a precept of divine law, but it must also violate an ecclesiastical law or precept; and therefore, without a law or precept of ecclesiastical law, or at least a divine law to which is added a penal censure, the external act is not a delict, nor is it punishable in the external forum by the Church. Thus, it is patent, that the external act of heresy per se, is not in its nature a crime.
be an “externa et moraliter imputabilis legis violatio cui addita sit sanctio canonica saltem indeterminata”. A morally imputable violation of divine law, whether internal or external, is by definition, and therefore in its very nature a sin , but not a crime. It is thus, patently clear that by leaving out the important material in the cited section of Fr. Augustine’s work, Salza & Siscoe deliberately intend to deceive their readers into thinking that Fr. Augustine says exactly the opposite of what he actually says. When one reads the text of Fr. Augustine’s commentary on canon 2195 in its proper context, the fraudulent verbal sleight off hand becomes obvious: On page 10 – 11: «A crime, in ecclesiastical law, is an external and morally imputable transgression of a law to which is attached a canonical sanction, at least in general. Delictum is taken from the word delinquere (de and linquere, to forsake, to leave, to omit) and means an offense in the general sense. However, by common usage the term is restricted to a public offense or crime against the juridical order or law. Therefore it is called a transgression of the law, whether divine or human, i.e., merely ecclesiastical. It is the law, either eternal or positive, that governs order, the relation of man to God and of man to man, and any defection from that order constitutes a frustration of the designs of Providence. » «2. But the transgression which the ecclesiastical law considers is not merely the guilty mind (mens rea), but the act, – i.e., an outward manifestation of a vicious intention, or a breach of the law as externally apprehensible . . . It is essential to the notion of delictum that it be an external act, either of speech or deed, although it is not necessary to be provable. » After the paragraph on externality, Fr. Augustine then elaborates on the legal element on page 12, 13 and 14: «4. But what does the addition “cui addita sit sanctio canonica saltem indeterminata” mean? The transgression is accompanied by penal sanction, at least in general terms. This means that there is neither crime nor punishment without a penal law.4 [“Nullum crimen, nulla poena sine lege poenali,” was the adage of the School; Eichmann, l. c., p. 27.] It is therefore, as stated above, the law which is infringed and which punishes. […] Take, for instance, the reading of forbidden books, which is not punished generally (can. 1395) but only in particular cases (can. 2318); hunting by clergymen (can.138), etc. Yet these forbidden actions cannot be called crimes in the sense of ecclesiastical law.” […] The sanctio canonica indeterminata signifies a penalty to be meted out according to the good pleasure of the judge or superior (can. 2217, § I, n. I). It follows that, although no special penalty is provided for the transgression of a law, yet if that law embodies the provision that the punishment of the transgressor is left to the prudent judgment of the Ordinary, this is sufficient to mark the transgression as a crime, provided that the other necessary marks are not wanting. » Thus, one of the great authorities on Canon Law explains those marks and elements necessary for a sin to be considered a cime in ecclesiastical law; and all of those marks and elements together do not pertain to the intrinsic nature of any external sin. The commentary of the Salamanca Canon Law Faculty explains on page 783, the definition of a crime in essentially the same sense as Fr. Augustine, but expounding on the necessary elements that constitute a delict in ecclesiastical law more concisely and with greater precision: «2195 Tres son los elementos constitutivos del delito por derecho ecelesiástico: a) violación externa de una ley; b) que la violación sea moralmente imputable, y c) que la ley lleve aneja una sanción canonica, por lo menos indeterminada. A estos tres elementos suelen los autores llamarles, respectivamente, elemento objetivo, elemento subjetivo y elemento legal. A dicha terminología nos atendremos, por ser la más común. » Those three elements necessary for a sin to be constituted as a crime in ecclesiastical law are 1) the external violation of a law (the objective element), 2) moral imputability of the violation (the subjective element), 3) a penal sanction connected to the law (legal element). The objective element is comprised of a) an external violation, b) of a law, c) that damages the juridico-social order of the Church . The canon uses the word ‘law’ in the broad sense of an obligatory norm of objective law, which includes in its scope a law properly so-called, or a simple jurisdictional precept or admonition. The law must be ecclesiastical, it does not suffice for a crime that a law merely natural or divine be transgressed, however grave it might be. In order for a natural or divine law to be of ecclesiastical character, it would suffice that the Church sanction it with a canonical penalty. Also pertaining essentially to the nature of a crime, is the legal element, as Fr. Augustine explained (in the portion of the text that Salza & Siscoe left out when quoting it), and summed up with the words, “This means that there is neither crime nor punishment without a penal law.” The catedráticos of the Canon Law faculty of Salamanca elaborate even more fully on this point, and what is most essential is that, «[P]or derecho eclesiástico, lo mismo que ocurre en la legislación de los Estados, la violación no constituye delito, aunque pueda ser pecado externo, si no hay una norma legal objetiva – en sentido lato, según hemos expuesto – que amenace previamente con una pena. De no ser asi, se daría lugar a inumerables arbitrariedades, lo que cedería en ultimo lugar en detrimento mayor y trastorno del orden social. » In this passage, the Salamanca canonists explain why it is that the legal element necessarily pertains essentially to the nature of a crime – and that is because it is necessary for a penalty to be connected to the violation of a law, for the violation to constitute a crime; because it is essential to the preservation of the social order which necessarily requires it. Hence, the mere omission of any mention of the legal element in the characterization of a crime in the 1983 Code (which falls short of a proper definition), cannot imply that the absence of inclusion of the legal element in the canons of the 1983 Code alters the essential definition of a crime; firstly because the legal element pertains intrinsically to the nature of a crime, which lies outside of the power of a legislator to eliminate; and secondly [as the Canon Law faculty of Navarre explain in the passage cited below] because one of the general principles applied in the 1983 revision of the Code of Canon Law was the elimination of all the definitions that were given in the 1917 Code, since they pertain to canonical doctrine rather than legislation; and thus remain applicable for the interpretation of the canons of the 1983 Code. Salza & Siscoe fail to make the most elementary distinctions when they say in Part II of their Formal Reply:
The only distinction that can be made when considering the nature of heresy is between: (1) the sin of heresy that is completely concealed in the heart and has never been externalized at all, and (2) the crime of heresy that has been externalized, even if no one was around to hear it (i.e., external, occult heresy). Cajetan explains that the reason the two are distinct, according to their nature, is because the sin of heresy that remains entirely hidden in the heart can only be judged by God, according to 1 Kings 16:7 - “man seeth the things that appear, but God beholdeth the heart,” whereas the crime of heresy that has been externalized (the external act renders it a crime by its nature) is subject to the judgment of men - even if, due to the circuмstances (e.g., no one around to hear it) it cannot be judged. In other words, the former is not divulged at all (hidden by its nature); the latter is divulged (external by its nature), even if no one heard it. The former is judgeable only by God; the latter can be judged by men. Heresy that has not been externalized at all is a sin, but not a crime; heresy that has been externalized (even if no one was around to hear it), is both a sin and a crime. Hence, the crime of heresy is more restrictive in its meaning than is the sin of heresy; and the external act is what makes it a crime, by its nature. The first distinction they fail to make is between the internal sin and the external sin; and the second is the distinction between the external sin and the crime. The second I have already sufficiently explained above; so it will suffice here to point out firstly, that an act that in its nature is only a crime against divine law, but does not in any manner violate an ecclesiastical law, does not fall under the jurisdiction of the Church in the external forum as a crime; and therefore, is not subject to the public penal judgment of the Church. Secondly, although every crime is an external sin, every exernal sin is not a crime in the sense of an ecclesiastical delict that is subject to the public penal judgment of the Church. Thirdly, the Salza/Siscoe self-contradictory notion of an “externalized internal sin”, is a failed oxymoron, based on the non sequitur that since the formal component of sin is internal; therefore sin is internal, even if it is committed with an external act. This grave error against Catholic moral doctrine fails to recognize that sin is in its essential nature a composite act consisting of two constituent components: matter and form. The form alone is not the sin, but the composite of the form and the matter together constitute the essence of a sin, which specifies its nature. All sins are actions – thoughts, words or deeds; actions which are either internal or external. The matter of the sin is the action itself which transgresses the law of God, as St. Alphonsus (quoted below) explains; and if that action is external, then the sin is an external sin. The classic definition of sin is that of St. Augustine (Contra Faustum XXII 27): «Dictum, factum vel concupitum contra legem æternam». The form, consists in the intention of the will to knowingly commit an act of transgression against the divine law, and is the principle from which the sinful action is brought into being. Internal sin is an action which terminates within the mind in such a manner that there does not proceed from the act of the will an action which is perceptible to the senses. External sin is a transgression of the law of God which begins in the will, as do all sins, and terminates in the external commission of words or deeds that are perceptible to the senses. The form of a sin is only a constitutive component of the sin, but not the sin itself; because the sinful action itself is the matter of the transgression which specifies the nature of the sin. Form without matter is a mere abstraction – a principle without any specific determination of any transgression of divine law; and therefore, there is no sin without both matter and form. Hence, if the action is internal, the sin is internal; but if the action is external, then the sin is an external sin. On the basis of their bizarre doctrine that the sin of heresy is internal, and is of a different specific nature than the external sin, i.e. the crime of heresy; and that only the crime of heresy, but not the act of public heresy considered formally as a sin, separates one from the body of the Church; Salza & Siscoe, heretically interpret the words of Mystici Corporis to mean that only the canonical ecclesiastical crime of notorious heresy (i.e. according to their own uncanonical definition of “notorious heresy”) separates one from membership in the Church by its own nature by severing the juridical bond of membership in the Church, without a public judgment of the Church. From this point of departure, they eventually arrive at the conclusion that for anything less than canonically notorious heresy (according to their own definition of the term), the juridical bond that unites one to the Church is not actually severed until a judgment of the crime is pronounced. In their Formal Reply, they begin by quoting their own book: True or False Pope?, explaining that it is, «the public offense (the crime) of heresy, which, of its nature, severs a person from the Body of the Church with no further censure attached to the offense. (…) Jerome is referring to the nature of the crime [of heresy], which severs one from the body of the Church with no additional censure attached to it. In this sense, the crime of heresy differs in its nature from other crimes, such as physically striking the Pope or procuring an abortion, which are crimes that only sever a person from the Church by virtue of the additional censure attached to the act. » They continue by arguing that only the crime of notorious heresy separates one from the body of the Church: «The Crime of Notorious Heresy: What separates a Catholic from external union with the Body of the Church is not the nature of the sin of heresy (again, as Kramer argues above), but rather the nature of the external act (crime[4]) [[4]The external act of heresy is, by its nature, a crime.] of notorious heresy. » «This is confirmed by Cardinal Billot, who said “only notorious heretics are excluded from the body of the Church.” (De Ecclesia, Thesis II). The reason notorious heresy, of its nature, separates a Catholic from the Body of the Church is because it severs the juridical bond[5] [[5] See Mystici Corporis Christi, No. 70.] The legal separation from the Church has nothing to do with the nature of the sin of heresy, and everything to do with the nature of the public act (crime) of notorious heresy. This is confirmed from the fact that Bellarmine, Cajetan and John of St. Thomas unanimously teach that a notoriously heretical Pope can be deposed, or declared deposed, even if, per accidens, he is not subjectively guilty of the sin. » In the quoted paragraph, Salza & Siscoe have just provided the premises for their own refutation. Firstly, as mentioned above, material heresy, if not qualified by schism, which places one outside the Church, does not separate one from the Church, nor does it effect the loss of office ex natura hæresis, because merely material heresy does not formally oppose the faith of the Church, and therefore does not sever the juridical bond. Salza & Siscoe say, “Bellarmine, Cajetan and John of St. Thomas unanimously teach that a notoriously heretical Pope can be deposed, or declared deposed, even if, per accidens, he is not subjectively guilty of the sin”; but they do not provide any direct quotation or reference to back up this claim; so, from the information provided, it is not possible to determine exactly what these authors really wrote nor determine what was their meaning. In Part III of this work I quote Bellarmine in lib. iv cap. ii of De Romano Pontifice, where he says that all authors, Catholic and non-Catholic are in agreement that a pope can be materially in heresy due to ignorance. So, no matter how notoriously known the materially heretical opinion of a pope may be; he is not properly a heretic, and therefore not a “notorious heretic” as the Church understands that term, unless he visibly separates himself from the Church; thus qualifying his material heresy by a visible act of schism. Secondly, according to the definition of ‘crime’ in canon 2195 § 1, and what is prescribed concerning imputability and dolus of crime in cann. 2199 and 2200; heresy cannot be considered a crime notorious by fact, nor is it even a crime at all if there is no moral imputability, which only exists when there is subjective guilt: If one is not subjectively guilty of the sin, then there is no crime; because, there is lacking in the act the grave moral imputability, which depends directly on the dolus, (i.e. «deliberata voluntas violandi legem») or culpability that are intrinsic to the nature of a crime, as defined in the canons; and without which the material act would not fulfil the conditions necessary for the act to be qualified as, and actually be constituted as a crime. Nevertheless, one who formally defects from the Catholic faith or communion with the Church, expressly rejecting the authority of the Church inculpably, separates himself from visible union with the Church and severs the juridical bond without committing the crime of heresy, schism, or apostasy; since there is no crime without grave moral imputability. Furthermore, mere material heresy on one or several points of doctrine, no matter how publicly or notoriously known, does not separate a Catholic from the Church, nor effect the loss of office; because an officeholder who is only materially in heresy has not defected from the faith by rejecting its formal cause, nor has he intended to leave the Church; nevertheless, given that the external violation of the law has occurred, the dolus of crime, which is defined as the deliberate intention to violate the law (Can. 2200. §1), is presumed in the 1917 Code until the contrary is proven (2200. §2): « Posita externa legis violatione, dolus in foro externo præsumitur, donec contrarium probetur. » In the 1983 Code it is presumed unless it appears otherwise. ( nisi aliud appareat — Can. 1321 § 1) Yet, heresy schismatically qualified as a public act of formal defection from the Church (as opposed to simple heresy), committed by one who happens to not be subjectively guilty of sin but who wilfully departs from the Church, although not having committed an actual crime, is nevertheless visibly and juridically separated from the body of the Church, by the very nature of the defection; and therefore loses office ipso jure (can. 194; 188. 4° in the 1917 Code), apart from any consideration of penal legislation, or the lack of dolus or culpa which would need to be present to make the act a grave and morally imputable crime. Thus, it can be seen that Salza & Siscoe contradict themselves again when they assert, «heresy includes everything from the internal sin alone, to the public crime of notorious heresy - and only the latter [i.e. the crime] automatically severs a person from external union with the Church “without a declaration.” » So, the premise, “the fact that Bellarmine, Cajetan and John of St. Thomas unanimously teach that a notoriously heretical Pope can be deposed, or declared deposed, even if, per accidens, he is not subjectively guilty of the sin,” does not prove or confirm that “the legal separation from the Church has nothing to do with the nature of the sin of heresy, and everything to do with the nature of the public act (crime) of notorious heresy;” – but what it does prove, is that the juridical bond that unites one to the Church as an actual member is sundered ipso jure as a direct result of the fact of the severing of the visible external bond, which is accomplished per se by the act of public defection; regardless of whether or not that act be also a sin or a crime. The public sin of manifest formal heresy, by its very nature as a visible rejection of the formal cause of faith, and not because it is a crime in ecclesiastical law, but because it per se severs the visible external bond of faith that formerly united the heretic to the Church as a visible member, suapte natura dissolves the juridical bond, and separates the heretic from the body of the Church in such a manner that heretics (as Mystici Corporis teaches) “miserably separate themselves” from the body of the Church by that very sin; and not “by legitimate authority” for having committeed a crime. This is precisely what Pius XII taught in Mystici Corporis, and not that the “offense”, (considered only under its formal aspect as a crime in ecclesiastical law), separates one suapte natura from the body of the Church; as Salza & Siscoe heretically assert against the clear and perpetual teaching of the universal and ordinary magisterium of the Church.
The latter quoted statement of Salza & Siscoe is also plainly false, because not only an act of notorious heresy, but even public heresy separates one from the Church, and as a direct consequence, results in an ipso jure loss of office: In its Prot. N. 10279/2006 (Actus Formalis Defecionis ab Ecclesia Catholica) approved by the Supreme Pontiff, Benedict XVI, the Pontifical Council for Legislative Texts. on 13 March 2006, clarified the Church’s position on formal defection from the Church, explaining, «The concept therein presented is new to canonical legislation and is distinct from the other – rather “virtual” (that is, deduced from behaviors) – forms of “notoriously” or “publicly” abandoning the faith (cfr. can. 171, § 1, 4°; 194, § 1, 2°; 316, § 1; 694, § 1, 1°; 1071, § 1, 4° and § 2). In the latter circuмstances, those who have been baptized or received into the Catholic Church continue to be bound by merely ecclesiastical laws (cfr. can. 11). » The docuмent distinguishes between « forms of “notoriously” or “publicly” abandoning the faith», both of which constitute a defection from the Church, and effect the ipso jure loss of office. This proves that it is not only canonically notorious heretics who are outside the Church, as Salza & Siscoe claim, (quoting Billot, who uses the word according to its common meaning, synonymous with “public”: “only notorious heretics are excluded from the body of the Church.”); but also public heretics. Furthermore, whoever publicly defects from the Catholic faith, apart from any consideration of penal law, crime, or the imputability of the act, loses office ipso jure according to the prescription of Canon 194, § 1, 2°. The ipso jure loss of office takes place “by the action of the law itself”, and as Canon 188. 4° prescribed, “automatically” (ipso facto) and “without any declaration” (sine ulla declaratione), and from “whatsoever offices” (quælibet officia), because the loss of office ultimately does not result from any human law, but from the nature of heresy; as Bellarmine explains in the earlier cited passage: “Nam Patres illi cuм dicunt hæreticos amittere jurisdictionem, non allegant ulla jura humana, quæ etiam forte tunc nulla extabant de hac re: sed argumentantur ex natura hæresis.” Salza & Siscoe continue: «It should be further noted – and this is also a critical point - that notorious heresy does not sever a person from the Church because it is listed as a crime (delict) in canon law, or because of the censure of excommunication that the Church attaches to the crime . . . Rather, notorious heresy separates a person from the Church due to the nature of the public act itself, which severs a juridical bond (i.e., “profession of the faith”). Notorious heresy would sever a person from the Church even if it were not listed as a crime in canon law.” » First of all, if it were not listed as a crime in canon law, then heresy would not be an ecclesiastical delict, and would therefore not be judicable and punishable in the external forum by the Church. Furthermore, as I explained above, it is in the nature of notorious heresy, (as the word ‘notorious’ is commonly understood as interchangeable with ‘public’), as being intrinsically an act of public defection (i.e. as a fact), and not because it is a crime (i.e. a penal offense or delict), that it severs the juridical bond ipso jure apart from any penal laws. Since Salza & Siscoe profess that the external act of heresy is in its nature a crime; according to them, the crime of notorious heresy severs the juridical bond and thus separates heretic from the body of the Church without a declaration – but if the crime is not public and notorious, then, according to Salza & Siscoe, the juridical bond is not severed automatically, but only by a penal sentence pronounced by Church authority: «Now, in the case of a Catholic who is guilty of the sin of heresy and has even externalized his heresy, yet who is not deemed to be a notorious heretic by fact, he would still incur the censure of excommunication ipso facto (since the censure is even incurred by external occult heretics) but, in such a case, it would require a “pronounced judgment of the Church” (rendering him notorious by law), before he would be legally severed from the Body of the Church. The ipso facto excommunication he incurred (in the internal forum) would not, per se, have the juridical effect (in the external forum) of legally separating him from the visible society of the Church since, as Pope Benedict IV said, “a sentence declaratory of the offence is always necessary in the external forum, since in this tribunal no one is presumed to be excommunicated unless convicted of a crime that entails such a penalty.” » The Salza/Siscoe conclusion is a non sequitur, because in the cited passage, Benedict XIV does not state or imply that a declaratory sentence of a penal offense is necessary for the juridical bond with the Church to be severed; but only that no one is to be presumed to have incurred the penalty of excommunication without a declaratory sentence of the crime. For the public crime of heresy, the juridical bond is not severed by the penalty of excommunication, but is severed suapte natura by the act of public heresy. Thus it is that Salza and Siscoe have fallen into heresy for their clearly heretical opinion that holds that a manifest formal heretic who is guilty of the public sin of heresy, but is not guilty of the crime of heresy canonically notorious by fact (as they understand it), remains a member of the Church until he is juridically judged to be a heretic, unless 1) he has left the Church by an explicit act of formal defection, or 2) has explicitly rejected the magisterium as the rule of faith, 3) has expressly admitted that his opinion is heretical. Those guilty of heresy, as heretics are defined in Canon 1325 § 2, if the sin is public (Canon 2197. 1°), have publicly defected from the Catholic faith, and are therefore by the very nature of that act of defection, separated from the body of the Church, apart from the latæ sententiæ excommunication prescribed in the canon. Such a defection provokes the ipso jure removal from ecclesiastical office (Canon 194, § 1, 2°). The proposition, «The ipso facto excommunication he incurred (in the internal forum) would not, per se, have the juridical effect (in the external forum) of legally separating him from the visible society of the Church since, as Pope Benedict IV said, “a sentence declaratory of the offence is always necessary in the external forum, since in this tribunal no one is presumed to be excommunicated unless convicted of a crime that entails such a penalty,» is fallacious in so far as it presumes 1) on the basis of the previous sentence, that the “externalized” public sin of heresy, incurs an ipso facto excommunication “in the internal forum”, because “sin is internal” – and “the Church does not judge internals”. In fact, the public sin of heresy is an external sin, and because it publicly violates an ecclesiastical law, its excommunication pertains to the external forum. However, notwithstanding the fact of the crime of external heresy and the penalty incurred by it, 2) the public sin of heresy, as an act of public defection from the Catholic faith, by its very nature severs the juridical bond of union with the Church apart from any penal censure or any human law, as has been amply demonstrated above, and therefore, as Bellarmine explained in the above quoted passage, “heretics are outside the Church, even before excommunication, and deprived of all jurisdiction, for they are condemned by their own judgment, as the Apostle teaches to Titus; that is, they are cut from the body of the Church without excommunication, as Jerome expresses it.” For this reason, the public sin of manifest formal heresy of itself severs the juridical bond, and thus suapte natura produces the effect of separating the heretic from the visible society of the Church ipso jure, notwithstanding the merely penal requirement mentioned by Benedict XIV, (“a sentence declaratory of the offence is always necessary in the external forum, since in this tribunal no one is presumed to be excommunicated unless convicted of a crime that entails such a penalty”), which is merely necessary to confirm the penalty of excommunication, but not to effect the severing of the juridical bond – because heresy already directly and per se separates one from the Church without any excommunication, i.e. by its very nature; and not “by legitimate authority”, i.e. by excommunication, as Pius XII teaches in Mystici Corporis. It is this last consideration which exposes the absurdity of the Salza/Siscoe thesis which would reason against reason, arguing that since external heresy is in its nature a crime, therefore a public judgment of the Church would be necessary for the juridical bond to be severed, and for the heretic to lose office. However, even if we grant solely for the sake of argument that the external act of heresy is in its nature a crime; it remains that the very act of manifestly formal heresy suapte natura, as an act of severing the bonds of communion, directly and per se severs the heretic visibly from the body of the Church entirely by itself, and therefore directly and per se severs the juridical bond ipso jure and causes the loss of office; and therefore necessarily it does so without any judgment of Church authority. An action which actually accomplishes the severing of the bonds of communion directly and per se, is manifestly not merely dispositive in nature, disposing the heretic to be severed upon judgment by the Church, since the act itself by its own nature accomplishes that severing entirely by itself.
Do you actually expect anyone to read the entirety of what you've written above? It's ridiculously long. We trads don't have that much of an attention span.
-
I would suggest both sides to first list definitions of terms and then once the meaning of terms and definitions are agreed upon, then begin the deabte on specific issues. But if each side has different meanings, then nothing will be resolved.
Here’s the definition from Fr. Augustine’s book:
TITLE XI
CRIMES AGAINST FAITH AND UNITY …
APOSTASY, HERESY, AND SCHISM …
The crime of apostasy, heresy, or schism must be exteriorly manifested, either in words, writings, or acts which betray defection from the Christian Church, denial of some article of faith, or separation from the unity of the Church, according to canon 2195 §1; because merely internal apostasy, heresy, or schism do not belong to the external forum and therefore are not intended here.” (Fr. Augustine, Commentary on the New Code of Canon Law).
Fr. Augustine referenced 2195 §1 above. Here again is how that canon defines the nature of a crime, followed by Fr. Augustine’s commentary:
“CIC 1917, Book V Part I defines "the nature of a crime Can. 2195. §1: A crime is an external and morally imputable transgression of a law to which is attached a canonical sanction.”
“PART I ON CRIMES, TITLE I, NATURE AND DIVISION OF CRIME, CAN. 2195 (…)
“The Code first defines crime, then describes its qualities and guilt, and then enumerates the various kinds of crimes, so far as the internal forum and external, the ecclesiastical and civil court, are concerned. A crime, in ecclesiastical law, is an external and morally imputable transgression of a law to which is attached a canonical sanction, at least in general.
1. Delictum is taken from the word delinquere (de and linquere, to forsake, to leave, to omit) and means an offence in the general sense. However, by common usage the term is restricted to a public offence or crime against the juridical order or law. Therefore it is called a transgression of the law, whether divine or human, i. e., merely ecclesiastical. It is the law, either eternal or positive, that governs order, the relation of man to God and of man to man, and any defection from that order constitutes a frustration of the designs of Providence.
2. But the transgression which the ecclesiastical law considers is not merely the guilty mind (mens rea), but the act, i. e., an outward manifestation of a vicious intention, or a breach of the law as externally apprehensible. This may be positive or negative, or, in other words, it may consist in an act or in an omission. Thus a sacrilege is a positive act, but neglect of pastoral duties is an omission. It is essential to the notion of delictum that it be an external act, either of speech or deed, although it need not necessarily be provable.
3. Externality, however, does not exclude imputability, and hence the definition contains the addition, morally imputable. The vicious act, therefore, presupposes a guilty mind (mens rea). Why? A transgression of the law is an act, and the transgressor, therefore, is an agent, and when that agent is intelligent and free, and acts as such, we say that the effects caused by such an agent are to be imputed or credited to him. Because an intelligent being has dominion over its actions, it is capable of moral proprietorship in the praise or blame justly due to its deliberate acts, according as they are seen to be good or bad. In this feature crime shares the notion of sin, for every crime is a sin, though not conversely. For a sin (e. g., mental apostasy or heresy) may be committed by the mind only, whereas a crime supposes an external act.” (Fr. Augustine, Commentary on the New Code of Canon Law).
The underlined part above is what I mean by the sin vis-a-vis the crime of heresy. The crime of heresy is the sin of heresy combined with an external act of heresy. When the two are joined together, the heretical act meets the canonical definition of “the nature of a crime” (Canon 2195 §1). It is as simple as that.
-
So we are now at page 33 in a thread in which, for some reason, nobody is willing (or able?) to provide the Latin and English text (and citations) of Bellarmine's actual words, demonstrating him to have taught that the Church must issue at least one declaration (i.e., that of the fact of the pope's heresy), before said pope would fall from the chair ipso facto, or not.
Would not a reasonable person become skeptical by now that such words really exist, when the mere copy/paste of them here would end the sedevacantist reliance of Bellarmine forever?
I begin to wonder.
-
So we are now at page 33 in a thread in which, for some reason, nobody is willing (or able?) to provide the Latin and English text (and citations) of Bellarmine's actual words, demonstrating him to have taught that the Church must issue at least one declaration (i.e., that of the fact of the pope's heresy), before said pope would fall from the chair ipso facto, or not.
Would not a reasonable person become skeptical by now that such words really exist, when the mere copy/paste of them here would end the sedevacantist reliance of Bellarmine forever?
I begin to wonder.
The word Bellarmine usually uses is "convicted," or "legitimately judged."
-
PaxChristi2 says: 《The word Bellarmine usually uses is "convicted," or "legitimately judged."》
Bellarmine only uses the words "convicted" or "legitimately judged" in reference to opinion no. 2, i.e. an occult heretic's loss of office. Sean Johnson is clearly referring to opinion no. 5 regarding the ipso facto loss of office of a manifest heretic, which Bellarmine says the the manifest heretic loses "by himself" (per se), and without any external agency ("sine alia vi externa"). If he must be judged or convicted by the Church in order to lose office, then a dispositive cause would be required as a condition sine qua non for the fall from office to take place, and therefore would not take place "per se"; nor would it be "ipso facto"; since something that takes place"per se" by definition takes place entirely by the agency of the acting subject, logically excluding the agency of another acting as a dispositive cause; and likewise, what takes place "ipso facto", takes place entirely in virtue of that fact alone, accordingly as those very words express, and therefore, "sine alia vi externa" and "sine alia depositione", as Bellarmine explains.
-
This is what it boils down to: only a Pope can judge a Pope. St. Bellarmine was a peerless theologian, he really was, and it's understandable that out of the sheer paucity of material regarding a matter that has historically been only rarely considered, it's just not enough. A Pope, whether it be in an official declaration or in union with a council, can judge a previous Pope's pontificate. That does have some precedent, but as usual, nothing that exactly mirrors the current situation. Any council that convenes to correct the Pope (without his consent obviously) which also has the power to remove him unwillingly would fundamentally change how the Church operates. This wouldn't even be applicable to our current crisis, with only a few bishops even daring to kind-of sort-of criticize the Pope indirectly. It's not enough for priest or lay theologians to declare anything and to presume to declare those who don't agree are heretics.
It's an exercise in theory, but for something that ultimately has to go through the Pope anyway, we can't afford to start insisting that any one of these ideas are correct. You might argue how to interpret St. Bellarmine's meaning, but it's still insufficient in my view overall.
-
This is what it boils down to: only a Pope can judge a Pope. St. Bellarmine was a peerless theologian, he really was, and it's understandable that out of the sheer paucity of material regarding a matter that has historically been only rarely considered, it's just not enough. A Pope, whether it be in an official declaration or in union with a council, can judge a previous Pope's pontificate. That does have some precedent, but as usual, nothing that exactly mirrors the current situation. Any council that convenes to correct the Pope (without his consent obviously) which also has the power to remove him unwillingly would fundamentally change how the Church operates. This wouldn't even be applicable to our current crisis, with only a few bishops even daring to kind-of sort-of criticize the Pope indirectly. It's not enough for priest or lay theologians to declare anything and to presume to declare those who don't agree are heretics.
It's an exercise in theory, but for something that ultimately has to go through the Pope anyway, we can't afford to start insisting that any one of these ideas are correct. You might argue how to interpret St. Bellarmine's meaning, but it's still insufficient in my view overall.
We agree! Mark it on the calendar!
I only want to add that which is never acknowledged in these arguments - that if a council could remove a pope, then there is nothing to stop good popes from being removed.
In fact, that is likely the reason that God saw fit that when He established His Church and even to this day, He established it purposely with no tribunal within the Church with the right to pass judgement against the pope.
-
THIS IS WHAT SALZA & SISCOE BLINDLY REFUSE TO ACCEPT
An act is a sin because it is a transgression against divine law. An act is a crime because it is listed as a penal offense in ecclesiastical law. A crime according to the nature of a crime does not separate the offender from the body of the Churh suapte natura, but by authority, i.e. by means of excommunication. Heresy, schism, and apostasy are the sole exceptions. Pius XII teaches that they sever one from membership in the body of the Church not "by authority", as in the manner of crimes; but "suapte natura": by the very nature of the sinful act:
«In Ecclesiae autem membris reapse ii soli annumerandi sunt, qui regenerationis lavacrum receperunt veramque fidem profitentur, neque a Corporis compage semet ipsos misere separarunt, vel ob gravissima admissa a legitima auctoritate seiuncti sunt.» and, «Siquidem non omne admissum, etsi grave scelus, eiusmodi est ut — sicut schisma, vel haeresis, vel apostasia faciunt — suapte natura hominem ab Ecclesiae Corpore separet. »
Those who are members (In Ecclesiae autem membris reapse ii soli annumerandi sunt), are those who have been baptized and have professed the faith (qui regenerationis lavacrum receperunt veramque fidem profitentur), and have not separated themselves from the unity of the body, or have been separated for grave offenses by legitimate authority. Accordingly not every offense, even a grave crime, would separate -- as do schism, heresy or apostasy -- a man from the body of the Church by its very nature.
There you have it: The perpetrators of crimes , "have been separated by legitimate authority" ; but "schism, heresy, and apostasy by their very nature separate a man from the body of the Church."
I have repeatedly explained this in my book, articles, e-mails and posts:
« Others are separated from the Church by excommunication – «by the legitimate authority of the Church» for having committed excommunicatable penal offenses, i.e. crimes; as opposed to those who «miserably separate themselves from union with the body» of the Church by heresy, schism, or apostasy, which separate them not for their being crimes punishable by the authority of the Church, but because they are of the nature of sins opposed to the unity of the Church; which therefore, according to their nature (suapte natura) separate the perpetrator from the body of the Church. In Canon Law, it pertains to the nature of a crime per se that it is a penal violation – a violation of a law or precept that is of ecclesiasticasl character; and, if the transgression is public, and if there is added to the law or precept the penal cenure of excommunication, it results in the separation of the offender from the Church by means of the penalty of excommunication, incurred or inflicted by the authority of the Church. Pius XII teaches, (in conformity with the constant teaching of the universal magisterium), that heresy, schism and apostasy, are the sole exceptions, because, although they in fact happen to be crimes; heretics, schismatics, or apostates are not separated from the body of the Church “by legitimate authority”, i.e. because they committed crimes; but because these sins by their very nature are directly and per se opposed to the unity of the Church; and accordingly, schismatics, heretics and apostates have «miserably separated themselves from the unity of the Body» of the Church (a Corporis compage semet ipsos misere separarunt). The reason why this is so (as is explained below) is because the specific nature of each of these sins, i.e. of heresy, schism, (and a fortiori apostasy), is such that they directly and per se separate one from the unity of the Church. (IIª-IIae q. 39 a. 1 ad 3) On the other hand, criminal acts considered under their formal aspect as crimes, i.e., according to the nature of crimes, do not directly and per se separate one from the Church; but according to the nature of crimes as such, it is only by means of juridical authority that the separation would take place, being that they are crimes carrying the penalty of excommunication. »
Salza & Siscoe blindly and adamantly remain entrenched in their opposition to this article of divine and Catholic faith, clearly and definitively taught by the universal and ordininary magisterium of the Church.
So, instead of assenting to this truth of faith, they publish a twisted interpretation of the doctrine according to their heretical understanding of it:
Salza & Siscoe reply in their Formal Reply Part II: «Dispositive vs. Formal Separation: This distinction explains different ways of understanding how heresy severs a person from the Body of the Church, without considering a separate unity with the Soul of the Church. According to this explanation, the sin of heresy, of its nature, severs a person from the Body of the Church dispositively, but not formally. The formal separation from the Body of the Church occurs when the juridical bond is severed by the public act (crime) of notorious heresy (notorious by fact), or when the crime has been judged and declared by the Church (notorious by law). »
Salza & Siscoe then employ verbal sleight of hand by quoting Van Noort on internal heresy, who explains that internal heresy separates one potentially from the body of the Church: « “Internal heresy, since it destroys that interior unity of faith from which unity of profession is born, separates from the body of the Church dispositively, but not yet formally.” (Dogmatic Theology, Volume II, Christ’s Church, p. 242.) » In this passage Van Noort speaks of the manner in which internal heresy separates one from the body of the Church dispositively, which is to say potentially without causing the separation in actu. This was also my meaning when I explained that internal heresy separates one spiritually from the soul of the Church. It is the act of visible manifest heresy which actually separates one from the body of the Church suapte natura. It is this latter sense according to which public heresy actually causes the separation suapte natura that is intended in the passage of Van Noort that I quoted: «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 that faith. » Van Noort, whom I quoted above, rightly understood that Pius XII was referring specifically to the external sin of public heresy, when he commented: «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 [admissum], 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'. (Dogmatic Theology, Volume II, Christ’s Church, p. 241 - 242.) » Now to say that public heretics are not members of the Church, because Pius XII teaches that 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, most patently does not refer to a merely dispositive act that only disposes one potentially to be separated, but does not actually separate one from membership in the Church; but Pius XII, in the quoted passage, manifestly refers to an external sin which actually separates one from the body of the Church. This is clearly the unequivocal meaning of Pope Pacelli’s teaching in that passage, because the context and verbal tense of those words refer specifically to those who have actually separated themselves from the Church, or have been separated from the Church by authority, in such a manner that they are no longer members: «In Ecclesiæ autem membris reapse ii soli annumerandi sunt, qui regenerationis lavacrum receperunt veramque fidem profitentur, neque a Corporis compage semet ipsos misere separarunt, vel ob gravissima admissa a legitima auctoritate seiuncti sunt. » And who, according to the text of the encyclical, are those who are no longer members of the Church? They are those who have miserably separated themselves (semet ipsos misere separarunt), and those who have been cut off for most grave sins by legitimate authority: (ob gravissima admissa a legitima auctoritate seiuncti sunt). The use of the perfect tense logically and grammatically excludes the possibility that Pius XII was saying that those who have separated themselves in such a manner that they are no longer members of the Church, had only disposed themselves to be separated potentially, but were not yet actually separated – yet this is exactly how Salza & Siscoe fraudulently interpret the text, and claim that their fraudulent interpretation explains its authentic meaning! Now, who are those, who unlike all others who are cut off from the Church by legitimate authority (i.e. those who have been excommunicated by the Church), have separated themselves in such a manner that they are no longer members of the Church? They are the schismatics, heretics, and apostates, because, “not every sin, however grave and enormous it be, is such as to sever a man by its very nature from the Body of the Church, as does schism or heresy or apostasy” – «Siquidem non omne admissum, etsi grave scelus, eiusmodi est ut — sicut schisma, vel hæresis, vel apostasia faciunt — suapte natura hominem ab Ecclesiæ Corpore separet. »
Furthermore, since Pius XII in the quoted passage distinguishes between the nature of schism, heresy, apostasy as opposed to all other sins, he is clearly referring to heresy formally according to its specific nature as a single species, and not to the nature of the material species of the external act which materially distinguishes the nature of the external act from that of the internal act; since it is not by the nature of the material species of the external act, (which is morally indistinguishable from all other acts of the genus of external acts), that heresy, schism and apostasy per se intend against the unity of the Church, but by the nature of what formally constitutes the species that they, suapte natura separate one from the body of the Church; as opposed to sins of all other species which do not accomplish that separation suapte natura. St. Thomas explains that there is nothing of morality in the material species of an act except that the the act is voluntary, and is therefore a human act. Hence, there is no moral content in the material species of an external act to distinguish it from the internal act of the same species, nor from the external acts of every other species in the genus of external acts to which all delicts pertain. It is therefore not according to the nature of the material species, but according to what is properly and formally the nature of the species that schism, heresy, and apostasy differ in their nature from the nature of sins of all other species. Hence, Pope Pius distinguishes formally the nature of these three species of infidelity from the nature of sins of all other species; and not according to the nature of the material species of the external act, since there is nothing of morality in the material species of the external act that would distinguish it in its nature from the internal act; and most importantly,there is nothing of morality in the material species of heresy, apostasy or schism that would distinguish them from any other sin in the genus of external acts. Thus, the plain sense of the quoted passage of Mystici Corporis is that unlike other sins, the sins of schism, heresy, and apostasy, if public, separate one from the body of the Church suapte natura, because acts of these species are formally acts of separation according to their nature, and not because they, in their material species, are materially of the nature of external acts, since, in their material species they are morally indistinguishable from the external acts of any other species of any other sin or criminal act. Therefore, it is not that these external sins are crimes in their material species unlike any other crimes, that they separate one from the body of the Church suapte natura, since considered under the formal aspect of what constitutes them as crimes, they are indistinguishable from any other crimes; but it is because of what formally distinguishes their species, by that which is formally specific to the nature of the sins of schism, heresy, and apostasy that they separate one from the body of the Church suapte natura. Thus, it is because of the physical difference between the material species of the internal and external acts of schism, heresy, and apostasy, that only the external acts of these species are crimes; but it is in virtue of the formal difference of nature of these species of acts from all other species, that they per se, by their intrinsic nature as acts of separation, and not because they are crimes, that they effect the separation of a man from the Church.
-
Clueless Croixalist says,
" This is what it boils down to: only a Pope can judge a Pope. "
Since the 1180s the argument which forms the basis of what Bellarmine lists as the "fifth opinion" is not about the Church judging a pope, but as Gregory XVI expressed it, the judgment would not be made against the present pontiff, but "against him who before was adorned with papal dignity". The Church possesses the by divine right the power to judge whether a papal claimant is a true pope or a heretical impostor. If it were possible for a pope to become a heretic, he would become an "incapable subject" as the two greatest post-tridentine Doctors teach; and as such, Innocent III teaches that he can be "cast out" -- "deposed". On this foundation was based the ruling of Constance against Pedro de Luna, the teaching of Bellarmine, Ballerini, Gregory XVI, and (as Edward Peters JCD observes) the nearly unanimous majority of canonists/theologians since Wernz (ca. 1935). Croixalist has a vast array of eminent scholars opposed to him on this point.
-
Clueless Croixalist says,
" This is what it boils down to: only a Pope can judge a Pope. "
Since the 1180s the argument which forms the basis of what Bellarmine lists as the "fifth opinion" is not about the Church judging a pope, but as Gregory XVI expressed it, the judgment would not be made against the present pontiff, but "against him who before was adorned with papal dignity". The Church possesses the by divine right the power to judge whether a papal claimant is a true pope or a heretical impostor. If it were possible for a pope to become a heretic, he would become an "incapable subject" as the two greatest post-tridentine Doctors teach; and as such, Innocent III teaches that he can be "cast out" -- "deposed". On this foundation was based the ruling of Constance against Pedro de Luna, the teaching of Bellarmine, Ballerini, Gregory XVI, and (as Edward Peters JCD observes) the nearly unanimous majority of canonists/theologians since Wernz (ca. 1935). Croixalist has a vast array of eminent scholars opposed to him on this point.
2 questions Father:
1) Who or what *exactly* is this Church you call, "The Church" which by divine right can judge the legitimacy or illegitimacy of a legitimately elected "papal claimant"? And 2) by what infallible safeguard does this Church you speak of have, which guarantees that that this Church's judgement is infallibly right and true? - lest this Church judges a valid pope to be invalid. In other words, what prevents a valid pope from being judged as invalid?
-
《Who or what *exactly* is this Church you call, "The Church" which by divine right can judge the legitimacy or illegitimacy of a legitimately elected "papal claimant"?》
In the early pages of this thread, I quoted Pope Gregory XVI who explained the matter. That the Church possesses the power to make the judgment is set forth by Paul IV (cuм Ex Apostolatus Officio) and confirmed by St. Pius V (Inter Multiplices). It is divine providence, as Ballerini explains, which prevents the Church from ruling against a valid pope.
-
《Who or what *exactly* is this Church you call, "The Church" which by divine right can judge the legitimacy or illegitimacy of a legitimately elected "papal claimant"?》
In the early pages of this thread, I quoted Pope Gregory XVI who explained the matter. That the Church possesses the power to make the judgment is set forth by Paul IV (cuм Ex Apostolatus Officio) and confirmed by St. Pius V (Inter Multiplices). It is divine providence, as Ballerini explains, which prevents the Church from ruling against a valid pope.
This does not answer exactly, or even at all, who or what "The Church" is in your statement. Further, Ballerini's opinion that divine providence infallibly prevents a valid pope from being judged as invalid, is not only no guarantee at all, it is altogether ridiculous. By that measure, it is by divine providence that there is an illegitimate pope in the first place.
cuм ex says that anyone who has ever even been suspected of heresy is sufficient cause for invalidity - which effectively means absolutely nothing whatsoever.
-
《Who or what *exactly* is this Church you call, "The Church" which by divine right can judge the legitimacy or illegitimacy of a legitimately elected "papal claimant"?》
In the early pages of this thread, I quoted Pope Gregory XVI who explained the matter. That the Church possesses the power to make the judgment is set forth by Paul IV (cuм Ex Apostolatus Officio)
Quote the entire section of the writing you're referring to in English, and let's see what he really said. And was it written by Gregory XVI, or by Cardinal Cappellari?
-
Stubborn: 1) Any good theological dictionary will tell you what the Church is, to which I refer. 2) There never has been an illegitimate pope -- only illegitimate claimants. Paul IV declares in cuм Ex Apostolatus Officio:
“if ever at any time it shall appear that […]the Roman Pontiff, prior to his promotion or his elevation as Cardinal or Roman Pontiff, has deviated from the Catholic Faith or fallen into some heresy: (i) the promotion or elevation, even if it shall have been uncontested and by the unanimous assent of all the Cardinals, shall be null, void and worthless; (ii) it shall not be possible for it to acquire validity (nor for it to be said that it has thus acquired validity) through the acceptance of the office, of consecration, of subsequent authority, nor through possession of administration, nor through the putative enthronement of a Roman Pontiff, or veneration, or obedience accorded to such by all, nor through the lapse of any period of time in the foregoing situation; (iii) it shall not be held as partially legitimate in any way; (iv) to any so promoted to be […] Roman Pontiff, no authority shall have been granted, nor shall it be considered to have been so granted either in the spiritual or the temporal domain; (v) each and all of their words, deeds, actions and enactments, howsoever made, and anything whatsoever to which these may give rise, shall be without force and shall grant no stability whatsoever nor any right to anyone; (vi) those thus promoted or elevated shall be deprived automatically, and without need for any further declaration, of all dignity, position, honour, title, authority, office and power.”
-
Pax, why would Bellarmine define the word manifest? Manifest is a defined word that anyone can use, including great theologians, when describing something that is clear and obvious to the eye or mind.
Manifest heresy - heresy which is clear and obvious to the eye or mind.
I vaguely call in my reading (in Latin) from Bellarmine years ago now that he did define the term ... as being in a condition of being knowable, that it was in a condition where it would be expected to become widely known. Simply being printed in a published book, for instance, would qualify.
Part of the confusion is that none of the theologians dealing with this subject deal with this distinction explicitly:
1) case of obvious heresy: "I, Jorge, know that the Church teaches the Real Presence, but I don't believe it anyway."
vs.
2) something a bit more slippery, where the Pope would assert that the proposition is consistent with Tradition, or where the Church might be divided on whether something is heretical.
I believe that THIS is the distinction Bellarmine had in mind when saying that the Pope either defects from the faith on his own (#1) or against his will (#2) ... and not the apostasy vs. everything else distinction, which is universally rejected by canonists.
In situation #1, can you really honestly and sincerely claim that it is not "known" quoad nos? There's almost a little taint of epistemological relativism or phenomenology to this thinking.
-
"cuм Ex" is 400 years old. The parts of this law which deal with the election of the pope, which is part of the human/govt part of the Church can be changed. And both St Pius X and Pius XII (and even +JPII) changed the papal election laws to allow excommunicated persons to vote and be voted for. In other words, the part of cuм Ex where it says that a heretic can't be elected pope, is abrogated.
-
PaxChristi2 says: 1) "Quote the entire section of the writing you're referring to in English, and let's see what he really said."
I reply: Again?
-
"cuм Ex" is 400 years old. The parts of this law which deal with the election of the pope, which is part of the human/govt part of the Church can be changed. And both St Pius X and Pius XII (and even +JPII) changed the papal election laws to allow excommunicated persons to vote and be voted for. In other words, the part of cuм Ex where it says that a heretic can't be elected pope, is abrogated.
But some law is merely a reflection of divine law. By saying what he said, the Pope was making a commentary on divine law. He cannot override divine law with his legislation. So, for instance, he was making a commentary about Universal Acceptance. If Universal Acceptance is a infallible sign of legitimate papacy, for instance, then no amount of legislation can change that. So "cuм Ex" cannot be dismissed as merely legislation; it's also making a theological statement.
-
Pax Vobis says: "In other words, the part of cuм Ex where it says that a heretic can't be elected pope, is abrogated."
It cannot be abrogated because that provision pertains to divine law. The decree states that even if the heretic-elect receives obedience from all, his election is null and void. Universal acceptance effects sanatio in radice even for an invalid election; so if a heretic has been elected and universally accepted, he would be a valid pope, and no human law would have the power to nullify his election; unless that provision is founded on divine law.
-
PaxChristi2 says: 《The word Bellarmine usually uses is "convicted," or "legitimately judged."》
Bellarmine only uses the words "convicted" or "legitimately judged" in reference to opinion no. 2, i.e. an occult heretic's loss of office.
He used convicted and legitimately judged for a heretical Pope who had not openly separated himself from the Church. Here’s how Bellarmine said the process would take place if a Pope were accused of infidelity:
Bellarmine: “Marcellinus was accused of an act of infidelity, in which case a Council can discuss the case of the Pope, and if they were to discover that he really was an infidel [discretionary judgment], the Council can declare him outside the Church and thus condemn him.” (On Councils).
Listen to Bellarmine's commentary on the case of Liberius:
Bellarmine: “Then two years later came the lapse of Liberius, of which we have spoken above. Then indeed the Roman clergy, stripping Liberius of his pontifical dignity (abrogata Liberio Pontificia dignitate), went over to Felix, whom they knew to be a Catholic. From that time, Felix began to be the true Pontiff. For although Liberius was not a heretic, nevertheless he was considered one, on account of the peace he made with the Arians, and by that presumption the pontificate could rightly be taken from him. for men are not bound, or able to read hearts; but when they see that someone is a heretic by his external works, they judge him to be a heretic pure and simple, and condemn him as a heretic.” (De Romano Pontifice, bk IV)
Even though Bellarmine did not believe Liberius was a heretic, he says the clergy of Rome could strip him of his pontifical dignity, since they judged him to be a heretic. There was no ipso facto loss of office for heresy before they judged him. It is certain that Bellarmine didn’t believe there was, since he explicitly stated that he did not believe Marcellinus’ lost his office when he committed the public act of apostasy by offering incense to the idols, and he also said Marcellinus’ sin against the faith was worse than that of Liberius. “Liberius neither taught heresy, nor was a heretic, but only sinned by external act, as did St. Marcellinus, and unless I am mistaken, sinned less than St. Marcellinus" (Bellarmine). If he did not believe Marcellinus lost his office (without human judgment) for his sin against the faith, he obviously did not believe Liberius lost his without human judgment for a lesser sin.
In De Concilii, Bellarmine says the bishops can “deposed” a Pope (“abrogate his pontificate,” as he said about Liberius), if they can convict him of heresy:
Bellarmine: “… the oath [of fidelity] does not take away the freedom of the Bishops, which is necessary in Councils: for they promise to be obedient to the supreme Pontiff, which is understood as long as he is Pope, and provided he commands those things which, according to God and the sacred canons, he can command; but they do not swear that they are not going to say what they think in the Council, or that they are not going to depose him, if they were to clearly prove (convincant) that he is a heretic. (…) inferiors ought not be free from the obedience owed to their superiors, unless first he were legitimately deposed (legitimate deponatur) or declared not to be a superior (vel declaretur non esse superior) ... (De Concilli).
In the same chapter, he says a Pope retains the right to call a council and preside over it until he has been legitimately judged and convicted, and hence is no longer the Pope:
Bellarmine: “the Roman Pontiff cannot be deprived of the right to summon a Council, and preside over it – a right he has possessed for 1500 years – unless he were first legitimately judged and convicted [discretionary judgment], and is not the Supreme Pontiff. (…) the Pope is not the only judged in a Council, but has many colleagues, that is, all the Bishops who, if they could convict him of heresy [discretionary judgment], could judge and depose him [coercive judgment] against his will.” (De Concilii).
Here’s what Bellarmine said in response to a Sedevacantist Protestant of his day, who said the Catholic bishop defected from the faith, lost their office, and could be replaced:
Bellarmine: “I respond to this argument of Brenz (…): Catholic bishops, who for centuries have possessed their sees peacefully, cannot be deprived unless they are legitimately judged and condemned; for in every controversy, the condition of the one possessing is better. Moreover, it is certain that the Catholic bishops were not condemned by any legitimate judgment; for who condemned them apart from the Lutherans? But they are accusers, not judges. Who made them our judges? (Bellarmine, On the Marks of the Church, cap. vii)
Must be legitimately judged, and that includes the Pope.
In his book On Clerics, he says the faithful are not to listen to heretical bishops, but they cannot depose them, which is no different than “declaring” them deposed based on private judgment:
Bellarmine: “Moreover, it should be observed that, on the one hand, the people, by the rule which we have laid down, can indeed discern a true prophet from a false one; but, on the other hand, they cannot, for all that, depose the false prophet, if he be a bishop, and substitute another in his place. For the Lord and the Apostle command only that the people not hear false prophets, and not that they depose them [or declare them deposed]. And certainly the practice of the Church has always been thus, that heretical bishops be deposed by bishops’ councils or by the supreme pontiffs. (On Clerics, bk.1, ch.7).
Obviously, Bellarmine is referring to heretical bishops who were teaching heresy, since if their heresy remained entirely hidden there would be no need to avoid listening to them.
What it boils down to is this: If a heretical bishop or Pope remains in possession of his see, he has to be “legitimately judged” and “convicted” before he will lose his office, even if he is judged to be a “manifest heretic” beforehand by private judgment.
I would also note that when there is a doubt of fact or law, the Church supplies jurisdiction for the governance of the Church in both the internal and external forums:
Doubts of fact or law:
Can. 143 §1. Ordinary power ceases by loss of the office to which it is connected.
§2. Unless the law provides otherwise, ordinary power is suspended if, legitimately, an appeal is made or a recourse is lodged against privation of or removal from office.
Can. 144 §1. In factual or legal common error and in positive and probable doubt of law or of fact, the Church supplies executive power of governance for both the external and internal forum.
Here’s what Woywood said about the “Popes” during the time of the Great Western Schism:
“Yet is must be maintained according to Catholic teaching and Church history (see any standard Catholic Apologetics text book) that although there was during this period of confusion, two or even three claimants to the papacy, yet in actual fact there was only one Legitimate Pope, the others being antipopes. In such cases of common error, no matter how they are created, the Church supplies the jurisdiction for the benefit of the people (Canon 209. Practical Commentary of the Code, Law. Woywod. Vol. 1. p. 80.)
Other theologians have said that if all the Popes during the Great Western Schism were false Popes, Christ Himself would have supplied the jurisdiction (since the Church cannot supply papal jurisdiction if there is no true Pope).
Along the same lines, Bellarmine’s fellow Jesuit, the renowned canonist Fr. Paul Laymann, teaches that even the Pope is notoriously heretical, as long as he is publicly recognized as Pope by the Church, he will retain his jurisdiction:
Fr. Laymann, S.J.: “It is more probable that the Supreme Pontiff, as concerns his own person, could fall into heresy, even a notorious one, by reason of which he would deserve to be deposed by the Church, or rather declared to be separated from her. … The proof of this assertion is that neither Sacred Scripture nor the tradition of the Fathers indicates that such a privilege [i.e., being preserved from heresy when not defining a doctrine] was granted by Christ to the Supreme Pontiff: therefore the privilege is not to be asserted.
The first part of the proof is shown from the fact that the promises made by Christ to St. Peter cannot be transferred to the other Supreme Pontiffs insofar as they are private persons, but only as the successor of Peter in the pastoral power of teaching, etc. The latter part is proven from the fact that it is rather the contrary that one finds in the writings of the Fathers and in decrees: not indeed as if the Roman Pontiffs were at any time heretics de facto (for one could hardly show that); but it was the persuasion that it could happen that they fall into heresy and that, therefore, if such a thing should seem to have happened, it would pertain to the other bishops to examine and give a judgment on the matter; as one can see in the Sixth Synod, Act 13; the Seventh Synod, last Act; the eight Synod, Act 7 in the epistle of [Pope] Hadrian; and in the fifth Roman Council under Pope Symmachus: ‘By many of those who came before us it was declared and ratified in Synod, that the sheep should not reprehend their Pastor, unless they presume that he has departed from the Faith’. And in Si Papa d. 40, it is reported from Archbishop Boniface: ‘He who is to judge all men is to be judged by none, unless he be found by chance to be deviating from the Faith’. And Bellarmine himself, book 2, ch. 30, writes: ‘We cannot deny that [Pope] Hadrian with the Roman Council, and the entire 8th General Synod was of the belief that, in the case of heresy, the Roman Pontiff could be judged,’ as one can see in Melchior Cano, bk. 6, De Locis Theologicis, last chapter.
But note that, although we affirm that the Supreme Pontiff, as a private person, might become a heretic … nevertheless, for as long as he is tolerated by the Church, and is publicly recognized as the universal pastor, he is still endowed, in fact, with the pontifical power, in such a way that all his decrees have no less force and authority than they would if he were a truly faithful, as Dominic Barnes notes well (q.1, a. 10, doubt 2, ad. 3) Suarez bk 4, on laws, ch. 7. The reason is: because it is conducive to the governing of the Church, even as, in any other well-constituted commonwealth, that the acts of a public magistrate are in force as long as he remains in office and is publicly tolerated.” (Laymann, Theol. Mor., bk. 2, tract 1, ch. 7, p. 153).
-
Pax Vobis says: "In other words, the part of cuм Ex where it says that a heretic can't be elected pope, is abrogated."
It cannot be abrogated because that provision pertains to divine law. The decree states that even if the heretic-elect receives obedience from all, his election is null and void. Universal acceptance effects sanatio in radice even for an invalid election; so if a heretic has been elected and universally accepted, he would be a valid pope, and no human law would have the power to nullify his election; unless that provision is founded on divine law.
Divine Law does not teach that a secret heretic is unable to be elected to office in the Church. Here's what a real theologian and canonist, Fr. Gregory Hesse, said about cuм ex Apostolatus.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N4lcuм8xetc (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N4lcuм8xetc)
-
Fr. Chazal describes the problem of Paul lV' cuм Ex. Here's one paragraph from it. I'll post more from it later today.
Fr. Chazal writes, on page 49 of his book, "Contra Cekadam":
"cuм Ex has NOT been retained, over the course of the jurisprudence of the Church, because its content poses a problem, especially the statement that a secret heretic ceases to be the Pope, nor can become a Pope....However, not being able to be removed by men, because nobody knows the state of his mind, the Papacy should cease, like some sedes argue now (leading them to the heresy of Ecclesiovacantism), Paul lV wanted to prevent infiltrators, a most difficult thing indeed, when it is to the avowed strategy of the enemy. Note with Cardinal Hergenrother that cuм Ex contains penal sanction directed at a Pope....much against your own theory (addressing Fr. Cekada), that the Pope is not under any law but Divine Law. Indeed, some aspects of
cuм Ex can be directed against sedevacantists."
--------
Why would penal sanction, as Father says above, be directed at a (supposedly heretical Pope), if he were never Pope in the first place?
-
Stubborn: 1) Any good theological dictionary will tell you what the Church is, to which I refer. 2) There never has been an illegitimate pope -- only illegitimate claimants. Paul IV declares in cuм Ex Apostolatus Officio:
“if ever at any time it shall appear that […]the Roman Pontiff, prior to his promotion or his elevation as Cardinal or Roman Pontiff, has deviated from the Catholic Faith or fallen into some heresy: (i) the promotion or elevation, even if it shall have been uncontested and by the unanimous assent of all the Cardinals, shall be null, void and worthless; (ii) it shall not be possible for it to acquire validity (nor for it to be said that it has thus acquired validity) through the acceptance of the office, of consecration, of subsequent authority, nor through possession of administration, nor through the putative enthronement of a Roman Pontiff, or veneration, or obedience accorded to such by all, nor through the lapse of any period of time in the foregoing situation; (iii) it shall not be held as partially legitimate in any way; (iv) to any so promoted to be […] Roman Pontiff, no authority shall have been granted, nor shall it be considered to have been so granted either in the spiritual or the temporal domain; (v) each and all of their words, deeds, actions and enactments, howsoever made, and anything whatsoever to which these may give rise, shall be without force and shall grant no stability whatsoever nor any right to anyone; (vi) those thus promoted or elevated shall be deprived automatically, and without need for any further declaration, of all dignity, position, honour, title, authority, office and power.”
Father; 1) I want *you* to explain in layman's terms exactly what you mean by "The Church". Obviously you mean it to be an infallible entity with divine power capable of judging the pope - and this is true whether he is the pope or only a papal claimant.
There should be absolutely no ambiguity when it comes to this, which is why since you said it, now you explain it because the challenge is in the fact that you are claiming that "The Church" you speak of, has the divine power to judge a true pope - which is exactly what this entity would be doing if in fact it turns out that he is not just a papal claimant. In this case, "The Church" would be guilty of judging the pope - do you understand this?
2) As I said, cuм ex says that anyone who has ever even been suspected of heresy is sufficient cause for invalidity. As you posted above from cuм ex - "if ever at any time it should appear that...has deviated from the Catholic Faith or fallen into some heresy..." All cuм ex requires is an ambiguous claim by literally anyone in the world. By that measure, the same applies to all people and priests per cuм ex: (i) the clergy, secular and religious; (ii) the laity) who ever participated in any capacity with the Novus Ordo, this includes Archbishop Lefebvre - are either illegitimate or can never be ordained - and if ordained, they self depose.
-
Even though Bellarmine did not believe Liberius was a heretic, he says the clergy of Rome could strip him of his pontifical dignity, since they judged him to be a heretic. There was no ipso facto loss of office for heresy before they judged him.
No, this is just an application of the occult vs. manifest distinction. He's saying that the heresy became manifest in the external forum, even if there wasn't heresy in the internal forum. So just as internal heresy does not cause loss of office, so too internal non-heresy does not contradict the external forum manifestation thereof. This is merely the logical corollary of the occult vs. manifest distinction.
Liberius' heretical activity in the external forum created the existence of manifest heresy even if the heresy wasn't actually there in the internal forum.
You CONTINUE to assert that discretionary judgment has as its object the pope, whereas it's nothing more than the Church "coming to the conclusion that the man is a heretic." References to "stripping" him of the papacy are references to the material aspect of the office once it had been stripped ipso facto by the manifest heresy. In so doing, you're falsely ... and dishonestly ... claiming that Bellarmine holds the SAME position as both Cajetan and John of St. Thomas. Bellarmine himself obviously didn't thin so, since he refuted and rejected Cajetan.
-
PaxChristi2 says, "Here's what a real theologian and canonist, Fr. Gregory Hesse, said about cuм ex Apostolatus."
Clueless PacChristi2 fails to grasp that Fr. Hesse in the video segment said nothing on the point I was explaining, namely, that the provision which nullifies the election of a heretic pertains to divine law. Fr. Hesse spoke only on the merely ecclesiastical provision of cuм ex regarding those suspect of heresy. There were many medieval canonists who believed as I do; namely, that a heretic is an incapable subject who is to be declared invalidly elected if his heresy is discovered and proven. I quoted some of them in my book. Does PaxChristi2 think they were not real theologians?
-
Divine Law does not teach that a secret heretic is unable to be elected to office in the Church. Here's what a real theologian and canonist, Fr. Gregory Hesse, said about cuм ex Apostolatus.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N4lcuм8xetc (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N4lcuм8xetc)
Both Fr. Kramer and Fr. Hesse studied at the Angelicuм (The Pontifical University of Saint Thomas Aquinas in Rome), if I am not mistaken, around the same time. Same with Fr. Gruner. Yet, it seems like it is only Fr. Kramer who gets criticized for not being a "real theologian" and being trained in the Novus Ordo. The same criticism or complement should be given to all three.
Also, some former friends and collaborators of Fr. Gruner criticizes Fr. Kramer for believing that Pope Benedict is still the Pope, but these same critics never mention that Fr. Gruner held the same belief and is the one who requested Fr. Kramer write a book about the issues being discuses here on CathInfo.
-
You are not mistaken, Mr. G; all three of us studied at the Angelicuм, all three of us knew each other and were close friends for many years.
-
You CONTINUE to assert that discretionary judgment has as its object the pope, whereas it's nothing more than the Church "coming to the conclusion that the man is a heretic."
Leave out the word "whereas" and what you wrote it correct. The object of the judgment is the determination that the Pope is a heretic. That's what results in the "convicted" (non-coercive discretionary judgment), which is the condition that is necessary for a heretical Pope, who has not publicly separated himself from the Church, to lose his jurisdiction, dignity and title as head of the Church.
Bellarmine: "But it is certain (whatever one or another may think) that an occult heretic, if he be a bishop or even the supreme Pontiff, does not lose his jurisdiction, or dignity, or the title of head in the Church, until either he publicly separates himself from the Church, or, being convicted of heresy, is separated against his will.”
You previously admitted that Bellarmine taught there were "two ways" a Pope can lose the pontificate. The case of Liberius is one in which the Pope lost his office by being "convicted of heresy".
References to "stripping" him of the papacy are references to the material aspect of the office once it had been stripped ipso facto by the manifest heresy.
Wrong again. You're reading this in light of Bishop Sanborn's "Material Pope" heresy. Bellarmine says the heretical Pope retains his jurisdiction until he is convicted of heresy. And an "occult heretic" is not limited to those whose heresy is secret. Any heresy less than notorious has no juridical effect (as Bishop Sanborn concedes), and hence is legally occult (as Fr. Gleize explains in the quote I posted previously).
In so doing, you're falsely ... and dishonestly ... claiming that Bellarmine holds the SAME position as both Cajetan and John of St. Thomas. Bellarmine himself obviously didn't thin so, since he refuted and rejected Cajetan.
No I used the word "stripped" because that's how the Sedes have translated it. I included the Latin to show that he really said "abrogated" - the clergy of Rome "abrogated Liberius' pontificate."
We all know that Bellarmine believed the papacy was lost ipso facto, but that does not exclude the need of an antecedent judgement before it happens. It only exclude the need for the Church to actually "depose" him. If the Pope doesn't openly separate from the Church, he is first "convicted of heresy," then he is immediately ipso facto deposed.
John of St. Thomas and Cajetan held that the Pope is convicted of heresy, and then, after being convicted, must be indirectly deposed by the Church before ceasing to be Pope.
-
Wrong again. You're reading this in light of Bishop Sanborn's "Material Pope" heresy.
#1) this is not Bishop Sanborn's thesis, but that of Bishop Guerard des Lauriers. This exposes you as a dishonest liar, falsely attributing this thesis to +Sanborn.
#2) it's utterly absurd that a buffoon like yourself have the temerity to denounce as "heresy" the thinking of one of the most well-respected pre-Vatican II theological minds, Bishop Guerard des Laurier ... professor in Rome, with many many years of formal post-graduate theological training, education and research; consultant on the definition of the Assumption; personal confessor to Pius XII. But, yeah, I'll take the word of an arrogant buffoon with absolutely ZERO formal training in Catholic theology that this is "heresy". What an idiot. You have now totally exposed yourself and have made yourself a laughing-stock.
The formal-material distinction as applied to the papacy exists in Bellarmine himself, so it's not a stretch at all to believe that his thinking applies this.
-
PaxChristi2 says, "Here's what a real theologian and canonist, Fr. Gregory Hesse, said about cuм ex Apostolatus."
Clueless PacChristi2 fails to grasp that Fr. Hesse in the video segment said nothing on the point I was explaining, namely, that the provision which nullifies the election of a heretic pertains to divine law. Fr. Hesse spoke only on the merely ecclesiastical provision of cuм ex regarding those suspect of heresy. There were many medieval canonists who believed as I do; namely, that a heretic is an incapable subject who is to be declared invalidly elected if his heresy is discovered and proven. I quoted some of them in my book. Does PaxChristi2 think they were not real theologians?
By "heretic", do you mean lacking the virtue of faith, while remaining externally united to the Church? If so, there is nothing in Divine Law that prevents such a person from being elected Pope.
-
But some law is merely a reflection of divine law. By saying what he said, the Pope was making a commentary on divine law. He cannot override divine law with his legislation. So, for instance, he was making a commentary about Universal Acceptance. If Universal Acceptance is a infallible sign of legitimate papacy, for instance, then no amount of legislation can change that. So "cuм Ex" cannot be dismissed as merely legislation; it's also making a theological statement.
Well, you have to distinguish between the spiritual office and the material office. The key problem of sedevacantism, is that they apply the SPIRITUAL penalties for heresy (whether occult, manifest, notorious, public, etc) to the MATERIAL office. One can be spiritually excommunicated for private/occult heresy and no one else in the world would know about it. When we speak of Divine Law in regards to heresy, this involves sins against the First Commandment. It involves SPIRITUAL penalties only.
.
The question of material offices and deposition are related to the HUMAN/govt part of the Church and hence, such laws can be changed. If the Church can change the laws pertaining to WHO elects the pope, then She can change WHO can be elected (up to a certain point). This "point" which cannot be crossed is obviously related to non-catholics, who can never be elected.
.
When cuм Ex says that if a heretic is elected, then that election is invalid - they are obviously talking about a FORMAL (already declared by the Church) heretic. Such a one, say after Martin Luther was anathematized, could not be elected. And St Pius X's and XII's laws would not allow Martin Luther to be elected either.
.
What can be changed of cuм Ex are the rules for occult/material heretics...ie those who are not FORMALLY declared to be outside the Church. This is what both Pius' changed. They said that all "church penalties, of whatever nature" are suspended for the election only. Obviously, Martin Luther's status as a non-Catholic cannot be "suspended". He's already outside of the Church. Such suspension only applies to those not yet declared non-catholics, as they are not yet judged by CHURCH LAW, since they are not formal heretics. Only formal heretics are outside of the Church by CHURCH Law, as it relates to the material office.
.
A not-yet-formal (i.e. material, private) heretic can hold the material office, even if he spiritually dead (in his soul) due to his obstinate holding to heresy....WHICH HAS NOT YET BEEN ESTABLISHED MATERIALLY (i.e. by the Church).
.
All heretics (formal, material, occult) are judged by Divine Law and are spiritually non-Catholic.
Only formal heretic are judged by Church law, and are ruled spiritually and materially, as non-Catholic.
-
Bellarmine says the heretical Pope retains his jurisdiction until he is convicted of heresy. And an "occult heretic" is not limited to those whose heresy is secret. Any heresy less than notorious has no juridical effect (as Bishop Sanborn concedes), and hence is legally occult (as Fr. Gleize explains in the quote I posted previously).
I cannot say this for sure, but it's only logical that +Bellarmine was speaking of the material jurisdiction being retained. Because +Bellarmine elsewhere says that a unorthodox pope should be "resisted" and that Catholics should avoid him and even challenge his errors. There could be 2 explanations which explain this apparent contradiction:
.
1. If a pope scandalizes the faithful by unorthodoxy, even if it was by accident, he still holds material office but the faithful are within their moral rights (and duty) to "temporarily" resist/ignore his spiritual jurisdiction, until such time as the matter is cleared up. (Ladislaus, this would line up with your "doubtful pope" situation). This would be a spiritual resistance/ignoring, and wouldn't affect any jurisdiction materially.
.
2. If a pope scandalizes the faithful by unorthodoxy, and it's not an accident (i.e. he believes his error, but hasn't been corrected/rebuked), then the pope's spiritual jurisdiction would be impaired (yet only God would know this, as only He can read hearts), yet his material jurisdiction is still intact. Just like above, the faithful are within their rights/duty to resist/ignore him.
.
Both of these situations are not cleared up UNTIL the Church deposes the bad pope, because ONLY a deposition can remove him from office. And such a deposition is the act of declaring that the pope is a formal heretic.
-
I like boiled hot dogs.
-
#1) this is not Bishop Sanborn's thesis, but that of Bishop Guerard des Lauriers. This exposes you as a dishonest liar, falsely attributing this thesis to +Sanborn.
As a matter of charity, I would not attribute the theory the way Bishop Sanborn explains it to des Lauriers, without first what des Lauriers wrote myself: The way Bishop Sanborn explains it is utterly absurd.
Heiner: So then, to go back to the root, do you dispute that [Vatican II] was an ecuмenical council?
Bp. Sanborn: Yes. I don’t dispute it; I deny it because Paul VI and John XXIII were not true popes.
Heiner: At the time that they called the council?
Bp. Sanborn: Yes.
Heiner: So you dispute that John XXIII was a true Pope at the time of the calling of the council [in 1961[1]]?
Bp. Sanborn: I even deny it. I don’t dispute it. The reason I do is because of his intention, his obvious intention, to alter the fabric of the Faith through the instrument of an Ecuмenical Council. Although I don’t think that the case of heresy against him is the same as it is against Paul VI, John Paul II and so forth, nevertheless I definitely think he fails to be a true pope for the reason of his obvious intention to alter the Catholic Church in the direction of Vatican II.
Heiner: But doesn’t the Church always say we’re not supposed to judge personal intentions?
Bp. Sanborn: No, the Catholic Church does not preach that. You are presumed to have a guilty intention by the commission of an act, whatever it should be, or at least a deliberate intention. Let’s use that word, the deliberate intention by the commission of an act. If you did not have a deliberate intention for some reason the burden of proof is on you.
Heiner: I’m sorry, so let me rephrase that. So you would concede that the act of calling an ecuмenical council doesn’t betray a specific bad intention.
Bp. Sanborn: No. In hindsight, though, as we look back upon Vatican II and what happened as a result of Vatican II and look at John XXIII, it is clear that his intention was to alter the Church in the direction of Modernism and that intention vitiated his own authority.”
Bishop Sanborn says a person is presumed to have a guilty intention when he commits an act, “whatever it should be.” He doesn’t say a guilty intention is to be presumed if someone commits an evil act (e.g. robbing a bank), but any act; and the act he is referring to is not an objectively evil act, but the legitimate act of a Pope calling a council. If Bishops Sanborn were correct, every Pope who ever called a council should be presumed to have had a bad intention in doing so.
Then, he jumps to the conclusion that if a Pope has an evil intention of calling a council, it will prevent him from receiving papal authority. When has the Church or any theologian ever taught such a thing, and how would the fact of the bad intention ever be judged? Bishop Sanborn makes up his own law (i.e., the intention to undermine the faith prevents a Pope from receiving authority), and then makes himself the judge of the fact (i.e., that the Pope had such an intention), and then publicly renders his verdict that John XXIII and every Pope after him (and all 5000+ bishos alive today) all had the evil intention to undermine the faith when they were elected/appointed, and hence none of the possess the authority of the offices they legally hold.
The entire theory is utterly absurd, and if you believe you are a complete buffoon.
.
-
Well, you have to distinguish between the spiritual office and the material office.
I agree, but PC2 just declared this distinction to be heretical.
-
As a matter of charity, I would not attribute the theory the way Bishop Sanborn explains it to des Lauriers, without first what des Lauriers wrote myself: The way Bishop Sanborn explains it is utterly absurd.
There was little more than a mention of the "material" vs. "formal" distinction in my posts, so you immediately labeled mere mention of that as being the equivalent of whatever +Sanborn holds ... which I have not studied in any detail.
-
The entire theory is utterly absurd, and if you believe you are a complete buffoon.
.
This is one part of his explanation and not at all at the core of the thesis. He speaks about a defect of intention to accept the papacy. But my mention of the thesis was in the context of two aspects of the office, the material and the formal, and whether in "stripping" the Pope of his office, as it were, the Church is removing the formal authority or merely the material designation that remains. So the context of my post had absolutely nothing to do with the defect of intention thesis ... and you know it.
I have repeatedly stated that +Sanborn is not genuine des Laurier because he has a strong need to spin it towards sedevacantist. Bishop McKenna placed as a condition of his consecration his abandonment of sedevacantism and acceptance of sedeprivationism ... which he did reluctantly. Once he did adopt it he maintained a very strong sedevacantist slant/spin on it. You can search this forum to find where I have explained this.
-
The "Pope" is getting long in the tooth. Better hurry up to get him pope again.
Empathy. (https://www.barnhardt.biz/2019/11/13/empathy/)
(https://www.barnhardt.biz/wp-content/uploads/2019/11/img_1157.jpg) (https://mobile.twitter.com/TaylorRMarshall/status/1194620761060888576)
-
I agree, but PC2 just declared this distinction to be heretical.
Sorry, my post was meant to reply to the thread in general, including PC2. If +Bellarmine says that an occult/secret heretic (as defined by church law, not defined in the normal linguist meaning), still possess ALL aspects of jurisdiction (both material and spiritual), yet then argues that an occult/secret heretic pope is to be resisted and challenged in his error, this seems like a massive contradiction. I'm sure he made a distinction somewhere.
-
Here’s the definition from Fr. Augustine’s book:
Fr. Augustine referenced 2195 §1 above. Here again is how that canon defines the nature of a crime, followed by Fr. Augustine’s commentary:
The underlined part above is what I mean by the sin vis-a-vis the crime of heresy. The crime of heresy is the sin of heresy combined with an external act of heresy. When the two are joined together, the heretical act meets the canonical definition of “the nature of a crime” (Canon 2195 §1). It is as simple as that.
Quote
TITLE XI
CRIMES AGAINST FAITH AND UNITY …
APOSTASY, HERESY, AND SCHISM …
The crime of apostasy, heresy, or schism must be exteriorly manifested, either in words, writings, or acts which betray defection from the Christian Church, denial of some article of faith, or separation from the unity of the Church, according to canon 2195 §1; because merely internal apostasy, heresy, or schism do not belong to the external forum and therefore are not intended here.” (Fr. Augustine, Commentary on the New Code of Canon Law).
Fr. Augustine referenced 2195 §1 above. Here again is how that canon defines the nature of a crime, followed by Fr. Augustine’s commentary:
Quote
“CIC 1917, Book V Part I defines "the nature of a crime Can. 2195. §1: A crime is an external and morally imputable transgression of a law to which is attached a canonical sanction.”
In this feature crime shares the notion of sin, for every crime is a sin, though not conversely. For a sin (e. g., mental apostasy or heresy) may be committed by the mind only, whereas a crime supposes an external act.” (Fr. Augustine, Commentary on the New Code of Canon Law).
Thanks for the quote;
If "every crime is a sin", then it appears to be by its basic nature a sin. So these quotes still do not contradict what Fr. Kramer has said about heresy by nature being a sin as "every crime is a sin".
Public heresy is a crime, all crimes are sins. Thus public heresy is a sin.
Internal heresy is a sin. Thus internal heresy is a sin.
Either way, heresy seem to be always a sin. (assuming it is willful)
-
By "heretic", do you mean lacking the virtue of faith, while remaining externally united to the Church? If so, there is nothing in Divine Law that prevents such a person from being elected Pope.
It is true the Church has not indicated the existence of such a bar up to this point in time. But was the Immaculate Conception not part of "Divine Law" well before Ineffabilis Deus merely because it was not defined until Pius IX? Simply because prior to the definition no one would be judged a heretic for not believing it doesn't mean it wasn't part of the deposit of faith, part of Revelation.
Of course, the subject of "occult heretics" has become somewhat more relevant in my view since what we may come to know someday as the Great Apostasy.
The Church has not hitherto ruled on the question of whether they are indeed members, probably because it had not before concerned the society and community of the faithful, but only the individual and his standing with God, something between a man and his maker. Now it may be an issue concerning the Church and its governance, its divine constitution and structure; a question of import for the Church at large.
The question remains open.
Here's a very good article/discussion on "occult heretics" posted on this site, written not long before our crisis began:
https://www.cathinfo.com/the-library/aer-fenton/ (https://www.cathinfo.com/the-library/aer-fenton/)
-
Both Fr. Kramer and Fr. Hesse studied at the Angelicuм (The Pontifical University of Saint Thomas Aquinas in Rome), if I am not mistaken, around the same time. Same with Fr. Gruner. Yet, it seems like it is only Fr. Kramer who gets criticized for not being a "real theologian" and being trained in the Novus Ordo. The same criticism or complement should be given to all three.
Also, some former friends and collaborators of Fr. Gruner criticizes Fr. Kramer for believing that Pope Benedict is still the Pope, but these same critics never mention that Fr. Gruner held the same belief and is the one who requested Fr. Kramer write a book about the issues being discuses here on CathInfo.
Fr. Gregory Hesse did indeed hold doctorates in Canon law and Thomistic theology from Novus Ordo institutions. I'll still take Fr. Hesse' word over that of Fr. Kramer any day.
At least Fr. Hesse didn't call people who disagreed with him "heretics."
Fr. Hesse was wise, and used his wisdom and intellectual ability to explain the Crisis in the Church; while Fr. Kramer insists that everyone must agree with him.
-
I'll still take Fr. Hesse' word over that of Fr. Kramer any day.
Well, of course, simply because you want to. Your confirmation bias aside, however, objectively speaking they have equivalent credentials.
Now, if you want someone with theological credentials unrivaled by any other Traditional Catholic, one would look to +Guerard des Lauriers. No other Traditional Catholic has been able to hold a candle to him in that regard.
Then you have Father Saenz Arriaga, holding Doctorates in Philosphy, Theology, and Canon Law (from Rome pre Vatican II). He was the original sedevacantist.
Then you have one Ngo Dinh Thuc, also Doctor of Philosophy, Theology, and Canon Law (from Rome pre Vatican II) ... seminary professor and lecturer at the Sorbonne.
So all the theological clout, the theological credentials, are squarely in the corner of the sedevacantists.
... since that's what everyone is arguing about.
-
Well, of course, simply because you want to. Your confirmation bias aside, however, objectively speaking they have equivalent credentials.
Of what use are credentials from a Novus Ordo institution really. Father Hesse was far more astute, intellectual, reasonable, and charitable than Fr. Kramer, hands down. Fr. Kramer only cares about forcing others to his view. Fr. Hesse did not do that. He strove to help us make sense of the Crisis in the Church. And he didn't make accusations of heresy against those who disagreed with him.
-
It is true the Church has not indicated the existence of such a bar up to this point in time. But was the Immaculate Conception not part of "Divine Law" well before Ineffabilis Deus merely because it was not defined until Pius IX? Simply because prior to the definition no one would be judged a heretic for not believing it doesn't mean it wasn't part of the deposit of faith, part of Revelation.
Of course, the subject of "occult heretics" has become somewhat more relevant in my view since what we may come to know someday as the Great Apostasy.
The Church has not hitherto ruled on the question of whether they are indeed members, probably because it had not before concerned the society and community of the faithful, but only the individual and his standing with God, something between a man and his maker. Now it may be an issue concerning the Church and its governance, its divine constitution and structure; a question of import for the Church at large.
The question remains open.
Here's a very good article/discussion on "occult heretics" posted on this site, written not long before our crisis began:
https://www.cathinfo.com/the-library/aer-fenton/ (https://www.cathinfo.com/the-library/aer-fenton/)
This is a terrific article. Thank you for linking to this. So, despite all the argument about inner/occult vs. external/visible bonds in the Church, the matter is highly disputed among theologians.
Some hold that occult heretics are in fact not members of the Church.
I lean towards the opinion of Sylvius that occult heretics are members only secundum quid.
And the Theologian Lawlor made the case from Mystici Corporis that occult heretics are not in fact members of the Church.
So this is a highly controverted matter ...
leaving the issue ... in doubt.
Sede-doubtism anyone?
We can not more settle the matter of sedevacantism amongst ourselves than all these theologians were able to come to a universal agreement. If these great minds could not come to an agreement, we're probably wasting our time trying to settle the matter among us relative ignorami.
As I have said so many times, what we really need to be arguing about are ecclesiological issues such as the Magisterium, the Universal Discipline of the Church, and the Church's indefectibility.
Once we focus on that, we'll realized that there is absolutely ZERO theological support for the R&R position.
-
Stubborn,
Based on this article, I must retract my earlier statement (now shown to be mistaken) that no theologian ever held that the Baptismal character alone suffices for membership in the Church. Evidently Cajetan held that opinion. It was not held by many and has long been abandoned ... but it is not true that no theologian ever held this. Now, he did nevertheless believe that a Pope could fall into heresy and thereby lose his office ... but, then, presumably, he would still be a member of the Church even though deposed from office.
Father Wathen evidently tried to revive this theory, which to my knowledge no other Traditional Catholic priest has held.
-
Meg said: "Fr. Kramer insists that everyone must agree with him."
What a load of codswallop. On truly open questions I respect the rights of others to disagree. Salza & Siscoe are in heresy as I have proven. A true pope may never be judged by anyone. For so long as he retains the office, he has the "fullness of absolute power"; even if the majority rashly judge him a heretic. If a putative pope becomes suspect of heresy to the degree in which the see must be presumed vacant; then the man can be judged and the vacancy filled. The indicia of heresy must be evaluated strictly according to the canonical tradition and jurisprudence of the Roman Church. No pope loses office when the Church judges him a heretic. The Church can only judge that the heretic, is not a valid pope; and that if he was pope, he is pope no longer. If the judgment is objectively correct, then the see is de jure vacant. Pope Gregory XVI and don Pietro Ballerini based this position of theirs primarily on the ruling of Session 37 of the Council of Constance. It is not mere theologians' speculations, such as the opinions of Cajetan or Suárez, which were thoroughly refuted by Bordoni. Even Bellarmine errs on some points, such as on the question of Liberius. He never was deposed or fell from office. If ever a true pope were falsely convicted of heresy, he would retain the primacy. It would be his duty as pope to defend the right of the primacy, as Ballerini teaches. I have quoted verbatim in my book the authors I cite here, along with many others. I do not here express a mere personal opimion. A true pope may never be judged by anyone, as St. Gregory VII taught. If a putative pope is rightly judged a heretic, the see is presumed to be vacant. In such a case, before the Church judges, if there exists positive and probable doubt about the validity of a putative pope; the faithful have the right to withdraw obedience and recognition. It will be objected that this is a sedevacantist opinion. I answer: If the see is rightly presumed vacant, then in that instance the sedevacantist position is right. If the see is erroneously presumed vacant, then, in that instance, the sedevacantist position is wrong. If I err in my opinion, I err in good company, because I follow St. Alphonsus, Pope Gregory XVI, and don Pietro Ballerini, whose teachings on this question I have examined carefully.
-
Fr. Gregory Hesse did indeed hold doctorates in Canon law and Thomistic theology from Novus Ordo institutions. I'll still take Fr. Hesse' word over that of Fr. Kramer any day.
At least Fr. Hesse didn't call people who disagreed with him "heretics."
Fr. Hesse was wise, and used his wisdom and intellectual ability to explain the Crisis in the Church; while Fr. Kramer insists that everyone must agree with him.
Yes, this is well stated Meg. I am still awaiting an understandable answer from Fr. Kramer but expect to be verbally pummeled, without an answer, if he ever does reply.
Fr. Kramer says the Church has a divine right to judge the papal claimant - who is this, "the Church"? By what "divine right"? If "the Church" finds the claimant to be the legitimate pope, then the "The Church" will have judged the pope - which the only Church I know of and I belong to does not allow, and the idea itself has been officially and explicitly condemned.
We must admit that "The Church" cannot be mistaken on this judgement, yet he states that it is the opinion of someone named Ballerini that "The Church's" judgement is infallible because divine providence is the safeguard that prevents "The Church" from ruling against a valid pope. I mean, really?
-
Stubborn has drawn a grotesque caricature of my position, which I have expressed with sufficient clarity for any honest person to understand.
-
Stubborn,
Based on this article, I must retract my earlier statement (now shown to be mistaken) that no theologian ever held that the Baptismal character alone suffices for membership in the Church. Evidently Cajetan held that opinion. It was not held by many and has long been abandoned ... but it is not true that no theologian ever held this. Now, he did nevertheless believe that a Pope could fall into heresy and thereby lose his office ... but, then, presumably, he would still be a member of the Church even though deposed from office.
Father Wathen evidently tried to revive this theory, which to my knowledge no other Traditional Catholic priest has held.
It's not a theory, Trent's catechism teaches it. They belong to Her only as a deserter, but they do belong to Her.
Trent's catechism says "Heretics and schismatics are excluded from the Church, because they have separated from her and belong to her only as deserters belong to the army from which they have deserted".
The fact that the deserter wants nothing to do with the army any more has nothing to do with it because the army still claims jurisdiction over them, and will rightfully pass judgement upon them as one of their own, if they ever get caught.
-
Stubborn has drawn a grotesque caricature of my position, which I have expressed with sufficient clarity for any honest person to understand.
I am honest Father, but I quoted you on your position, I didn't say it, you're the one who called it a grotesque caricature.
Nothing new here I suppose. As I said in my post above: I am still awaiting an understandable answer from Fr. Kramer but expect to be verbally pummeled, without an answer, if he ever does reply.
-
The account of Liberius' "fall" is based on the flimsiest of evidence -- mostly on docuмents that appear to have been forged; and hearsay based on those forgeries. The preponderance of evidence is clearly against any such fall. The account has no reliable basis, and cannot be taken seriously. What is absolutely certain is that Antipope Felix II was never a pope, never a martyr, and never a saint. His identity was later confused with St. Felix the martyr, who was never a pope. The 1962 edition of the Roman Missal corrected this error.
There was never a judgment against Liberius, he was never deposed, and Felix never succeeded him as pope. The entire story is as apocryphal as the story of the "fall" of St. Marcellinus, which was based entirely on a forgery (as I have explained in my book).
-
If you want a more precise answer, you need to formulate a more precise question, Stubborn. "Which Church", do I refer to? What kind of a question is that? There is only ONE Church. ALL the others are SECTS.
-
Yes the Church, the Catholic Church. Specifically, what member or members of said Church are supposed to make this an official declaration? Surely Fr. Kramer must believe that such pronouncements regarding figures no less than the Pope himself must have a specific authority behind them. Unless of course when he says the "Church" he means every single Catholic, laity included.
-
Q. Stubborn asks: "Specifically, what member or members of said Church are supposed to make this an official declaration?"
A. How many times do you expect me to repeat myself? Go back and read my earlier comments. I have already answered this question.
-
Sorry, Stubborn, I meant Croixalist.
-
So we are now at page 33 in a thread in which, for some reason, nobody is willing (or able?) to provide the Latin and English text (and citations) of Bellarmine's actual words, demonstrating him to have taught that the Church must issue at least one declaration (i.e., that of the fact of the pope's heresy), before said pope would fall from the chair ipso facto, or not.
Would not a reasonable person become skeptical by now that such words really exist, when the mere copy/paste of them here would end the sedevacantist reliance of Bellarmine forever?
I begin to wonder.
I have tried to find the Latin text online, but have come up empty. Even if I did, I doubt any of us would be qualified to translate it accurately.
However, it does seem strange that [based on what we know from the English translations out there], if St. Bellarmine agreed with Cajetan that warnings were necessary, he would never include the need for warnings (and expound on exactly what that would look like) when he takes up his own (and, as he says, the true) fifth opinion. Instead, he is silent on that point and repeats the idea that a manifest heretic is "ipso facto" out of the Church.
-
It's not a theory, Trent's catechism teaches it. They belong to Her only as a deserter, but they do belong to Her.
This only means that the Church still has authority over them. This does not mean that they continue on as members of the Church.
You should read the article. There is an extreme minority opinion, no longer held, except by Father Wathen, apparently, and those who follow him, that the Baptismal character alone suffices for membership in the Church. This was held by Cajetan and one or two of his followers, but that was it. Despite this, however, Cajetan did have a theory about how a Pope could lose office ... evidently without losing membership in the Church.
-
As a matter of charity, I would not attribute the theory the way Bishop Sanborn explains it to des Lauriers, without first what des Lauriers wrote myself: The way Bishop Sanborn explains it is utterly absurd.
Bishop Sanborn says a person is presumed to have a guilty intention when he commits an act, “whatever it should be.” He doesn’t say a guilty intention is to be presumed if someone commits an evil act (e.g. robbing a bank), but any act; and the act he is referring to is not an objectively evil act, but the legitimate act of a Pope calling a council. If Bishops Sanborn were correct, every Pope who ever called a council should be presumed to have had a bad intention in doing so.
Then, he jumps to the conclusion that if a Pope has an evil intention of calling a council, it will prevent him from receiving papal authority. When has the Church or any theologian ever taught such a thing, and how would the fact of the bad intention ever be judged? Bishop Sanborn makes up his own law (i.e., the intention to undermine the faith prevents a Pope from receiving authority), and then makes himself the judge of the fact (i.e., that the Pope had such an intention), and then publicly renders his verdict that John XXIII and every Pope after him (and all 5000+ bishos alive today) all had the evil intention to undermine the faith when they were elected/appointed, and hence none of the possess the authority of the offices they legally hold.
The entire theory is utterly absurd, and if you believe you are a complete buffoon.
.
Wow. Father Kramer has talked about you taking things out of context, and now you demonstrate the deplorable state of your reading comprehension.
Bishop Sanborn is not saying that a bad intention is presumed for every action, such as giving a man dying of thirst a glass of water. Do you believe that? I can't help but question your good will with such a reading.
What the bishop is saying is that bad intent is presumed in play by the commission of something that is wrong in se, such as taking someone else's property. That, the action itself without explanation, is presumed to be theft.
Your reading of the bishop here is pathetic.
-
This is a terrific article. Thank you for linking to this. So, despite all the argument about inner/occult vs. external/visible bonds in the Church, the matter is highly disputed among theologians.
Some hold that occult heretics are in fact not members of the Church.
I lean towards the opinion of Sylvius that occult heretics are members only secundum quid.
And the Theologian Lawlor made the case from Mystici Corporis that occult heretics are not in fact members of the Church.
So this is a highly controverted matter ...
leaving the issue ... in doubt.
Sede-doubtism anyone?
We can not more settle the matter of sedevacantism amongst ourselves than all these theologians were able to come to a universal agreement. If these great minds could not come to an agreement, we're probably wasting our time trying to settle the matter among us relative ignorami.
As I have said so many times, what we really need to be arguing about are ecclesiological issues such as the Magisterium, the Universal Discipline of the Church, and the Church's indefectibility.
Once we focus on that, we'll realized that there is absolutely ZERO theological support for the R&R position.
Lad,
Good post. I agree with your areas of focus/discussion.
If you haven't read Fr. Lawlor's article referenced by Msgr. Fenton, I can post a link.
-
Here's the bottom line ... thanks to the article linked to by Decem.
We can argue until the cows come home about what Bellarmine meant ... and it doesn't really matter, since this question has not been definitively settled by the Church.
Even St. Robert's opinion regarding the requirements for membership in the Church have not been authoritatively settled. There's another school of thought, which, although it has become less common these days, which holds, among other things, that occult heretics are not fully members of the Church. I think that the position has a lot of merit. And there are a tremendous number of permutations regarding these views.
So, in other words, of someone wanted to hold even that occult heretics would lose the papal office, there's nothing to stop them.
So we're wasting our time debating this issue.
Any theory must abide by things that the Church HAS settled, such as that Councils cannot formally depose popes (Lateran V), and that the Holy See is judged by no one, and that the Pope has supreme absolute authority in the Church (Vatican I). Any theory that does not contradict these principles can be held by a Catholic. What we're arguing about is whether some distinction or another is legitimate so that some theory which APPEARS to contradict one of these principles really doesn't.
-
Lad,
Good post. I agree with your areas of focus/discussion.
If you haven't read Fr. Lawlor's article referenced by Msgr. Fenton, I can post a link.
Was Fr Lawlor even ordained in the Old Rite in 1969? I prefer to refer to pre-Vatican II theologians in these matters.
-
Lad,
Good post. I agree with your areas of focus/discussion.
If you haven't read Fr. Lawlor's article referenced by Msgr. Fenton, I can post a link.
Yes, thank you. Msgr. Fenton rejects Father Lawlor's position, and I think rightly so, because Pius XII did carefully formulate his statement in listing NECESSARY conditions for membership in the Church rather than SUFFICIENT. So, in other words, Pius XII stated, "no one can be a member of the Church without ...", but did not settle whether or not there were other requirements.
In Msgr. Fenton's article, I found it interesting that St. Robert evidently held the opinion someone falsely CLAIMING to be a Catholic, pretending he was baptized when he wasn't, was a member of the Chuch, but that after Pius XII, this was now "unacceptable". This opinion that a fake Catholic is a Catholic is taking the quoad nos mentality to the EXTREME. In point of fact, however, that opinion does appear to be the logical conclusion to St. Robert's thinking ... which makes us wonder whether more of it should not be carefully "walked back", as it were.
-
Here's the bottom line ... thanks to the article linked to by Decem.
We can argue until the cows come home about what Bellarmine meant ... and it doesn't really matter, since this question has not been definitively settled by the Church.
Even St. Robert's opinion regarding the requirements for membership in the Church have not been authoritatively settled. There's another school of thought, which, although it has become less common these days, which holds, among other things, that occult heretics are not fully members of the Church. I think that the position has a lot of merit. And there are a tremendous number of permutations regarding these views.
So, in other words, of someone wanted to hold even that occult heretics would lose the papal office, there's nothing to stop them.
So we're wasting our time debating this issue.
Any theory must abide by things that the Church HAS settled, such as that Councils cannot formally depose popes (Lateran V), and that the Holy See is judged by no one, and that the Pope has supreme absolute authority in the Church (Vatican I). Any theory that does not contradict these principles can be held by a Catholic. What we're arguing about is whether some distinction or another is legitimate so that some theory which APPEARS to contradict one of these principles really doesn't.
Except St Robert Bellarmine's teaching was used at Vatican I. It can not be simply dismissed as just another opinion.
-
Was Fr Lawlor even ordained in the Old Rite in 1969? I prefer to refer to pre-Vatican II theologians in these matters.
Well, the article in which Msgr. Fenton was discussing Father Lawlor was written in 1950 ... so I would assume so.
According to Msgr. Fenton, there still exists a division between the two major schools, St. Robert and Sylvius, although the former is "more common".
-
Except St Robert Bellarmine's teaching was used at Vatican I. It can not be simply dismissed as just another opinion.
SOME of it was, 2Vermont, not all. Just because some of his thinking as adopted doesn't mean that all of it was. I think there's a quote from one of the Vatican I fathers to the effect that the heretical pope issue was not being definitively settled. So, for instance, just because some pieces of St. Robert were adopted by the Church, this does not mean the Church endorsed his theory that even a fake Catholic was a member of the Church.
-
There are many bonds which unite someone to the Church ..
1) Baptismal character
2) external profession of faith
3) internal supernatural faith
4) internal supernatural charity
I don't know of any theologian who says that #4 is required for membership. Pius XII clearly taught that grave sins (other than heresy and apostasy and schism) do NOT of their nature separate from the Church, so it's clear Catholic teaching that #4 is not required.
Of this rest, the Sylvius school holds that #3 is in fact required, whereas the Bellarmine school holds that it is not. Father Lawlor sounds to have been basically promoting the Sylvius school based on his reading of Pius XII.
Pius XII also taught that baptism was required for membership ... which is what Msgr. Fenton commented on as ruling out St. Robert's fake Catholic theory.
Interestingly, Msgr. Fenton never discussed the famous "sin of heresy" passage we've been discussing here, but I would guess that Father Lawlor used that to back the requirement for true supernatural faith and not just the external appearances thereof.
-
Well, the article in which Msgr. Fenton was discussing Father Lawlor was written in 1950 ... so I would assume so.
According to Msgr. Fenton, there still exists a division between the two major schools, St. Robert and Sylvius, although the former is "more common".
My apologies...I think I found the wrong Fr Lawlor on the internet. For me, occult heretics do not affect the unity of the Church...which is what I believe is the main driving force for St Robert Bellarmine's teaching on manifest heretic popes.
-
This is a very complicated issue, not settled yet by the Church, and this 37 pages of argument will lead us to no definitive conclusion.
I feel that we're wasting too much time on arguing about it.
What the REAL issue here is whether the Catholic Magisterium and Universal Discipline of the Church can become THIS corrupt. R&R says yes, whereas the sedevacantists/privationists say no. That's the REAL discussion here. If the Magisterium and Universal Discipline had remained intact, then the heretical ramblings of one Jorge Bergoglio would not matter very much to the average Catholic.
You can find theologians on all sides of the heretical pope issue. But I defy anyone to find a pre-Vatican II theologian who would say that it is not heretical to hold that an Ecuмenical Council could teach grave error to the Church, leading souls to hell, and that the Church could approve of and promulgate a Mass that's harmful to souls and displeasing to God. THAT is the real issue here. This heretical pope issue is a distraction.
-
Ladislaus,
Father Lawlor's article is attached.
-
This is a very complicated issue, not settled yet by the Church, and this 37 pages of argument will lead us to no definitive conclusion.
I feel that we're wasting too much time on arguing about it.
What the REAL issue here is whether the Catholic Magisterium and Universal Discipline of the Church can become THIS corrupt. R&R says yes, whereas the sedevacantists/privationists say no. That's the REAL discussion here. If the Magisterium and Universal Discipline had remained intact, then the heretical ramblings of one Jorge Bergoglio would not matter very much to the average Catholic.
You can find theologians on all sides of the heretical pope issue. But I defy anyone to find a pre-Vatican II theologian who would say that it is not heretical to hold that an Ecuмenical Council could teach grave error to the Church, leading souls to hell, and that the Church could approve of and promulgate a Mass that's harmful to souls and displeasing to God. THAT is the real issue here. This heretical pope issue is a distraction.
Generally speaking we spend too much time arguing about a lot. ;D Having said that, you have a point here....perhaps start another thread with the above post?
I admit that there are MANY posts in this thread that I just didn't read. It would be helpful if posters (I'm looking at you "Don Paolo") used paragraphs and the quote function when writing. Walls of text are not inviting to the (average) reader at all.
-
My apologies...I think I found the wrong Fr Lawlor on the internet. For me, occult heretics do not affect the unity of the Church...which is what I believe is the main driving force for St Robert Bellarmine's teaching on manifest heretic popes.
Right, except this opinion is not definitively settled by the Church. I think that there's some merit to the Sylvius position that occult heretics are member of the Church not simpliciter but only secundum quid. Now, how this would apply to the heretical pope issue is another question altogether.
-
Ladislaus,
Father Lawlor's article is attached.
Thank you very much.
-
This is a very complicated issue, not settled yet by the Church, and this 37 pages of argument will lead us to no definitive conclusion.
I feel that we're wasting too much time on arguing about it.
What the REAL issue here is whether the Catholic Magisterium and Universal Discipline of the Church can become THIS corrupt. R&R says yes, whereas the sedevacantists/privationists say no. That's the REAL discussion here. If the Magisterium and Universal Discipline had remained intact, then the heretical ramblings of one Jorge Bergoglio would not matter very much to the average Catholic.
You can find theologians on all sides of the heretical pope issue. But I defy anyone to find a pre-Vatican II theologian who would say that it is not heretical to hold that an Ecuмenical Council could teach grave error to the Church, leading souls to hell, and that the Church could approve of and promulgate a Mass that's harmful to souls and displeasing to God. THAT is the real issue here. This heretical pope issue is a distraction.
I agree with this mainly. Areas of disagreement would sidetrack the discussion and just be of minor contentions attached to the general principles (which I agree with) - maybe another thread.
The main issue is what appears to be the Magisterium (by outward signs, apparent proper mode of election/selection, etc.) - again pointing out the significance lurking behind the occult heretic issue with its outer/interior bond focus - teaching errors regarding the faith, errors that may or may not contaminate the core beliefs of our faith, and show a radical problem with Catholic claims to be truth itself by indicating a logical contradiction, which I and all of us here assert is impossible (since the Catholic faith is God's truth and the way of salvation).
This problem is why we are all here and why we argue about these things. It is of no small importance.
-
Ladislaus,
Father Lawlor's article is attached.
I'm just beginning to read this; it is excellent. I have not yet gotten to his conclusion, but he makes some great points regarding the state of the question.
Here's an interesting corollary to Bellarmine's purely-visible concept of the Church, one that has always troubled me. St. Robert declares that excommunicates are outside the Church. But what about those unjustly excommunicated? Although visibly separated from the body of the Church, they are in fact still part of the Church because the excommunication was unjust.
-
I'm just beginning to read this; it is excellent. I have not yet gotten to his conclusion, but he makes some great points regarding the state of the question.
Here's an interesting corollary to Bellarmine's purely-visible concept of the Church, one that has always troubled me. St. Robert declares that excommunicates are outside the Church. But what about those unjustly excommunicated? Although visibly separated from the body of the Church, they are in fact still part of the Church because the excommunication was unjust.
I look forward to your thoughts. I found it very powerful and reasonable. I will have to read it again myself.
-
I agree with this mainly. Areas of disagreement would sidetrack the discussion and just be of minor contentions attached to the general principles (which I agree with) - maybe another thread.
The main issue is what appears to be the Magisterium (by outward signs, apparent proper mode of election/selection, etc.) - again pointing out the significance lurking behind the occult heretic issue with its outer/interior bond focus - teaching errors regarding the faith, errors that may or may not contaminate the core beliefs of our faith, and show a radical problem with Catholic claims to be truth itself by indicating a logical contradiction, which I and all of us here assert is impossible (since the Catholic faith is God's truth and the way of salvation).
This problem is why we are all here and why we argue about these things. It is of no small importance.
Actually it's not a "minor" contention: I do not hold the Novus Ordo Missae "a Mass that's harmful to souls and displeasing to God." And yet I would agree with Sedes as to the V2 popes because of their doctrinal teachings. But as to the principles expressed (apart from that conclusion or application) I am in absolute agreement.
As I said . . . another thread.
-
Q. Stubborn asks: "Specifically, what member or members of said Church are supposed to make this an official declaration?"
A. How many times do you expect me to repeat myself? Go back and read my earlier comments. I have already answered this question.
Answer it in one sentence, no walls of text. Be succinct and to the point without being obnoxious or insulting.
-
According to theologians post Bellarmine and pre Vatican II, manifest/public heretics depends on the large number of people their heresy is made manifest to. It does not matter if they are ignorant (material) nor willful (formal). See Van Noort Dogmatic Theology, Members of the Church.
2Vermont, I think in the passage you may be thinking of, Van Noort is speaking of Protestants. Van Noort says some hold even Protestant material heretics to be members of the Church, but most others teach that they are not externally united as members.
Similarly, when it is said by Pope Pius XII, that the sin of heresy is such as of its own nature to cause a person to be separated from the Church, since only formal heretics have committed the sin of heresy, it seems clear that the reference is to formal heretics.
As for St. Robert Bellarmine, he said the heretic must at least show himself to "be manifestly obstinate" as was mentioned earlier. Maybe a Council could make a presumption of heresy even for material heresy, but I don't think that laity can.
Here's a study by Xavier Da Silveira (https://ia801206.us.archive.org/25/items/CanThePopeGoBadDaSilveiraA.V.Xavier5161/Can%20the%20Pope%20Go%20Bad_%20-%20da%20Silveira%2C%20A.%20V.%20Xavier_5161.pdf): "As is obvious, we are not discussing the possibility of the Pope being in material heresy. No one denies, that mistakenly or by inadvertence, the Supreme Pontiff can fall into material heresy, as a private person"
Now, as regards what was being discussed earlier, I'm open to the idea as a hypothesis that a Council of Bishops, after warnings, could determine the Pope "to be manifestly obstinate". But what happens if the Council rebukes him, and then the Pope retracts?
So personally - and ironically I'm agreeing with Fr. Kramer here, though I commend Siscoe and Salza for the publication of their book, which has been endorsed by the Society of Saint Pius X, and already proved helpful for many - I don't believe a Pope will ever lose the Faith. The reason for this, although St. Robert and Bp. Gasser at Vatican I, called this only a pious opinion and not absolutely certain, is that Our Lord Jesus indeed prayed that the Faith of St. Peter and his Successors may not fail. Now faith does not fail in someone who falls into heresy but without pertinacity, as was perhaps the case with Pope John XXII, nor does it fail if a man commits ordinary mortal sins, because then only grace is lost, but not faith; but it does fail when he becomes a formal heretic, by committing the mortal sin of heresy, and then not only sanctifying grace, but even the internal virtue of supernatural faith itself is lost.
On the occult heretic thing, it is very unlikely occult heretics lose membership imo. Pope Pius XII said, to be members of the Church, it is necessary to be validly baptized, and to profess the true faith, among other things. So validly baptized professing Catholics are all included in that imo. If a person is an occult heretic but still claims to be Catholic, he remains a member. As for one unjustly excommunicated, I believe St. Robert himself says somewhere, that such a person remains within the Church but by internal bonds. Similarly, Pope Pius XII seems to endorse that opinion when he excludes from Church membership only those excluded by Church authorities for real "grave faults committed", not for mistaken penalties or injustices borne. Anyway, the Pope-heretic thing is broader.
But the prayer of Our Lord Jesus Christ in Luk 22:32 appears to be meant as an efficacious one, just like Our Lord's Prayer for the Unity of His Church in Jn 17. Thus, while the faithful are invited to pray for the same, e.g. that the Church's unity may be strengthened, that the Holy Father may not fail in the faith etc, nevertheless, it doesn't seem that the prayer of Jesus Christ can fail. And therefore, it seems more likely than not, that when corrected and rebuked by the Bishops in Council, the Pope will retract. Therefore, he will remain a Catholic, although one who erred graved, and once his error is corrected in Council, the Church goes on.
Cardinal Billot: "I said: ‘admitted the hypothesis”. But it appears by far more probable that this hypothesis is a mere hypothesis, never reducible to act, in virtue of what St. Luke says (22: 32): “I have prayed for you that your faith not fail, and you, once being converted, confirm your brethren”. That this ought to be understood of Saint Peter and of all his successors, is what the voice of Tradition attests ... "
Relatio of Bp. Gasser at Vatican I: "the opinion of Albert Pighius, which Bellarmine indeed calls pious and probable, was that the Pope, as an individual person or a private teacher, was able to err from a type of ignorance but was never able to fall into heresy or teach heresy. To say nothing of the other points, let me say that this is clear from the very words of Bellarmine, both in the citation made by the reverend speaker and also from Bellarmine himself who, in book 4, chapter VI, pronounces on the opinion of Pighius in the following words: "It can be believed probably and piously that the supreme Pontiff is not only not able to err as Pontiff but that even as a particular person he is not able to be heretical, by pertinaciously believing something contrary to the faith." From this, it appears that the doctrine in the proposed chapter is not that of Albert Pighius or the extreme opinion of any school, but rather that it is one and the same which Bellarmine teaches in the place cited by the reverend speaker and which Bellarmine adduces in the fourth place and calls most certain and assured, or rather, correcting himself, the most common and certain opinion". Anyway, it's only a Council of Bishops, after warning the Pope, that can determine pertinacity or the lack thereof for sure imo. We can determine an error.
-
Q. Stubborn asks: "Specifically, what member or members of said Church are supposed to make this an official declaration?"
A. How many times do you expect me to repeat myself? Go back and read my earlier comments. I have already answered this question.
No, I do not expect you to repeat your non-answers but I did do what you said, here are your earlier replies (note: not answers) to the above question......
In the early pages (https://www.cathinfo.com/crisis-in-the-church/tony-la-rosa-benedict-xvi-is-the-true-pope!/msg675543/#msg675543) of this thread, I quoted Pope Gregory XVI who explained the matter.
Stubborn: 1) Any (https://www.cathinfo.com/crisis-in-the-church/tony-la-rosa-benedict-xvi-is-the-true-pope!/msg675557/#msg675557) good theological dictionary will tell you what the Church is, to which I refer.
So as you should be able to clearly see, you have not answered the simple question, nor do I expect you can, which is why I expect you never will.
-
I look forward to your thoughts. I found it very powerful and reasonable. I will have to read it again myself.
I just finished reading it, and it's a great article. Because I haven't had the time to really study it, some of his train of thought lost me about halfway through. I need to have the time to read it more closely. It's certainly worth studying. His citations from Pius XII do in fact suggest that there can be no real membership in the Church without supernatural faith. Msgr. Fenton does not thoroughly address all of these and I feel that his refutation was inadequate. More than anything, it was based on the assertion that, well, all these theologians who follow Bellarmine can't all be wrong. But Father Lawlor isn't saying that they are completely wrong, or wrong outright, but that the Bellarmine position must be refined. Bellarmine was so intent on defending the visibility of the Church, that he went to an extreme, leading to a purely material conception of the Church ... as suggested by the fake Catholic theory. This was of course due to the Protestant heresy of portraying the Church as entirely invisible. He was arguing for a subtle refinement of the thinking.
He states that a fair number of "modern" (in his day) authors, including Franzelin, hold that occult heretics are not members of the Church.
-
On the occult heretic thing, it is very unlikely occult heretics lose membership imo. Pope Pius XII said, to be members of the Church, it is necessary to be validly baptized, and to profess the true faith, among other things.
I used to think this way as well, taking this for granted that occult heretics remain inside the Church. But after reading Msgr. Fenton and Father Lawlor, I've come to he conclusion that this is not absolutely certain and that there has been some dispute over this question that has not been settled by the Church.
-
I think that there can be many lessons regarding the truth of the Mystical Body by considering the human body. God clearly designed the human body in such a way as to help teach us about the reality of the Church, foreknowing before He designed and created it that He Himself would liken the Church to the body.
So, for instance, we can say that the Baptismal character is very much like the DNA that identifies the various cells of the body.
If some non-baptized person attaches himself to the Body, it does not share the DNA and is not properly part of the body but has merely attached itself to the body materially or per accidens like some parasite.
Just as we say that the parasite is not actually part of the body, even though it has managed to attach itself to or even burrow into it.
I'm going to keep meditating on these metaphors.
So with this metaphor we can rule out the speculative theory that non-baptized Catholics are members of the Body of Christ.
-
No, I do not expect you to repeat your non-answers but I did do what you said, here are your earlier replies (note: not answers) to the above question......
In the early pages (https://www.cathinfo.com/crisis-in-the-church/tony-la-rosa-benedict-xvi-is-the-true-pope!/msg675543/#msg675543) of this thread, I quoted Pope Gregory XVI who explained the matter.
Stubborn: 1) Any (https://www.cathinfo.com/crisis-in-the-church/tony-la-rosa-benedict-xvi-is-the-true-pope!/msg675557/#msg675557) good theological dictionary will tell you what the Church is, to which I refer.
So as you should be able to clearly see, you have not answered the simple question, nor do I expect you can, which is why I expect you never will.
Selectively evasive, isn't it?
-
SOME of it was, 2Vermont, not all. Just because some of his thinking as adopted doesn't mean that all of it was. I think there's a quote from one of the Vatican I fathers to the effect that the heretical pope issue was not being definitively settled. So, for instance, just because some pieces of St. Robert were adopted by the Church, this does not mean the Church endorsed his theory that even a fake Catholic was a member of the Church.
No, but it still seems inappropriate at best to place him on the same level as all other theologians given he is a canonized Saint and Doctor of the Church. Were there any other theologians who spoke to these issues who the Church honored in the same way?
-
Selectively evasive, isn't it?
Yes exactly, but isn't that to be expected when the clear answer would clearly expose the error in his posts? - which sadly, is why I do not expect any reply to my questions to contain an actual answer.
-
No, but it still seems inappropriate at best to place him on the same level as all other theologians given he is a canonized Saint and Doctor of the Church. Were there any other theologians who spoke to these issues who the Church honored in the same way?
Nobody's placing him "on the same level," but that does not mean he's infallible, nor does it mean that every single position of his has been adopted by the Church. Not a few canonized Church Fathers held opinions that were later rejected as heretical. Does this mean that he got it "more right" than many others on a lot of issues? I think that's a fair conclusion. But to say that his opinion on any given is definitive merely because he's been declared a Doctor is an exaggeration. We've had canonized Doctors disagreeing with one another on various issues.
-
Nobody's placing him "on the same level," but that does not mean he's infallible, nor does it mean that every single position of his has been adopted by the Church. Not a few canonized Church Fathers held opinions that were later rejected as heretical. Does this mean that he got it "more right" than many others on a lot of issues? I think that's a fair conclusion. But to say that his opinion on any given is definitive merely because he's been declared a Doctor is an exaggeration. We've had canonized Doctors disagreeing with one another on various issues.
I never said the bolded, but the posts here are definitely giving the impression that it's okay to give at least the same weight to the other non-sainted, doctor-declared theologians. With that, I'm not looking to argue about this. There's enough of that already.
Are you going to start a new thread?
-
2Vermont, in the areas where the Church has adopted +Bellarmine’s thinking, he has been properly elevated for his “Doctor” status. In all other areas, his opinion is on the “same level” as all other theologians. This is the proper distinction.
-
That's where we're all at, Sean, trying (often in vain) to make sense of this whole mess. That's where Archbishop Lefebvre was too, and that's why he sometimes changed his mind or his opinion, because this is incredibly confusing.
... and you two are theologian scholars! Imagine how a simple layman, who approaches this mess for the first time, must feel...
-
St. Robert Bellarmine's Refutation of the Second Opinion
The argument: "Thus, the second opinion is that the Pope, in the very instant in which he falls into heresy, even if it is only interior, is outside the Church and deposed by God, for which reason he can be judged by the Church. That is, he is declared deposed by divine law, and deposed de facto, if he still refused to yield." The argument sets forth that even if the heresy is only interior, the heretic is already deposed by God, for which reason, he can be judged by the Church. "That is, he is declared deposed by divine law, and deposed de facto, if he still refused to yield." Therefore, having already been deposed by God and no longer pope, the Church can judge him by declaring him deposed by divine law; and if he refuses to yield, the Church can actually depose him de facto. Thus, it is not even a question of judging or deposing an actual pope, but of judging anddeclaring deposed the man who was pope before he fell from office when he fell into heresy. Bellarmine counters by pointing out that "Jurisdiction is certainly given to the Pontiff by God, but with the agreement of men, as is obvious; because this man, who beforehand was not Pope, has from men that he would begin to be Pope, therefore, it is not removed by God unless it is through men. But a secret heretic cannot be judged by men to have been deposed by divine law, nor would such wish to relinquish that power by his own will." Bellarmine explains that God will not depose a heretic pope without the cooperation of men. The reason why is that a secret heretic invisibly judged and deposed by God cannot be judged by men: The man who would be invisibly deposed by God, and no longer pope, cannot be judged by men to have been deposed by God because his heresy cannot be detected. But unless that judgment be made by men, God will not invisibly withdraw his jurisdiction, because it was given with the visible cooperation of men. Thus, in Bellarmine's refutation of the second opinion, there is absolutely not even the question an antecedent judgment against a still validly reigning pontiff; but only that God will not invisibly depose the pope because the ipso facto fall from office cannot be judged by men to have taken place. The Salza/Siscoe argument which holds that the Bellarmine's refutation of the second opinion demonstrates that in the fifth opinion an antecedent judgment is required for a manifest heretic to fall from office, is entirely without foundation.
-
... and you two are theologian scholars! Imagine how a simple layman, who approaches this mess for the first time, must feel...
Oh, no doubt those who have not had the blessing to be able to study Catholic theology formally would be perplexed. Now, we're not exactly theologians. Nor would a priest who simply finished the standard seminary training. Bishop Williamson would not qualify as a theologian, for as brilliant as he is. Father William Jenkins is also a very brilliant priest, and someone once offhand referred to him as a theologian, and he said, oh, no, I'm just a simple parish priest. To be classified as a theologian, you'd have to pass many years of post-graduate courses and have been mentored by other professional theologians. Unless a priest went to Rome and received an advanced degree, he would not be classified as a theologian.
This Crisis would undoubtedly have befuddled St. Robert Bellarmine and St. Alphonsus, and all the greatest theological minds in history.
It's very important to remain humble and realize that we don't have all the answers. Matthew once started a "One Ring" thread about this very problem, and he was spot on.
-
St. Robert Bellarmine's Refutation of the Second Opinion
The argument: "Thus, the second opinion is that the Pope, in the very instant in which he falls into heresy, even if it is only interior, is outside the Church and deposed by God, for which reason he can be judged by the Church. That is, he is declared deposed by divine law, and deposed de facto, if he still refused to yield." The argument sets forth that even if the heresy is only interior, the heretic is already deposed by God, for which reason, he can be judged by the Church. "That is, he is declared deposed by divine law, and deposed de facto, if he still refused to yield." Therefore, having already been deposed by God and no longer pope, the Church can judge him by declaring him deposed by divine law; and if he refuses to yield, the Church can actually depose him de facto. Thus, it is not even a question of judging or deposing an actual pope, but of judging anddeclaring deposed the man who was pope before he fell from office when he fell into heresy. Bellarmine counters by pointing out that "Jurisdiction is certainly given to the Pontiff by God, but with the agreement of men, as is obvious; because this man, who beforehand was not Pope, has from men that he would begin to be Pope, therefore, it is not removed by God unless it is through men. But a secret heretic cannot be judged by men to have been deposed by divine law, nor would such wish to relinquish that power by his own will." Bellarmine explains that God will not depose a heretic pope without the cooperation of men. The reason why is that a secret heretic invisibly judged and deposed by God cannot be judged by men: The man who would be invisibly deposed by God, and no longer pope, cannot be judged by men to have been deposed by God because his heresy cannot be detected. But unless that judgment be made by men, God will not invisibly withdraw his jurisdiction, because it was given with the visible cooperation of men. Thus, in Bellarmine's refutation of the second opinion, there is absolutely not even the question an antecedent judgment against a still validly reigning pontiff; but only that God will not invisibly depose the pope because the ipso facto fall from office cannot be judged by men to have taken place. The Salza/Siscoe argument which holds that the Bellarmine's refutation of the second opinion demonstrates that in the fifth opinion an antecedent judgment is required for a manifest heretic to fall from office, is entirely without foundation.
Your reasoning here is solid, and I can find no fault with it. This is how I think all theologians have read Bellarmine when he's talking about removing a heretical Pope -- (Fr. Kramer: "it is not even a question of judging or deposing an actual pope, but of judging and declaring deposed the man who was pope before he fell from office when he fell into heresy")
-
2Vermont, in the areas where the Church has adopted +Bellarmine’s thinking, he has been properly elevated for his “Doctor” status. In all other areas, his opinion is on the “same level” as all other theologians. This is the proper distinction.
If you read the Act of Pius XI declaring him such, you will see that his decision involved more than that:
http://sedevacantist.com/bellarminedoctor.html (http://sedevacantist.com/bellarminedoctor.html)
-
I won't say that Archbishop Lefebvre hated Ratzinger but let's just say that Ratzinger was his nemesis. It's ironic that anyone who loves the archbishop would look to Ratzinger for comfort.
Charles Coulombe told me 25 years ago this was so, and that it was French German thing. Charlamagne's sons quarreling
-
2Vermont, there's a vast difference between being championed as a "defender of the Faith" and being a great scholar...and theological speculation. Even when a great Saint like +Bellarmine deals in speculation, which means an educated guess, he is not dealing with absolute truths, or with attributes of holiness. Speculation is inherently an argument. It involves the APPLICATION of truths to areas that are yet unknown. At the end of the day, it's still an opinion, even if an educated one. The Church has many well-respected theologians who were not saints and also not Doctors. Being a Doctor or a saint does not give one's SPECULATIONS more weight; it would in the areas of explaining doctrine, or of virtue or other truths. But not necessarily in speculation, which is where the question of a heretic pope lies.
-
2Vermont, there's a vast difference between being championed as a "defender of the Faith" and being a great scholar...and theological speculation. Even when a great Saint like +Bellarmine deals in speculation, which means an educated guess, he is not dealing with absolute truths, or with attributes of holiness. Speculation is inherently an argument. It involves the APPLICATION of truths to areas that are yet unknown. At the end of the day, it's still an opinion, even if an educated one. The Church has many well-respected theologians who were not saints and also not Doctors. Being a Doctor or a saint does not give one's SPECULATIONS more weight; it would in the areas of explaining doctrine, or of virtue or other truths. But not necessarily in speculation, which is where the question of a heretic pope lies.
I see you haven't read the link.
-
ST. ROBERT BELLARMINE REFUTES THE SECOND OPINION (corrected)
The argument: "Thus, the second opinion is that the Pope, in the very instant in which he falls into heresy, even if it is only interior, is outside the Church and deposed by God, for which reason he can be judged by the Church. That is, he is declared deposed by divine law, and deposed de facto, if he still refused to yield." The argument sets forth that even if the heresy is only interior, the heretic is already deposed by God, for which reason, he can be judged by the Church. "That is, he is declared deposed by divine law, and deposed de facto, if he still refused to yield." Therefore, having already been deposed by God and no longer pope, the Church can judge him by declaring him deposed by divine law; and if he refuses to yield, the Church can actually depose him de facto. Thus, it is not even a question of judging or deposing an actual pope, but of judging anddeclaring deposed the man who was pope before he fell from office when he fell into heresy. Bellarmine counters by pointing out that "Jurisdiction is certainly given to the Pontiff by God, but with the agreement of men, as is obvious; because this man, who beforehand was not Pope, has from men that he would begin to be Pope, therefore, it is not removed by God unless it is through men. But a secret heretic cannot be judged by men [That is, he is declared deposed by divine law, and deposed de facto], nor would such wish to relinquish that power by his own will." Bellarmine explains that God will not depose a heretic pope without the cooperation of men. The reason why is that a secret heretic invisibly judged and deposed by God cannot be judged by men: The man who would be invisibly deposed by God, and no longer pope, cannot be judged by men to have been deposed by God because his heresy cannot be detected. But unless that judgment be made by men, God will not invisibly withdraw his jurisdiction, because it was given with the visible cooperation of men. Thus, in Bellarmine's refutation of the second opinion, there is absolutely not even the question an antecedent judgment against a still validly reigning pontiff; but only that God will not invisibly depose the pope because the ipso facto fall from office cannot be judged by men to have taken place. The Salza/Siscoe argument which holds that the Bellarmine's refutation of the second opinion demonstrates that in the fifth opinion an antecedent judgment is required for a manifest heretic to fall from office, is entirely without foundation.
-
I see you haven't read the link.
+Bellarmine is a Doctor of the Church for his vast learning, his teaching of doctrine and his defense of the Faith from heretics. Theological speculation is none of these things.
-
Your reasoning here is solid, and I can find no fault with it. This is how I think all theologians have read Bellarmine when he's talking about removing a heretical Pope -- (Fr. Kramer: "it is not even a question of judging or deposing an actual pope, but of judging and declaring deposed the man who was pope before he fell from office when he fell into heresy")
But it *is* a question of judging or deposing an actual pope. Fr. Kramer: (https://www.cathinfo.com/crisis-in-the-church/tony-la-rosa-benedict-xvi-is-the-true-pope!/msg675543/#msg675543) "It is divine providence, as Ballerini explains, which prevents the Church from ruling against a valid pope".
Certainly if "The Church" (whoever/whatever that means) is going to judge the man they believe to only be a papal claimant, then this ambiguous entity called "The Church" must be infallibly safeguarded in this effort from even the remotest possibility of error, lest it wrongfully judge the actual pope, and while judging the actual pope, they misjudge the him to not be pope. Fr. Kramer claims this guarantee of infallibility in judging the papal claimant is the result of Divine Providence.
You say above that you cannot find any fault in his post, do you actually buy off on this preposterous idea that Divine Providence is guaranteed to infallibly prevent "The Church" from judging a valid pope?
The very idea can only be an exercise in desperation to maintain a position because it is beyond absurd.
-
But it *is* a question of judging or deposing an actual pope. Fr. Kramer: (https://www.cathinfo.com/crisis-in-the-church/tony-la-rosa-benedict-xvi-is-the-true-pope!/msg675543/#msg675543) "It is divine providence, as Ballerini explains, which prevents the Church from ruling against a valid pope".
Certainly if "The Church" (whoever/whatever that means) is going to judge the man they believe to only be a papal claimant, then this ambiguous entity called "The Church" must be infallibly safeguarded in this effort from even the remotest possibility of error, lest it wrongfully judge the actual pope, and while judging the actual pope, they misjudge the him to not be pope. Fr. Kramer claims this guarantee of infallibility in judging the papal claimant is the result of Divine Providence.
You say above that you cannot find any fault in his post, do you actually buy off on this preposterous idea that Divine Providence is guaranteed to infallibly prevent "The Church" from judging a valid pope?
The very idea can only be an exercise in desperation to maintain a position because it is beyond absurd.
I was speaking specifically about Father Kramer's interpretation of Bellarmine.
Well, there is something called the infallibility of the Ecclesia Credens. If the entire Church universally judged deposed a legitimate Supreme Pontiff, then the Church would have defected for all intents and purposes. So I cannot disagree with that. Regardless of which side one takes on the issue, whether the S&S position or the ipso facto position, you'd have to say that God would prevent the entire Church from separating itself from a Supreme Pontiff who was actually the Pope.
-
I was speaking specifically about Father Kramer's interpretation of Bellarmine.
Well, there is something called the infallibility of the Ecclesia Credens. If the entire Church universally judged deposed a legitimate Supreme Pontiff, then the Church would have defected for all intents and purposes. So I cannot disagree with that. Regardless of which side one takes on the issue, whether the S&S position or the ipso facto position, you'd have to say that God would prevent the entire Church from separating itself from a Supreme Pontiff who was actually the Pope.
I’m not disagreeing with you but we should be careful about placing limits on what God can do in order to chastise His wayward flock. During the episode at St Bernard’s time and again during the GWS, the true pope was much less followed than the antipopes.
-
Stubborn speaks quite ignorantly when he says, "But it *is* a question of judging or deposing an actual pope." When it is certain who the pope is, then it would be a case of judging an actual pope; but when positive doubt makes it impossible to judge that there is a certain pope, or that the putative pope is a certain pope, then the claimant or claimants become dubious popes. In such a case Bellarmine, cites the ruling of the Council of Constance which defined that in times when it is not known who is the true pope, the council has authority over the pontiffs, because a doubtful pope is considered no pope, and to have power over him is not to have power over the pope. (Nam dubius papa habetur pro non papa, et proinde habere super illum potestatem non est habere potestatem in papam.) The see is presumed vacant. St. Alphonsus, Ballerini, Bordoni, and Gregory XVI, concur with Bellarmine in this opinion. In such a case, they all agree that the "pope" or "popes" must defer to the judgment of the Church; and in the case of a doubtful pope, the "Church" means a general council.
What is meant by "The Church" is not an ambiguous entity, but the term has a precise comprehension in ecclesiastical usage, and is explained by Bellarmine in De. Conciliorum Auctoritate, cap. xix: "Respondeo: Nomine Ecclesiae, vel intelligi episcopum, ul exponit hoc loco Chrysostomus, el Innoccntius III. cap. Novit, extra, de judiciis et praxis Ecclesiae demonstrat; quotidie enim episcopo denunciantur ii, de quibus Dominus ait Dic Ecclesiae; vel certe fidelium coetum cuм suo capite. Nam ut Cyprianus ait in epístola ad Florentium, quae est nona lib. 4. Ecclesia est plebs sacerdoti adunata, el pastori suo grex adhaerens. Quare in quocuмque episcopatu deferendi sunt peccatores ad Ecclesiam, et episcopum ejus loci, sed si is episcopus peccet, non potest deferri ad eam Ecclesiam, nisi debeat referri ad seipsum, cuм ipse sit caput ejusdem Ecclesiae, sed deferendus est ad Ecclesiam aliquam altiorem, cui praeest archiepiscopus vel patriarcha: Si vero peccet patriarcha, deferri non potest ad Ecclesiam suam, sed ad majorem, idest, ad romanam Ecclesiam, vel generale concilium, cui summus pontifex praesidet: Quod si ipse summus pontifex peccet, judicio Dei reservandus est, non enim est ulla Ecclesia, ad quam deferri possit, eum sine ipso non inveniatur Ecclesia cuм capite." When the whole Church (i.e. the faithful and their pastors) universally and peacefully accords unanimous acceptance to the one judged to be the valid pope by the council, the validity of that one's pontificate becomes a dogmatic fact. The reason why a council would have authority in such a case when there is only a doubtful pope, or it is not certain who is the pope, is explained by Gregory XVI: «In the times of the antipopes, as well as of the dead Pope, the form of the government ordained by Christ does not remain obscure, even in a case where there is founded doubt, so that it is not clear who should be venerated for Pope, yes in the case of sede vacante it happens in the Church what happens in different monarchies, in which in time of interregnum the government resides in some senate; as practiced also in the ancient Roman empire, in which the Roman senate commanded in time of interregnum; so in the mean while in those cases the government of the Church is aristocratic. But who does not know that this cannot be its natural state? Who can recognize him from the same dilligence that the Church gave to elect her head, suffering ill from remaining headless for a long time?» [Il trionfo della santa sede e della chiesa contro gli assatti dei novatori, p. 29] All of these authors agree that a certain pope can never be judged, and that if it were permitted by God that the pope become a public heretic, he would become an incapable subject of the papacy.
-
Are we talking about the former baseball manager?
-
I’m not disagreeing with you but we should be careful about placing limits on what God can do in order to chastise His wayward flock. During the episode at St Bernard’s time and again during the GWS, the true pope was much less followed than the antipopes.
Sorry but you are mistaken. NONE of the GWS Popes( Fr OR It) were ever proclaimed as anti-popes... Catholics are allowed to recognise either as a true Pope. This was the compromise that allowed the schism to be settled. :cheers:
-
Bordoni, on the question of multiple uncertain claimants in time of schism agrees with the other authors that the see is presumed vacant. If the pope is a heretic, Bordoni says the council has authority over him, because a heretic is an incapable subjuct; but the council must depose him, because he remains in the pontificate until he is deposed -- he is as a person minor quolibet catholico; but as pope, he is maior quolibet catholico until deposed. The logical incoherence of his opinion is discussed in my book.
-
. . . we should be careful about placing limits on what God can do in order to chastise His wayward flock.
Yes. God was quite severe on his corporate people in the OT, and it looks like he will be similarly hard on a largely apostate corporate body in the new Jerusalem/Israel.
Batten down the hatches.
-
I was speaking specifically about Father Kramer's interpretation of Bellarmine.
Well, there is something called the infallibility of the Ecclesia Credens. If the entire Church universally judged deposed a legitimate Supreme Pontiff, then the Church would have defected for all intents and purposes. So I cannot disagree with that. Regardless of which side one takes on the issue, whether the S&S position or the ipso facto position, you'd have to say that God would prevent the entire Church from separating itself from a Supreme Pontiff who was actually the Pope.
You said: "If the entire Church universally judged [and] deposed a legitimate Supreme Pontiff...."
Correct me if I'm wrong, but aren't you saying that "if the unanimous vote was wrong, then the legitimate pope would be wrongfully deposed by unanimous vote"?
Again, correct me if I'm wrong, but you are then saying that we have dogmatic certainty that God would exercise His Divine Providence by Providing infallibility to the unanimous vote. It is this infallibility provided by God which prevents the unanimous vote from voting against a legitimate pontiff. I believe this idea is preposterous because while while Divine Providence is certain, it is never certain when or how it will engage - and most often it is not even anticipated.
Where is the historical precedence for this thinking? The premise or foundation for this whole idea begins with the dogmatic certainty that the pope is not the pope - which idea in and of itself, makes the entire Church do what you just said can't be done - separate itself from a Supreme Pontiff who is actually the Pope - which you just said that we'd have to say that God would prevent from ever happening.
We can say Divine Providence is a possible reason that no legitimate pope has ever been judged - but we can't even be certain of that. No way can we say with any certainty at all that it would insure a correct judgement to a pope. The whole idea is altogether absurd.
-
Stubborn speaks quite ignorantly when he says, "But it *is* a question of judging or deposing an actual pope." When it is certain who the pope is, then it would be a case of judging an actual pope; but when positive doubt makes it impossible to judge that there is a certain pope, or that the putative pope is a certain pope, then the claimant or claimants become dubious popes.
You got one thing right - I'm ignorant. While you were out earning your NO theology degree, I was already serving the True Mass for 20 years in basements and driving displaced priests all over to other basements, living rooms, etc. so others could receive the Mass and sacraments. So yes, I did not get your education, yet I am quite content, even thankful to have not done so.
On with reality.....The Church *is* certain of who the pope is, just because a relatively few reject, or positively doubt him as pope does not change his legitimacy. Even if the reverse were true and only a relatively few accepted him as pope, that would still not change his legitimacy. It works like this: the cardinals elected him, he accepted his election, he is the pope. It works that way by design and unless that process changes, that's the way it is.
I will admit that thanks to the constant spreading of doubt and illegitimacy by a few, including priests, the idea has gained more followers, but even should the spreading of this idea, spread as if it is an authentic teaching of the Church, gained several billion followers, that still would not change his legitimacy.
What is meant by "The Church" is not an ambiguous entity, but the term has a precise comprehension in ecclesiastical usage, and is explained by Bellarmine........When the whole Church (i.e. the faithful and their pastors) universally and peacefully accords unanimous acceptance to the one judged to be the valid pope by the council, the validity of that one's pontificate becomes a dogmatic fact.
I disagree with this opinion, my opinion is that it is a dogmatic fact that he is the pope because he was legitimately elected and accepted his election. The unanimous opinion of the whole Church does not change his legitimacy, nor does the judgement of "the council" - who may not judge him to begin with.
The reason why a council would have authority in such a case when there is only a doubtful pope, or it is not certain who is the pope, is explained by Gregory XVI: «In the times of the antipopes, as well as of the dead Pope, the form of the government ordained by Christ does not remain obscure, even in a case where there is founded doubt, so that it is not clear who should be venerated for Pope, yes in the case of sede vacante it happens in the Church what happens in different monarchies, in which in time of interregnum the government resides in some senate; as practiced also in the ancient Roman empire, in which the Roman senate commanded in time of interregnum; so in the mean while in those cases the government of the Church is aristocratic. But who does not know that this cannot be its natural state? Who can recognize him from the same dilligence that the Church gave to elect her head, suffering ill from remaining headless for a long time?» [Il trionfo della santa sede e della chiesa contro gli assatti dei novatori, p. 29] All of these authors agree that a certain pope can never be judged, and that if it were permitted by God that the pope become a public heretic, he would become an incapable subject of the papacy.
The first part does not apply because unlike 1000 years ago, news from the Vatican of habamus papem reaches almost the whole world in minutes.
Beyond that, what he is saying is that while this cannot be her natural state, the Church does not cease to function during an interregnum. He also states that even a heretic pope cannot be judged, but that he becomes an incapable subject of the papacy.
-
It is being claimed by some that the Canon Law professor and former rector of the Pontifical Gregorian University, Fr. Giancarlo Ghirlanda SJ, says that a notorious heretic pope would not cease to be pope until he is declared a heretic by the cardinals. That is not his position. His position on the question is identical to my own:
Cessation from the office of the Roman Pontiff
Excerpt from Quaderno n. 3905 del 2 marzo 2013 de "La Civiltà Cattolica", pp. 445-462.
Then, if the Roman Pontiff did not express what is already contained in the Church, he would no longer be in communion with the whole Church, and therefore with the other Bishops, successors of the Apostles. The communion of the Roman Pontiff with the Church and with the Bishops, according to Vatican I (3), cannot be proven by the consent of the Church and the Bishops, as it would no longer be a full and supreme power freely exercised (c. 331; "Nota Explicativa Praevia" 4). The criterion then is the protection of ecclesial communion itself. There where this no longer existed on the part of the Pope, he would no longer have any power, because ipso iure would fall from his primatial office. This is the case, admitted in doctrine, of the notorious apostasy, heresy and schism, in which the Roman Pontiff could fall, but as a "private doctor", who does not commit the assent of the faithful, because by faith in the personal infallibility that the Roman Pontiff has in the performance of his office, and therefore in the assistance of the Holy Spirit, we must say that he cannot make heretical statements wanting to commit his primatial authority, because, if he did so, he would fall ipso jure from his office. However in such cases, since "the first seat is not judged by anyone" (c. 1404), no one could depose the Roman Pontiff, but there would only be a declaration of the fact, which should be on the part of the Cardinals, at least of those present in Rome. This eventuality, however, although foreseen in the doctrine, is considered totally improbable by intervention of the Divine Providence in favor of the Church (4).
FOOTNOTES 3. Constitution, Pastor Aeternus, chapter 4, Denzinger-Schonmetzer 3074. 4. Cf. F. J. Wernz. P. Vida., “Ius canonicuм”, tome II, “De Personis”, Rome, 1933, 517 seqq.
Allora, se il Romano Pontefice non esprimesse quello che già è contenuto nella Chiesa, non sarebbe più in comunione con tutta la Chiesa, e quindi con gli altri Vescovi, successori degli Apostoli. La comunione del Romano Pontefice con la Chiesa e con i Vescovi, secondo il Vaticano I (3), non può essere comprovata dal consenso della Chiesa e dei Vescovi, in quanto non sarebbe più una potestà piena e suprema liberamente esercitata (c. 331; "Nota Explicativa Praevia" 4). Il criterio allora è la tutela della stessa comunione ecclesiale. Lì dove questa non ci fosse più da parte del Papa, egli non avrebbe più alcuna potestà, perché ipso iure decadrebbe dal suo ufficio primaziale. È il caso, ammesso in dottrina, della notoria apostasia, eresia e scisma, nella quale il Romano Pontefice potrebbe cadere, ma come «dottore privato», che non impegna l’assenso dei fedeli, perché per fede nell’infallibilità personale che il Romano Pontefice ha nello svolgimento del suo ufficio, e quindi nell’assistenza dello Spirito Santo, dobbiamo dire che egli non può fare affermazioni eretiche volendo impegnare la sua autorità primaziale, perché, se così facesse, decadrebbe ipso iure dal suo ufficio. Comunque in tali casi, poiché «la prima sede non è giudicata da nessuno» (c. 1404), nessuno potrebbe deporre il Romano Pontefice, ma si avrebbe solo una dichiarazione del fatto, che dovrebbe essere da parte dei Cardinali, almeno di quelli presenti a Roma. Tale eventualità, tuttavia, sebbene prevista in dottrina, viene ritenuta totalmente improbabile per intervento della Divina Provvidenza a favore della Chiesa (4).
-
Link to the full article by Fr. Gianfranco Ghirlanda SJ:
http://chiesa.espresso.repubblica.it/articolo/1350455.html
-
+Bellarmine is a Doctor of the Church for his vast learning, his teaching of doctrine and his defense of the Faith from heretics. Theological speculation is none of these things.
Still haven't read the link, I see.
Although there is more there in Pius XI's Declaration in 1931, right from its first lines Pius XI mentions that St Robert Bellarmine was a distinguished theologian. Bottom line: although one *can* disagree with him in certain theological matters, given the fact that the Church considered him a distinguished theologian while raising him to the altars, it probably isn't the most prudent thing to do.
-
So the challenge to S & S: cite one canonist or theologian after Vatican I who discusses this specific issue of a heretic pope (as the attached canonists do) who says that a declaration would be necessary to remove a manifest public heretic who is pope (if it were to happen). Says it straight out without any nonsense, like the attached canonists say a declaration is not necessary.
All I've see from S & S is leaps and arguments from sources not discussing the specific issue of a heretic pope and whether a declaration is necessary for loss of office in this specific case.
Let's compare the quote provided by PaxChristi2 (Siscoe) with the same quote provided by Don Paolo (without any the ellipses):
Here's two. I posted the first one previously. It is from the former rector of the Gregorian, who not only taught canon law for most of his adult life, but is one of the relatively few that has studied the past 1000 years of canonical tradition on the subject.
Father Ghirlanda, S.J., (2013): “The vacancy of the Roman See occurs in case of the cessation of the office on the part of the Roman Pontiff, which happens for four reasons: 1) Death, 2) Sure and perpetual insanity or complete mental infirmity; 3) Notorious apostasy, heresy, schism; 4) Resignation. In the first case, the Apostolic See is vacant from the moment of death of the Roman Pontiff; in the second and in the third from the moment of the declaration on the part of the cardinals; in the fourth from the moment of the renunciation." (…) There is the case, admitted by doctrine, of notorious apostasy, heresy and schism, into which the Roman Pontiff could fall, but as a ‘private doctor,’ that does not demand the assent of the faithful (…) However, in such cases, because ‘the first see is judged by no one’ (Canon 1404) no one could depose the Roman Pontiff, but only a declaration of the fact would be had, which would have to be done by the Cardinals, at least of those present in Rome.” ("La Civiltà Cattolica" March, 2, 2013)
The Church judges and declares the fact, and at that "moment" the See becomes vacant.
versus
It is being claimed by some that the Canon Law professor and former rector of the Pontifical Gregorian University, Fr. Giancarlo Ghirlanda SJ, says that a notorious heretic pope would not cease to be pope until he is declared a heretic by the cardinals. That is not his position. His position on the question is identical to my own:
Cessation from the office of the Roman Pontiff
Excerpt from Quaderno n. 3905 del 2 marzo 2013 de "La Civiltà Cattolica", pp. 445-462.
Then, if the Roman Pontiff did not express what is already contained in the Church, he would no longer be in communion with the whole Church, and therefore with the other Bishops, successors of the Apostles. The communion of the Roman Pontiff with the Church and with the Bishops, according to Vatican I (3), cannot be proven by the consent of the Church and the Bishops, as it would no longer be a full and supreme power freely exercised (c. 331; "Nota Explicativa Praevia" 4). The criterion then is the protection of ecclesial communion itself. There where this no longer existed on the part of the Pope, he would no longer have any power, because ipso iure would fall from his primatial office. This is the case, admitted in doctrine, of the notorious apostasy, heresy and schism, in which the Roman Pontiff could fall, but as a "private doctor", who does not commit the assent of the faithful, because by faith in the personal infallibility that the Roman Pontiff has in the performance of his office, and therefore in the assistance of the Holy Spirit, we must say that he cannot make heretical statements wanting to commit his primatial authority, because, if he did so, he would fall ipso jure from his office. However in such cases, since "the first seat is not judged by anyone" (c. 1404), no one could depose the Roman Pontiff, but there would only be a declaration of the fact, which should be on the part of the Cardinals, at least of those present in Rome. This eventuality, however, although foreseen in the doctrine, is considered totally improbable by intervention of the Divine Providence in favor of the Church (4).
FOOTNOTES 3. Constitution, Pastor Aeternus, chapter 4, Denzinger-Schonmetzer 3074. 4. Cf. F. J. Wernz. P. Vida., “Ius canonicuм”, tome II, “De Personis”, Rome, 1933, 517 seqq.
Don Paolo even gives us a link to the entire text: http://chiesa.espresso.repubblica.it/articolo/1350455.html
That's some crafty editing by PaxChristi2 (Siscoe). I wonder how he sleeps at night? It seems unlikely to me that a lawyer (even a tax lawyer) would get confused by the difference between when the crime took place and when the crime is declared to have happened. The loss of office takes place from the time that the crime was committed, not when the cardinals or the Church declares the crime to have taken place. That is clear from cuм Ex Apostolatus, from all the 20th century theologians who commented on this topic, from St. Robert Bellarmine, from Ghirlanda, etc. Everyone from Vatican I on understands that the loss of office takes place at the moment the crime is committed except Salza and Siscoe, the amateur theologians hawking their fake theology.
And here's PaxChristi's other "source" for his position:
The next is from Elements of Ecclesiastical Law (1881):[/justify]
Elements of Ecclesiastical Law (1881): “Question: Is a Pope who falls into heresy deprived, ipso jure, of the Pontificate? “Answer: There are two opinions: one holds that he is by virtue of divine appointment, divested ipso facto, of the Pontificate; the other, that he is, jure divino, only removable. Both opinions agree that he must at least be declared guilty of heresy by the church, i.e., by an ecuмenical council or the College of Cardinals. The question is hypothetical rather than practical”. (Smith, Sebastian B. Elements of Ecclesiastical Law (revised third edition), New York: Benzinger Brothers, 1881)
So even his second source doesn't support the S&S position. Total fail. I can't understand how a couple of guys who fancy themselves traditional Catholics can be so dishonest. It makes me wonder if they aren't malevolent infiltrators.
-
All of the expert canonists and theologians who expound on the five opinions are unanimous in stating that the difference between Opinion No. 4 and No. 5 is that No. 4 requires a judgment to be made by the Church before the pope falls from office, whereas No. 5 holds that the fall from office is automatic, and takes place independently of and before any judgment is made. In order to support their erroneous opinion on this point, Salza & Siscoe in Chapter 11 of their book quote the ambiguously stated opinion of Fr. Sebastian Smith (Elements of Ecclesiastical Law, p. 210. 68 Ibid., Preface, p. xi.), who wrote in 1881, “Question: Is a Pope who falls into heresy deprived, ipso jure, of the Pontificate? Answer: There are two opinions: one holds that he is by virtue of divine appointment, divested ipso facto, of the Pontificate; the other, that he is, jure divino, only removable. Both opinions agree that he must at least be declared guilty of heresy by the Church - i.e., by an ecuмenical council or the College of Cardinals.” It is first to be pointed out that Fr. Smith states ambiguously that there are “two opinions” on the question (there have been five opinions, but only two which admit the removal of a manifest heretic pope); and he says, “Both opinions agree that he must at least be declared guilty of heresy by the Church”. This statement, “Both opinions agree that he must at least be declared guilty of heresy by the Church”, simply means that in the case of an ipso jure loss of office which takes place automatically even before the declaration and independently of it; and the case of jure divino “only removable” opinion, in which the loss of office is said to take place immediately upon the declaration: in both cases, a declaratory sentence would be required to enforce the removal and authorize the election of a new pope. Expressed in the manner that it is formulated, the statement can superficially be misinterpreted to mean, (in the manner that Salza & Siscoe opportunistically misinterpret it for their own purpose), that the declaration would be required in order for the loss of office to take place. As they do with so many authors (as will be shown later in this work), Salza & Siscoe twist the meaning of a passage to make it appear to say exactly the opposite from what a critical examination of the words demonstrates to be their authentic meaning. Smith is clearly referring to Opinion No. 5 when he says, “one holds that he is by virtue of divine appointment, divested ipso facto, of the Pontificate”; since he writes in answer to the question, “Is a Pope who falls into heresy deprived, ipso jure, of the Pontificate?” Now in Canon Law, the expression that one is deprived ipso jure means that it is automatic – it takes place ipso facto before any judgment is prounounced. This is exactly how the medieval Decretists employed the term in the earliest formulations of Opinion No. 5, and it is employed in exactly the same manner by the Council of Constance when it deposed Pedro de Luna “as a precautionary measure”, and declared that he had already fallen from every ecclesiastical dignity and had been severed from the body of the Church ipso jure before any judgment was pronounced. The term is again employed in exactly the same manner in the 1983 Code of Canon Law of Pope John Paul II. When Smith says of “the other”, i.e. “that he is, jure divino, only removable”, he is clearly speaking of Opinion No. 4 in its less radical formulation (Suárez), according to which the Church would deliberatively determine that the pope is a heretic, and upon the juridical declaration of guilt, the pope would immediately fall from office. If Smith had meant by, “Both opinions agree that he must at least be declared guilty of heresy by the Church”, that in both cases a declaration of guilt would be necessary for the fall from to take place; that would mean that there would not be two opinions on the question, but only one, namely, “that he is, jure divino, only removable”. Yet this absurd interpretation of the passage is exactly how it is understood by Salza & Siscoe in Chapter 11 of their book: «Fr. Smith expressly states that “both opinions agree” that he must at least be declared guilty of heresy by the Church. If he is not found guilty, he remains a true and valid Pope.” ». Then they state their non sequitur conclusion: «The teaching of Fr. Smith confirms John of St. Thomas’ understanding of Bellarmine and Suarez’s position, since he [John of St. Thomas] stated that “Bellarmine and Suarez” both held that a heretical Pope loses his office only if he is “declared incorrigible.” » In reality, what Fr. Smith’s teaching confirms is that John of St. Thomas failed to correctly understand Bellarmine’s exposition on the question; and that Salza & Siscoe have understood neither Bellarmine’s exposition on Opinion No. 5, nor have they understood the opinion as it has been elaborated by theologians and canonists for more than eight centuries. In the first of the “two opinions” in which the heretic pope would lose office ipso jure (automatically) the Church would possess the jurisdiction to declare the See vacant, in the manner that the Council of Constance declared “Benedict XIII” to have already lost all ecclesiastical dignity and to have severed himself from the body of the Church, thus removing the last remaining claimant to the papal throne, and juridically establishing the sede vacante. In the second of the “two opinions”, the Church would not be able to declare the pope guilty of heresy, because an official judgment of guilt of an individual pronounced by the Church absolutely requires jurisdiction to judge that person; but neither the cardinals, nor a synod, and not even a general council possess the jurisdiction to make such an official, juridical declaration – so any judgment a council would make would not be a public juridical act of the Church, but would be a non-juridic statement of churchmen utterly devoid of any force of law or juridical value whatsoever. This is the fatal flaw in all the variations of Opinion No. 4, which holds that a heretic pope does not lose his office until he is judged by the Church. John of St. Thomas, who held this opinion, admitted himself the problematic aspect of the opinion when he wrote: “Concerning the second point, namely by whose authority the declaration and deposition is to be made, there is dissent among theologians, and it does not appear by whom such a deposition is to be made, because it is an act of judgment, and jurisdiction, which can be exercised by no one over the pope.” Salza & Siscoe then carry the absurdity even further: « Because the “two opinions” agree that a heretical Pope “must at least be declared guilty of the crime of heresy by the Church,” there are actually three opinions to be noted, which, for the sake of simplicity and easy recall, could be classified as follows: 1) the “Jesuit” opinion (of Bellarmine/Suarez), 2) the “Dominican” opinion (of Cajetan/John of St. Thomas), and 3) the unanimous opinion. The Jesuit opinion is that a heretical Pope falls from office after the crime of heresy has been established by the Church. The Dominican opinion is that a heretical Pope falls from office only after the Church commands the faithful to avoid him. But the unanimous opinion is that “he must at least be declared guilty by the Church.” » The belief that there was a single “Jesuit opinion” is the result of an uncritical failure to distinguish between two of the oldest opinions on the question of the deposition or removal of a heretic pope. As Moynihan demonstrates , among the early Decretists there were those, who maintained that a heretic pope would remain in office until judged guilty of heresy by the Church; and others, mainly of the French school of canonists who advocated the opinion that a heretic pope would by his very heresy automatically lose office by himself, ipso jure. It was among the early Decretists that these opinions, enumerated by Bellarmine as No. 4 and No. 5 originated. Bellarmine argued in favour of the fifth opinion which held that a heretic pope would automatically fall from office ipso facto or (as the Decretists would say), ipso jure; while Suárez followed the fourth opinion, which held that the heretic would remain in office until judged guilty of heresy by the Church. By the late 19th Century, the fourth opinion had been universally abandoned; and since then, the fifth opinion (as will be shown below), has been the morally unanimous opinion among theologians who admit, at least hypothetically, that a pope can become a heretic. Salza & Siscoe have totally inverted the truth in this matter, hysterically claiming that those who follow what is now the virtually unanimous opinion among those theologians who admit at least as a hypothesis, that a pope can become a heretic, (No. 5), (in the manner that it is explained by all of the eminent scholars who have examined each of the five opinions), ‘nonsensically reject the unanimous opinion’ one cannot hold the Jesuit opinion (the Pope loses his office ipso facto), without also holding the unanimous opinion (the Pope must at least be declared guilty of the crime of heresy by the Church).” They then conclude against what has been established and is held with a unanimous consensus of scholars that the “rejection of [what is according to them] the unanimous opinion is clearly not the fruit of sound, scholarly research of the question, but rather a rash and superficial judgment based, in many cases, on snippets read on the internet”. (!) Bellarmine explained that the manifest heretic pope would cease “by himself” to be pope, a Christian, and a member of the Church; and “for which reason” (quare) having ceased to be pope, “he may be judged and punished by the Church.” It is unmistakably clear from the explicit wording of the text that Bellarmine is saying that the manifest heretic pope, completely by himself, i.e. by his own act of defection from the faith, “sine alia vi externa”, ceases to be pope, a Christian and a member of the Church; and precisely because he would cease to be pope, he, having fallen from office, could then be judged and punished by the Church. Ballerini, following Bellamine, is more explicit in saying that the heretic pope, upon manifesting his pertinacity, would have “abdicated the primacy and the pontificate”, ceasing automatically to be pope, without any judgment, but explains the pastoral reason why a declaratory sentence would need to be made. Pope Gregory XVI explicitly endorsed Ballerini’s opinion. A declaratory sentence is absolutely necessary not only for the pastoral reason given by Ballerini, (so that the faithful may be warned about the heretic), but more importantly, because unless the heretic intruder be visibly and juridically declared to have fallen from office and to have vacated the chair, a manifestly and certainly valid pope could not be elected and universally accepted by the whole Church for so long as the intruder is allowed to carry on with his imposture. As they do with the passage of Fr. Sebastian Smith, similarly Salza & Siscoe twist the words of Bellarmine and Ballerini, even falsifying the text of the latter (as is shown later in this work) to fit their own meaning. All three of these authors mentioned in the previous paragraph (Bellarmine, Ballerini and Gregory XVI), were following the ruling of the Council of Constance, which declared that Pedro de Luna had already lost all office and ecclesiastical dignity by himself, prior to his being judged by the Council. By the late 19th Century, Fr. Sydney Smith SJ (in 1895) testified that it had already become the common opinion that a manifestly heretical pope would cease automatically to be pope, and that in such a case the Cardinals, being duly informed, would only need to issue a declaratory sentence on the one who was no longer pope. (This is also the explicitly stated opinion of Cardinal Raymond Burke ). Thus, it would seem highly unlikely that Fr. Sebastian Smith would have been so ignorant as to mean by saying, “Both opinions agree that he must at least be declared guilty of heresy by the Church”, that both opinions held that the fall from office would only take place upon judgment by the Church, as Salza & Siscoe maintain. What his words clearly indicate, if one examines them critically, is that whether the pope would be “divested ipso facto, of the Pontificate” (Opinion No. 5), or, “that he is, jure divino, only removable” (Opinion No. 4), a declaratory sentence would be necessary in order to enforce the loss of office and facilitate the election of a new pope in the former case; and at least a declaratory sentence as opposed to penal judgment and deposition by a tribunal, would be necessary to effect the removal of the heretic pope from office in the latter. Thus, Smith uses the term “removable” in the same manner as it is used in By Bellarmine in his refutation of Opinion No. 2, rather than that a reigning pope could be juridically judged and deposed from office. What this shows, is that Sebastian Smith is testifying that in his day (1881), the classical position of Opinion No.4 formulated by Cajetan during the Reformation, which held in favour of a juridical deposition of a heretical pope, had already been universally abandoned, and was replaced by a less radical version of the opinion; which held, contrary to the vast majority who favoured Opinion No. 5, that a heretic pope would fall from office upon the issuance of a merely declaratory sentence after a merely deliberative inquiry. The flaw in this theory is that a mere declaration pronounced on actually reigning pontiff by his subjects would lack all jurisdiction, and would therefore not be an official judgment of the Church, because so long as he is pope, the pontiff, who is solemnly defined to be the supreme and final judge in all cases, is the only one who has the authority to judge his own case. Without jurisdiction to pronounce judgment on the pope, a council’s judgment would not be a judgment of the Church, but a mere opinion of men, who would invalidly presume to convene in a council and pronounce a judgment they are juridically incompetent to make. The belief that the Cardinals, or even an ecuмenical council would be competent to judge a pope juridically is a heresy that directly offends against the judicial supremacy and injudicability of the Roman Pontiff, solemnly defined in Pastor Æternus; against the repeated declarations of the popes teaching that the pope cannot be judgd by anyone, as well as against the solemn pronouncement of the Fifth Lateran Council that the pope has absolute authority over a council . Bellarmine refuted this opinion in his exposition on Opinion No. 4 demolishing the argument, by explaining that neither the bishops nor the cardinals have any power over a pope, and to pronounce official judgment on a pope is to exercise power of jurisdiction over a pope. Wernz and Vidal most conclusively refute and utterly demolish the theory that a council could even pronounce a merely declaratory sentence on a reigning pope: Finally there is the fifth view of Bellarmine which was expressed at the outset in the assertion [above] and which is rightly defended by Tanner and others as being more approved and more common. For he who is no longer a member of the body of the Church, that is, of the Church as a visible body, cannot be the head of the universal Church. But a pope who falls into public heresy would by that fact cease to be a member of the Church; therefore he would also, upon that fact, cease to be the head of Church. So, a publicly heretical pope, who by the mandate of Christ and of the Apostle should be avoided because of danger to the Church, must be deprived of his power, as nearly everyone admits. But he cannot be deprived of his power by a merely declaratory sentence. For every judicial sentence of privation supposes a superior jurisdiction over him against whom the sentence is laid. But a general council, in the opinion of adversaries, does not have a higher jurisdiction than does a heretical pope. For he, by their supposition, before the declaratory sentence of a general council, retains his papal jurisdiction; therefore a general council cannot pass a declaratory sentence by which a Roman Pontiff is actually deprived of his power; for that would be a sentence laid by an inferior against the true Roman Pontiff. In sum, it needs to be said clearly that a [publicly] heretical Roman Pontiff loses his power upon the very fact. Meanwhile a declaratory criminal sentence, although it is merely declaratory, should not be disregarded, for it brings it about, not that a pope is “judged” to be a heretic, but rather, that he is shown to have been found heretical, that is, a general council declares the fact of the crime by which a pope has separated himself from the Church and has lost his rank. Following the doctrine of Innocent III , who taught that the pope, as pope, cannot be judged; Bellarmine says in Book Four, Chapter Seven of De Romano Pontifice, “the Pope cannot be judged”, but only upon having fallen from office ”by himself” (he explains in Book Two Chapter Thirty) he could then be judged and punished by the Church. It suffices to say that if even a council may not judge a pope, then a fortiori neither can any other group or individual which would be less than a council, judge a pope, but could only declare in such a manner that he may be “shown to be already judged” (Innocent III), to have already fallen, to already have lost any office and all ecclesiastical dignity ipso jure (Council of Constance) to have “abdicated the primacy and the pontificate” (Ballerini), and to have “fallen from the pontificate by himself” (Gregory XVI). Ballerini states in the most explicit of terms that, a general council has no power to judge a pope, since the pope receives his power not from his electors or from the Church, but immediately from God; by which he is the Pontiff over the whole Church, and superior over general councils, and therefore is entirely removed from the jurisdiction of all others who are inferior to him, and precisely for this reason, the machinations of Basel against Eugenius IV ended up in open schism: « . . . contra certum Pontificium jus nulla vel generalis concilii potestas est: cuм ob idem jus non ab electoribus, nec ab Ecclesia, sed a Deo immediate tributum, verus Pontifex toti Ecclesiæ, & generalibus quoque synodis (ut probavimus) superior, ab aliorum omnium sibi inferiorum jurisdictione subtrahatur. Hac quidem de causa Basileensium molimina & gesta contra Eugenium IV. unicuм certumque Pontificem illegitima & inania nihil potuerunt ad ipsum deponendum, & in apertum schisma deflexerunt. » Ballerini’s formulation leaves absolutely no room for the sole exception for heresy theory that had been formulated by canonists since the time of the Decretists, according to which, a council would have the authority to depose a certain pope from office for the crime of heresy. On page 132 of the same work, Ballerini declares, «Ideo enim (ut antea probatum est) supra certum pontificem jus nullum est concilio etiam generali, quia verus Pontifex est, & primate fruitur, ob quem toti Ecclesiæ etiam collective sumptæ, & in concilio adunatæ jure divino superior est; nec inferiori in superiorem suum coactivum jus esse potest.» Peters attests to the fact that the opinion that a heretic pope would remain in office until even a merely declaratory sentence would effect his removal as a dispositive cause for his fall from office has been entirely abandoned in his article where he says, «I know of no author coming after Wernz who disputes this analysis [of Wernz and Vidal]. See, e.g., Ayrinhac, CONSTITUTION (1930) 33; Sipos, ENCHIRIDION (1954) 156; Regatillo, INSTITUTIONES I (1961) 299; Palazzini, DMC III (1966) 573; and Wrenn (2001) above. As for the lack of detailed canonical examination of the mechanics for assessing possible papal heresy, Cocchi, COMMENTARIUM II/2 (1931) n. 155, ascribes it to the fact that law provides for common cases and adapts for rarer; may I say again, heretical popes are about as rare as rare can be and yet still be. In sum, and while additional important points could be offered on this matter, in the view of modern canonists from Wernz to Wrenn, however remote is the possibility of a pope actually falling into heresy and however difficult it might be to determine whether a pope has so fallen, such a catastrophe, Deus vetet, would result in the loss of papal office. » Incredibly, Salza & Siscoe adamantly and delusionally insist that the common opinion today is that a manifest heretic pope would not fall from office until he is judged by the Church; and, according to them, the opinion which was originated by the Decretists of the early 1180s, namely, the Fifth Opinion which holds that a manifest heretic pope would automatically fall from office ipso facto by the act of formal heresy itself before any judgment by the Church, is nothing but an opinion of sedevacantists who do not understand Bellarmine! As I just quoted Peters, “I know of no author coming after Wernz who disputes this analysis [of Wernz and Vidal]”; yet the two armchair theologians – the tax lawyer and the businessman, who have no formal education in Canon Law or Theology presume to differ with the unanimous opinion of canonists and theologians on papal loss of office, and their learned understanding of Opinion No. 5. De Auctoritate Summi Pontificis” Disputatio III, Articulus II XVII De Depositione Papae & Seq. James M. Moynihan, STL, JCD; Papal Immunity and Liability in the Writings of the Medieval Canonists, Gregorian University Press, Roma 1961, Chapter Three. 2 "t has been generally held that, given the possibility of a personally heretical Pope, he would ipso facto cease to be Pope by ceasing to be a member of the Church. The Church in that case, as represented by the Cardinals or otherwise, could on due information of the fact pass a declaratory sentence on one who being no longer Pope was no longer its superior, and then take measures to remove him from the see in which he had become an intruder." (Dr. Littledale's Theory of the Disappearance of the Papacy - Sydney F. Smith S.J. Catholic Truth Society, London, 1896.) 3 “If a Pope would formally profess heresy he would cease, by that act, to be the Pope. It’s automatic. And so, that could happen. […] It would have to be members of the College of Cardinals [to declare him to be in heresy].” Interview with Catholic World Report, December 8 2016. 4 “. . . the Roman Pontiff alone, possessing as it were authority over all Councils, has full right and power of proclaiming Councils, or transferring and dissolving them” (The reference is provided below with the text of the full paragraph.) 5 Wernz-Vidal, IUS CANONIcuм II (1928), n. 453 6 «Qui autem judicat, dominus est» (I Cor. IV).” And again: “The Roman Pontiff has no superior but God. Who, therefore, should a pope ‘lose his savour’, could cast him out or trample him under foot”. 7 De Potestate Ecclesiastica. De casu Schismatis, quo duo vel plures se se gerant tamquam Pontifices; p. 130. 8 https://canonlawblog.wordpress.com/2016/12/16/a-canonical-primer-on-popes-and-heresy/ 9 Ibid. « Wrenn, writing in the CLSA NEW COMM (2001) at 1618 states: “Canon 1404 is not a statement of personal impeccability or inerrancy of the Holy Father. Should, indeed, the pope fall into heresy, it is understood that he would lose his office. To fall from Peter’s faith is to fall from his chair.” » An earlier edition of that same commentary says, “Communion becomes a real issue when it is threatened or even lost. This occurs especially through heresy, apostasy and schism. Classical canonists discussed the question whether a pope, in his private or personal opinions, could go into heresy, apostasy or schism.”
-
Everyone from Vatican I on understands that the loss of office takes place at the moment the crime is committed except Salza and Siscoe, the amateur theologians hawking their fake theology.
Who is "everyone?" Don't you mean just the sedevacantists?
-
Fraudulent Interpretation of Fr. Ghirlanda on Papal Loss of Office
[font=",serif]http://chiesa.espresso.repubblica.it/articolo/1350455.html[/font] (http://chiesa.espresso.repubblica.it/articolo/1350455.html)
On May 28, 2018, “Ignatio” quotes Louie Verecchio – Mr. Verrecchio: “Has Michael Matt finally concluded the obvious; namely, that Jorge Mario Bergoglio has – after numerous admonishments from theologians, priests, bishops, and cardinals – plainly condemned himself by his notorious heresy” »
“Ignatio” then comments – « What do you mean by numerous admonishments? Francis has received NO canonical warnings, or “solemn warnings,” which is the form of admonishment he must receive before he can be declared a heretic by the Church. »
Response: Canonical admonitions are by definition given by a superior to a subject over whom the superior holds jurisdiction. Canonical admonitions are impossible in the case of a pope, because the pope has no superior. Loss of office for public defection from the Catholic faith occurs ipso jure under both Codes (i.e. 1917 and 1983). The canon statutes the loss of office solely on the basis of the fact of defection, without prescribing any warnings. The canon (194)* is in the administrative section of the Code; and it explicitly distinguishes between the simple loss of office ipso jure from penal deprivation of office, which is dealt with in the penal section of the Code. Canonical admonitions are prescribed in penal law only, before a penalty is inflicted sententia ferenda.
* Can. 194 §1. The following are removed from an ecclesiastical office by the law itself (ipso jure): […] 2° a person who has publicly defected from the Catholic faith or from the communion of the Church; […] §2. The removal mentioned in nn. 2 and 3 can be enforced only if it is established by the declaration of a competent authority.
“Ignatio” – « And even after receiving the required solemn warnings and refusing to amend, the papal office does not become vacant until the Church declares it so.
–
Father Gianfranco Ghirlanda, former rector of the Gregorian University, studied the past millennia of canonical tradition concerning the loss of papal office. Such an extensive study by a canonist of his caliber is quite rare, and hence his findings should carry great weight. This is what he wrote about the topic in an article published in 2013 by Civiltà Cattolica:
–
Fr. Gianfranco Ghirlanda: “The vacancy of the Roman See occurs in case of the cessation of the office on the part of the Roman Pontiff, which happens for four reasons: 1) Death, 2) Sure and perpetual insanity or complete mental infirmity; 3) Notorious apostasy, heresy, schism; 4) Resignation. In the first case, the Apostolic See is vacant from the moment of death of the Roman Pontiff; IN THE SECOND AND IN THE THIRD FROM THE MOMENT OF THE DECLARATION ON THE PART OF THE CARDINALS; in the fourth from the moment of the renunciation.”
–
He went on to explain that the Cardinals do not depose the pope, but only declared the fact of his heresy. It is “from the moment of the declaration on the part of the Cardinals” that the see becomes vacant, NOT BEFORE. »
Response: The vacancy actually takes place in fact ipso facto, because the office is lost ipso jure. A little further down in the same article, Fr. Ghirlanda explains « The criterion then is the protection of ecclesial communion itself. There where this no longer existed on the part of the Pope, he would no longer have any power, because ipso iure would fall from his primatial office. This is the case, admitted in doctrine, of the notorious apostasy, heresy and schism, in which the Roman Pontiff could fall, but as a "private doctor", who does not commit the assent of the faithful, because by faith in the personal infallibility that the Roman Pontiff has in the performance of his office, and therefore in the assistance of the Holy Spirit, we must say that he cannot make heretical statements wanting to commit his primatial authority, because, if he did so, he would fall ipso jure from his office. However in such cases, since "the first seat is not judged by anyone" (c. 1404), no one could depose the Roman Pontiff, but there would only be a declaration of the fact, which should be on the part of the Cardinals, at least of those present in Rome. This eventuality, however, although foreseen in the doctrine, is considered totally improbable by intervention of the Divine Providence in favor of the Church (4). » Fr. Ghirlanda has explained that the loss of office is automatic (ipso jure); but the fact of the vacancy gains juridical recognition upon the issuance of a declaratory sentence of the cardinals; much as when a pope who dies in his sleep vacates the office at the moment of his death, but the juridical vacancy occurs only upon the recognition of the pope’s death by the cardinal camerlengo.
“Ignatio” – « In the case of Francis, there have been no solemn warnings and no declaration from the Cardinals. Hence, he remains pope, as did Paul VI, John Paul II and Benedict XVI before him. »
Response: The fact of defection from the faith being manifestly evident and public suffices by itself to provoke the ipso jure loss of office, as I have explained in my book: Thus, the only “exception” is not an exception at all, but only if a pope were to cease entirely by himself to be a member of the Church because of manifest heresy, Schism or apostasy, he would by that very act, publicly defect from communion with the Church, cease to be a member of the Church; and therefore, according to the prescription of Canon 194 §1. 2°[1] (https://d.docs.live.net/87afc3674d82b3aa/Ghirlanda%20fraud.docx#_ftn1) (Canon 188. 4° in the 1917 Code[2] (https://d.docs.live.net/87afc3674d82b3aa/Ghirlanda%20fraud.docx#_ftn2)); he would lose office automatically (ipso jure); and the loss of office would then be enforced juridically by a merely declaratory sentence (Canon 194 §2). On this point, the canon is absolutely clear and unequivocal: “Can. 194 §1. The following are removed from an ecclesiastical office by the law itself: […] 2° a person who has publicly defected from the Catholic faith or from the communion of the Church; […]§2. The removal mentioned in nn. 2 and 3 can be enforced only if it is established by the declaration of a competent authority.” In the commentary on the Code of Canon Law composed by the Canon Law faculty of the University of Navarre, it is explained: “In the 2nd and 3rd cases, the act of the ecclesiastical authority is declarative, and it is necessary, not to provoke the vacating of the right of the office, but so that the removal can legally be demanded (also for the purposes of 1381 § 2), and consequently the conferral of the office to a new officeholder can be carried out (cfr. C. 154).”[3] (https://d.docs.live.net/87afc3674d82b3aa/Ghirlanda%20fraud.docx#_ftn3) [CÓDIGO DE DERECHO CANÓNICO EDICIÓN BILINGÜE Y ANOTADA UNIVERSIDAD DE NAVARRA, FACULTAD DE DERECHO CANÓNICO, Sexta edición revisada y actualizada, p. 176.] Since the loss of office takes place ipso jure, it does not depend in any way on the subsequent declaration which merely enforces it; and for this reason, as the quoted canon of the 1917 Code explains, the actual loss of whatsoever office by tacit renunciation takes place ipso facto without any declaration (“Ob tacitam renuntiationem ab ipso iure admissam quælibet officia vacant ipso facto et sine ulla declaratione”). 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.”[4] (https://d.docs.live.net/87afc3674d82b3aa/Ghirlanda%20fraud.docx#_ftn4) [Miguelez – Alonso – Cabreros; CÓDIGO DE DERECHO CAONICO Y LEGISLACIÓN COMPLEMENTARIA, TEXTO LATINO Y VERSION CASTELLANA CON JURISPRUDENCIA Y COMENTARIOS POR LOS CATEDRÁTICOS DE TEXTO DEL CÓDIGO EN LA PONTIFICIA UNIVERSIDAD ECLESIÁSTICA DE SALAMANCA, Madrid, 1952, p. 78.] 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 Supeme 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)
[1] (https://d.docs.live.net/87afc3674d82b3aa/Ghirlanda%20fraud.docx#_ftnref1) Can. 194 — § 1. Ipso iure ab ecclesiastico officio amovetur: […]2° qui a fide catholica aut a communione Ecclesiae publice defecerit ; […] § 2. Amotio, de qua in nn. 2 et 3, urgeri tantum potest, si de eadem auctoritatis competentis declaratione constet.
Can. 194 §1. The following are removed from an ecclesiastical office by the law itself: […] 2° a person who has publicly defected from the Catholic faith or from the communion of the Church; […] §2. The removal mentioned in nn. 2 and 3 can be enforced only if it is established by the declaration of a competent authority.
[2] (https://d.docs.live.net/87afc3674d82b3aa/Ghirlanda%20fraud.docx#_ftnref2) Can. 188. “Ob tacitam renuntiationem ab ipso iure admissam quaelibet officia vacant ipso facto et sine ulla declaratione, si clericus: […] 4° A fide catholica publice defecerit”.
[3] (https://d.docs.live.net/87afc3674d82b3aa/Ghirlanda%20fraud.docx#_ftnref3) “Remoción ipso iure es la decretada por el propio derecho en los casos taxativamente determinados en el § 1. Todos ellos requieren, sin embargo, algún grado de intervención de la autoridad eclesiástica para que la remoción tenga plena eficacia jurídica. En el supuesto 1.º es preciso que se decrete la pérdida del estado clerical (cfr. cc. 290, 1336 § 1, 5.º) para que, como efecto reflejo, se produzca ipso iure la remoción del oficio. En los casos 2.º y 3.º, el acto de la autoridad eclesiástica es declarativo, y se hace necesario, no para provocar la vacación de derecho del oficio, sino para que pueda exigirse jurídicamente la remoción (también a los efectos del c. 1381 § 2), y consiguientemente pueda llevarse a cabo la colación del oficio a un nuevo titular (cfr. c. 154).” - CÓDIGO DE DERECHO CANÓNICO EDICIÓN BILINGÜE Y ANOTADA UNIVERSIDAD DE NAVARRA, FACULTAD DE DERECHO CANÓNICO, Sexta edición revisada y actualizada, p. 176.
[4] (https://d.docs.live.net/87afc3674d82b3aa/Ghirlanda%20fraud.docx#_ftnref4)Miguelez – Alonso – Cabreros, Op. cit. p. 78.
-
Who is "everyone?" Don't you mean just the sedevacantists?
Sede vacantists and conservative Novus Ordo folks (Ed Peters, Ghirlanda, Burke, etc) all accept the teaching of pre-V2 theologians on ipso facto loss of the papacy. The only people who don't accept it are the R&R folks who also reject the Church's teaching on the infallibility of the magisterium.
-
Sede vacantists and conservative Novus Ordo folks (Ed Peters, Ghirlanda, Burke, etc) all accept the teaching of pre-V2 theologians on ipso facto loss of the papacy. The only people who don't accept it are the R&R folks who also reject the Church's teaching on the infallibility of the magisterium.
... if you don't count Cajetan and John of St. Thomas.
-
... if you don't count Cajetan and John of St. Thomas.
Since Vatican I, Bellarmine's 5th opinion has been held universally among all Catholic theologians. Even now, the only people who reject it are the R&R folks, none of whom are, strictly speaking, theologians. That's why S&S were compelled to put forward a revisionist interpretation of Bellarmine. But it has been a total failure for them. Their best bet is to simply deny that George is a heretic. At least then they would have a lot of company.
-
In order to support their erroneous opinion on this point, Salza & Siscoe in Chapter 11 of their book quote the ambiguously stated opinion of Fr. Sebastian Smith (Elements of Ecclesiastical Law, p. 210. 68 Ibid., Preface, p. xi.), who wrote in 1881, “Question: Is a Pope who falls into heresy deprived, ipso jure, of the Pontificate? Answer: There are two opinions: one holds that he is by virtue of divine appointment, divested ipso facto, of the Pontificate; the other, that he is, jure divino, only removable. Both opinions agree that he must at least be declared guilty of heresy by the Church - i.e., by an ecuмenical council or the College of Cardinals.” It is first to be pointed out that Fr. Smith states ambiguously that there are “two opinions” on the question (there have been five opinions, but only two which admit the removal of a manifest heretic pope); and he says, “Both opinions agree that he must at least be declared guilty of heresy by the Church”. This statement, “Both opinions agree that he must at least be declared guilty of heresy by the Church”, simply means that in the case of an ipso jure loss of office which takes place automatically even before the declaration and independently of it; and the case of jure divino “only removable” opinion, in which the loss of office is said to take place immediately upon the declaration: in both cases, a declaratory sentence would be required to enforce the removal and authorize the election of a new pope. Expressed in the manner that it is formulated, the statement can superficially be misinterpreted to mean, (in the manner that Salza & Siscoe opportunistically misinterpret it for their own purpose), that the declaration would be required in order for the loss of office to take place. As they do with so many authors (as will be shown later in this work), Salza & Siscoe twist the meaning of a passage to make it appear to say exactly the opposite from what a critical examination of the words demonstrates to be their authentic meaning. Smith is clearly referring to Opinion No. 5 when he says, “one holds that he is by virtue of divine appointment, divested ipso facto, of the Pontificate”; since he writes in answer to the question, “Is a Pope who falls into heresy deprived, ipso jure, of the Pontificate?” Now in Canon Law, the expression that one is deprived ipso jure means that it is automatic – it takes place ipso facto before any judgment is prounounced. This is exactly how the medieval Decretists employed the term in the earliest formulations of Opinion No. 5, and it is employed in exactly the same manner by the Council of Constance when it deposed Pedro de Luna “as a precautionary measure”, and declared that he had already fallen from every ecclesiastical dignity and had been severed from the body of the Church ipso jure before any judgment was pronounced. The term is again employed in exactly the same manner in the 1983 Code of Canon Law of Pope John Paul II. When Smith says of “the other”, i.e. “that he is, jure divino, only removable”, he is clearly speaking of Opinion No. 4 in its less radical formulation (Suárez), according to which the Church would deliberatively determine that the pope is a heretic, and upon the juridical declaration of guilt, the pope would immediately fall from office. If Smith had meant by, “Both opinions agree that he must at least be declared guilty of heresy by the Church”, that in both cases a declaration of guilt would be necessary for the fall from to take place; that would mean that there would not be two opinions on the question, but only one, namely, “that he is, jure divino, only removable”. Yet this absurd interpretation of the passage is exactly how it is understood by Salza & Siscoe in Chapter 11 of their book: «Fr. Smith expressly states that “both opinions agree” that he must at least be declared guilty of heresy by the Church. If he is not found guilty, he remains a true and valid Pope.”
Thank you, Father.
It was bad enough that Mr. S could only come up with 2 theologians when I asked him who, after Vatican I, agreed with his position. To make matters worse for him, now you show him that he doesn't even have . . . one. You dispatched his claim regarding Father Ghirlanda on another post.
I have no ax to grind here, but to me this settles it. Facts are facts. No theologians support Mr. S.
Maybe he's trying to find at least one in his absence, with that "bishop in the woods."
Mr. S. you will come back and let us know, won't you?
DR
-
Sede vacantists and conservative Novus Ordo folks (Ed Peters, Ghirlanda, Burke, etc) all accept the teaching of pre-V2 theologians on ipso facto loss of the papacy. The only people who don't accept it are the R&R folks who also reject the Church's teaching on the infallibility of the magisterium.
Nonsense, as usual.
-
Stubborn says: "I disagree with this opinion, my opinion is that it is a dogmatic fact that he is the pope because he was legitimately elected and accepted his election. The unanimous opinion of the whole Church does not change his legitimacy, nor does the judgement of "the council" - who may not judge him to begin with."
When the new pope appears after the white smoke signals that the new pope was elected, it is reasonably presumed but not always certain that the man's election has been canonically valid. (In 1378 Cardinal Tebaldeschi was presented as the newly elected pope but he was not the one who was elected.) Van Noort explains that it is theologicae certum that when the whole Church accords universal and peaceful acceptance to the one elected, the validity of his pontificate becomes a dogmatic fact (i.e. no longer merely presumed). Bergoglio was not accorded universal acceptance as the term is properly understood, because his acceptance was not exclusive, as I have already explained. As a public defector from the Catholic faith, he is an incapable subject to receive or conserve the form of the pontificate (as Bellarmine explains). What that means is that he is incapable of even being a valid pope, because public heretics are not members of the truth, even if they are ignorantly believed to be members by the vast majority of the public. Benedict XVI remains in office as pope, because he expressed his intention not to relinquish his munus.
-
Stubborn says: "I disagree with this opinion, my opinion is that it is a dogmatic fact that he is the pope because he was legitimately elected and accepted his election. The unanimous opinion of the whole Church does not change his legitimacy, nor does the judgement of "the council" - who may not judge him to begin with."
When the new pope appears after the white smoke signals that the new pope was elected, it is reasonably presumed but not always certain that the man's election has been canonically valid. (In 1378 Cardinal Tebaldeschi was presented as the newly elected pope but he was not the one who was elected.) Van Noort explains that it is theologicae certum that when the whole Church accords universal and peaceful acceptance to the one elected, the validity of his pontificate becomes a dogmatic fact (i.e. no longer merely presumed). Bergoglio was not accorded universal acceptance as the term is properly understood, because his acceptance was not exclusive, as I have already explained. As a public defector from the Catholic faith, he is an incapable subject to receive or conserve the form of the pontificate (as Bellarmine explains). What that means is that he is incapable of even being a valid pope, because public heretics are not members of the Church, even if they are ignorantly believed to be members by the vast majority of the public. Benedict XVI remains in office as pope, because he expressed his intention not to relinquish his munus.
-
At risk of reviving this thread, Stubborn on a different thread declared that even if Bergoglio were to publicly declare that he had joined the Church of Satan, he would remain the legitimate pope and that there was "nothing that anyone could do about it".
In all your readings, either PC2 or DP, have you found any support for this position?
Should this now be added as a SIXTH OPINION in St. Robert's list?
-
Salza & Siscoe say "it can be argued" that a pope who openly left the Church with a clear cut act of schism would automatically cease to be pope; while at the same time they insist unequivocally that loss of office is a "vindictive penalty", which requires a declared sentence for the loss of office to take place. Thus, it is clear that they are of the latter position, which is founded on the erroneous opinion that loss of office is a penalty.
-
Here is the latest Salza/Siscoe fraud: in their post on the trueorfalsepope website, "FR. KRAMER'S ERROR CONCERNING "THE UNFAILING FAITH OF PETER", Salza and Siscoe pontificate:
<The Church has never taught that Christ’s promise to St. Peter that his "faith will fail not," means a successor of St. Peter is unable to fall into personal heresy and lose the faith. On the contrary, theologians have always distinguished between two distinct privileges that St. Peter receive – one that prevented him from falling into personal heresy, and another that prevented him from erring when he taught ex cathedra – and they have consistently taught that the second privilege is what was passed on to Peter’s successors. For example, in De Romano Pontifice (bk 4, ch. 2), Bellarmine wrote:
Bellarmine: “… the promise of the Lord in Luke XXII, as we find it in the Greek: ‘Simon, Simon, behold, Satan has asked for you that he might sift you like wheat, yet I have prayed for thee that thy faith would not fail…’ (...) the true exposition is that the Lord asked for two privileges for Peter. One, that he could not ever lose the true faith insofar as he was tempted by the Devil (…) The second privilege is that he, ‘as Pope’ [i.e., teaching ex cathedra], could never teach something against the faith, or that there would never be found one in his See who would teach against the true faith. From these privileges, we see that the first did not remain to his successors, but the second without a doubt did.”>
By leaving out one word, fortasse, (Eng. possibly) in their translation, Salza & Siscoe have totally falsified Bellarmine's meaning: "Ex quibus privilegiis, primum fortasse non manavit ad posteros : at secundum sine dubio manavit ad posteros , sive successors." Thus, the true text of Bellarmine reads: "From these privileges, we see that the first possibly did not extend to his successors, but the second without a doubt did." They also mistranslated the word manavit as "remain", as if it were the perfect tense of maneo , manere, which it is not, but is the perfect tense of mano , manare (to flow or extend)
-
Salza & Siscoe also got the chapter wrong: It was not chapter 2 but chapter 3 that they quoted.
-
By leaving out one word, fortasse, (Eng. possibly) in their translation, Salza & Siscoe have totally falsified Bellarmine's meaning:
Agreed ... completely different meaning.
-
Here is the latest Salza/Siscoe fraud: in their post on the trueorfalsepope website, "FR. KRAMER'S ERROR CONCERNING "THE UNFAILING FAITH OF PETER", Salza and Siscoe pontificate:
<The Church has never taught that Christ’s promise to St. Peter that his "faith will fail not," means a successor of St. Peter is unable to fall into personal heresy and lose the faith. On the contrary, theologians have always distinguished between two distinct privileges that St. Peter receive – one that prevented him from falling into personal heresy, and another that prevented him from erring when he taught ex cathedra – and they have consistently taught that the second privilege is what was passed on to Peter’s successors. For example, in De Romano Pontifice (bk 4, ch. 2), Bellarmine wrote:
Bellarmine: “… the promise of the Lord in Luke XXII, as we find it in the Greek: ‘Simon, Simon, behold, Satan has asked for you that he might sift you like wheat, yet I have prayed for thee that thy faith would not fail…’ (...) the true exposition is that the Lord asked for two privileges for Peter. One, that he could not ever lose the true faith insofar as he was tempted by the Devil (…) The second privilege is that he, ‘as Pope’ [i.e., teaching ex cathedra], could never teach something against the faith, or that there would never be found one in his See who would teach against the true faith. From these privileges, we see that the first did not remain to his successors, but the second without a doubt did.”>
By leaving out one word, fortasse, (Eng. possibly) in their translation, Salza & Siscoe have totally falsified Bellarmine's meaning:
That is Ryan Grant's translation. If you have a problem with it, take it up with him.
But let's not forget Fr. Kramer's entirely fake quotation which he used to justify his rejection of moral catholicity of fact.
Here's the fake quote allegedly from St. Athanasius that Fr. Kramer posted on Facebook. "“Even if Catholics faithful to Tradition are reduced to a handful, they are the ones that are the true Church of Christ.” -Coll. Selecta SS.Eccl.Patrum, Caillau and Guillou, Vol. 32, pp. 411-14.”(scanned copy here (http://www.trueorfalsepope.com/p/our-replies-to-fr-paul-kramer-part-i.html))
Here's a link to the book (http://www.archive.org/stream/operaath03atha#page/410/mode/2up)he referenced as his source . The quote is nowhere to be found.
-
:popcorn:
-
Let's compare the quote provided by PaxChristi2 (Siscoe) with the same quote provided by Don Paolo (without any the ellipses):
Quote from: PaxChristi2 on November 13, 2019, 02:48:58 PM (https://www.cathinfo.com/crisis-in-the-church/tony-la-rosa-benedict-xvi-is-the-true-pope!/msg675318/#msg675318)
Here's two. I posted the first one previously. It is from the former rector of the Gregorian, who not only taught canon law for most of his adult life, but is one of the relatively few that has studied the past 1000 years of canonical tradition on the subject.
Quote
Father Ghirlanda, S.J., (2013): “The vacancy of the Roman See occurs in case of the cessation of the office on the part of the Roman Pontiff, which happens for four reasons: 1) Death, 2) Sure and perpetual insanity or complete mental infirmity; 3) Notorious apostasy, heresy, schism; 4) Resignation. In the first case, the Apostolic See is vacant from the moment of death of the Roman Pontiff; in the second and in the third from the moment of the declaration on the part of the cardinals; in the fourth from the moment of the renunciation." (…) There is the case, admitted by doctrine, of notorious apostasy, heresy and schism, into which the Roman Pontiff could fall, but as a ‘private doctor,’ that does not demand the assent of the faithful (…) However, in such cases, because ‘the first see is judged by no one’ (Canon 1404) no one could depose the Roman Pontiff, but only a declaration of the fact would be had, which would have to be done by the Cardinals, at least of those present in Rome.” ("La Civiltà Cattolica" March, 2, 2013)
Quote from: PaxChristi2 on November 13, 2019, 02:48:58 PM (https://www.cathinfo.com/crisis-in-the-church/tony-la-rosa-benedict-xvi-is-the-true-pope!/msg675318/#msg675318)
The Church judges and declares the fact, and at that "moment" the See becomes vacant.
versus
Quote from: Don Paolo on November 19, 2019, 07:42:22 AM (https://www.cathinfo.com/crisis-in-the-church/tony-la-rosa-benedict-xvi-is-the-true-pope!/msg676382/#msg676382)
It is being claimed by some that the Canon Law professor and former rector of the Pontifical Gregorian University, Fr. Giancarlo Ghirlanda SJ, says that a notorious heretic pope would not cease to be pope until he is declared a heretic by the cardinals. That is not his position. His position on the question is identical to my own:
Cessation from the office of the Roman Pontiff
Excerpt from Quaderno n. 3905 del 2 marzo 2013 de "La Civiltà Cattolica", pp. 445-462.
Then, if the Roman Pontiff did not express what is already contained in the Church, he would no longer be in communion with the whole Church, and therefore with the other Bishops, successors of the Apostles. The communion of the Roman Pontiff with the Church and with the Bishops, according to Vatican I (3), cannot be proven by the consent of the Church and the Bishops, as it would no longer be a full and supreme power freely exercised (c. 331; "Nota Explicativa Praevia" 4). The criterion then is the protection of ecclesial communion itself. There where this no longer existed on the part of the Pope, he would no longer have any power, because ipso iure would fall from his primatial office. This is the case, admitted in doctrine, of the notorious apostasy, heresy and schism, in which the Roman Pontiff could fall, but as a "private doctor", who does not commit the assent of the faithful, because by faith in the personal infallibility that the Roman Pontiff has in the performance of his office, and therefore in the assistance of the Holy Spirit, we must say that he cannot make heretical statements wanting to commit his primatial authority, because, if he did so, he would fall ipso jure from his office. However in such cases, since "the first seat is not judged by anyone" (c. 1404), no one could depose the Roman Pontiff, but there would only be a declaration of the fact, which should be on the part of the Cardinals, at least of those present in Rome. This eventuality, however, although foreseen in the doctrine, is considered totally improbable by intervention of the Divine Providence in favor of the Church (4).
FOOTNOTES 3. Constitution, Pastor Aeternus, chapter 4, Denzinger-Schonmetzer 3074. 4. Cf. F. J. Wernz. P. Vida., “Ius canonicuм”, tome II, “De Personis”, Rome, 1933, 517 seqq.
Don Paolo even gives us a link to the entire text: http://chiesa.espresso.repubblica.it/articolo/1350455.html (http://chiesa.espresso.repubblica.it/articolo/1350455.html)
That's some crafty editing by PaxChristi2 (Siscoe). I wonder how he sleeps at night?
Fr. Kramer conveniently left off the part where Fr. Ghirlanda said when the Papal See would become vacant in the event of a Pope falling into notorious heresy.
“The vacancy of the Roman See occurs in case of the cessation of the office on the part of the Roman Pontiff, which happens for four reasons: 1) Death, 2) Sure and perpetual insanity or complete mental infirmity; 3) Notorious apostasy, heresy, schism; 4) Resignation. In the first case, the Apostolic See is vacant from the moment of death of the Roman Pontiff; in the second and in the third from the moment of the declaration on the part of the cardinals; in the fourth from the moment of the renunciation.
"As regards death ... and perpetual madness or total mental illness. ... Then, if the Roman Pontiff did not express what is already contained in the Church, it would no longer be in communion with the whole Church, and therefore with the other Bishops, successors of the Apostles. The communion of the Roman Pontiff with the Church and with the Bishops, according to Vatican I (3), cannot be proven by the consent of the Church and the Bishops, as it would no longer be a full and supreme power freely exercised (c. 331; "Note Explicativa Praevia" 4). The criterion then is the protection of ecclesial communion itself. There where this no longer existed on the part of the Pope, he would no longer have any power, because ipso iure would lapse from his primatial office. This is the case, admitted in doctrine, of the notorious apostasy, heresy and schism, in which the Roman Pontiff could fall, but as a "private doctor", that does not engage the assent of the faithful, because by faith in the personal infallibility that the Roman Pontiff has in the performance of his office, and therefore in the assistance of the Holy Spirit, we must say that he cannot make heretical statements wanting to commit his authority primatial, because, if it did so, it would fall ipso iure from his office. However in such cases, since "the first seat is not judged by anyone" (c. 1404), no one could depose the Roman Pontiff, but there would only be a declaration of the fact, which should be on the part of the Cardinals, at least of those present in Rome. This eventuality, however, although foreseen in the doctrine, is considered totally improbable by intervention of the Divine Providence in favor of the Church (4).” http://chiesa.espresso.repubblica.it/articolo/1350455.html?refresh_ce (http://chiesa.espresso.repubblica.it/articolo/1350455.html?refresh_ce)
The entire quotation in context confirms exactly what I wrote on November 13: "The Church judges and declares the fact, and at that "moment" the See becomes vacant."
-
At risk of reviving this thread, Stubborn on a different thread declared that even if Bergoglio were to publicly declare that he had joined the Church of Satan, he would remain the legitimate pope and that there was "nothing that anyone could do about it".
In all your readings, either PC2 or DP, have you found any support for this position?
(http://www.trueorfalsepope.com/p/bouix-on-heretical-pope.html)
Bouix taught (http://www.trueorfalsepope.com/p/bouix-on-heretical-pope.html) that a Pope who fell into heresy would remain Pope and could not be removed.
Dr. Mirus mentions three other theologians who held the same position. Raphael de Pornaxio, in Tractatus M.R. De Potestate, Chapter XIX. Cardinal Casanova, in Quod Concilium Generale non habet iudicare Papam, f. 179, and Pasquali, in De Potestate, Book III, Art. X. Bishop Athanasius Schneider apparently holds the same position.
Should this now be added as a SIXTH OPINION in St. Robert's list?
No, it's the Third Opinion listed by Bellarmine.
“The Third opinion is to the extreme, that the Pope is not and cannot be deposed either by secret or manifest heresy. Turrecremata in the aforementioned citation relates and refutes this opinion, and rightly so, for it is exceedingly improbable. Firstly, that a heretical Pope can be judged is expressly held in the Canon, Si Papa, dist. 40, and with Innocent. And what is more, in the Fourth Council of Constantinople, Act 7, the acts of the Roman Council under Hadrian are recited, and in those it was contained that Pope Honorius appeared to be legally anathematized, because he had been convicted of heresy (quia de haeresi fuerat convictus), the only reason where it is lawful for inferiors to judge superiors. Here the fact must be remarked upon that, although it is probable that Honorius was not a heretic, and that Pope Hadrian II was deceived by corrupted copies of the Sixth Council, which falsely reckoned Honorius was a heretic, we still cannot deny that Hadrian, with the Roman Council, and the whole Eighth Synod sensed that in the case of heresy, a Roman Pontiff can be judged. Add, 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." (Bellarmine De Romano Pontifice, bk, 2, ch. 30).
-
(http://www.trueorfalsepope.com/p/bouix-on-heretical-pope.html)
Bouix taught (http://www.trueorfalsepope.com/p/bouix-on-heretical-pope.html) that a Pope who fell into heresy would remain Pope and could not be removed.
Dr. Mirus mentions three other theologians who held the same position. Raphael de Pornaxio, in Tractatus M.R. De Potestate, Chapter XIX. Cardinal Casanova, in Quod Concilium Generale non habet iudicare Papam, f. 179, and Pasquali, in De Potestate, Book III, Art. X. Bishop Athanasius Schneider apparently holds the same position.
No, it's the Third Opinion listed by Bellarmine.
“The Third opinion is to the extreme, that the Pope is not and cannot be deposed either by secret or manifest heresy. Turrecremata in the aforementioned citation relates and refutes this opinion, and rightly so, for it is exceedingly improbable. Firstly, that a heretical Pope can be judged is expressly held in the Canon, Si Papa, dist. 40, and with Innocent. And what is more, in the Fourth Council of Constantinople, Act 7, the acts of the Roman Council under Hadrian are recited, and in those it was contained that Pope Honorius appeared to be legally anathematized, because he had been convicted of heresy (quia de haeresi fuerat convictus), the only reason where it is lawful for inferiors to judge superiors. Here the fact must be remarked upon that, although it is probable that Honorius was not a heretic, and that Pope Hadrian II was deceived by corrupted copies of the Sixth Council, which falsely reckoned Honorius was a heretic, we still cannot deny that Hadrian, with the Roman Council, and the whole Eighth Synod sensed that in the case of heresy, a Roman Pontiff can be judged. Add, 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." (Bellarmine De Romano Pontifice, bk, 2, ch. 30).
Thank you. I wasn't referring to public heresy ... but public apostasy. "I, Bergoglio, declare that I have left the Catholic Church and have joined the Church of Satan." I consider this something rather distinct from simple heresy. I think that infidels are in a different category than mere heretics.
-
That is Ryan Grant's translation. If you have a problem with it, take it up with him.
Well, as a scholar, you should disavow this particular translation, then, if it's faulty. If the word fortasse does appear in the original, then you should stop citing this translation and find another one (or render your own). You cannot draw a conclusion from a faulty translation.
-
"PaxChristi2", just like JOHN SALZA, proves himself again a BOLD-FACED LIAR: "But let's not forget Fr. Kramer's entirely fake quotation which he used to justify his rejection of moral catholicity of fact."
Lie no. 1: "Fr. Kramer's entirely fake quotation". Here "PaxChristi2" (or is that John Salza) insinuates that I fabricated the quotation; while in reality it was not "my" quotation at all, but it was a passage attributed to St. Athanasius which I found in an SSPX publication and quoted in my writings.
Lie no. 2: "which he used to justify his rejection of moral catholicity of fact." This is a deliberate, premeditated lie. I have explained the doctrine of moral catholicity repeatedly ASTHE CHURCH TEACHES IT; and not the twisted perversion of that doctrine that John Salza and Robert Siscoe propagate.
Furthermore, one only needs to look in the dictionary to find the meaning of the word "fortasse". Bellarmine clearly says in the quoted text that the privilege possibly did not extend to St. Peter's successors. He did not say that it did not extend to them, because he himself believed that it probably did extend to them, as he explained in his commentary on opinion no. 1. It is quite obvious that "PaxChristi2" is nothing but a propagandist who displays a pathological contempt for the truth.
-
I took the Bellarmine quote from the Editio Prima Romana (1832), p. 709.
-
Thus, the true text of Bellarmine reads: "From these privileges, we see that the first possibly did not extend to his successors, but the second without a doubt did."
Ok, yes, I agree the missing word does change the meaning, but it's not a huge change. The re-introduction of the word "possibly" simply means that it's +Bellarmine's OPINION than a "non-failing faith" would remain in St Peter's successors. All this goes back to the age-old debate on if a pope can become a heretic. +Bellarmine argued both sides but did admit it was possible for a pope to become a heretic, so his use of "possibly" just confirms his view. This is not groundbreaking.
-
Lie no. 2: "which he used to justify his rejection of moral catholicity of fact." This is a deliberate, premeditated lie. I have explained the doctrine of moral catholicity repeatedly AS THE CHURCH TEACHES IT; and not the twisted perversion of that doctrine that John Salza and Robert Siscoe propagate.
Moral Catholicity de facto "as the Church teaches is" means the Church will always possess a large number of people from many different nation.
Van Noort: "To satisfy the requirements of moral catholicity in fact – a quality belonging to Christ’s Church perpetually and necessarily – we stated there was required: 'a great number of men from many different nations.' … Such diffusion, obviously, cannot be had without a really large number of adherents." (Van Noort, Christ's Church, pp. 146-146"
Salaverri: "Catholicity in the strict sense is the vast extension of one Church throughout the world, with a conspicuous multitude of members. (…) Catholicity of right is the power, or right and duty, divinely given to the Church of gathering to herself all men from all parts of the world. Catholicity of fact is an actual great number of Church members to be found in every part of the world. With the Church, we hold as a matter of Catholic faith (de fide catholica) that the Church has a full and perfect catholicity of right and a true moral catholicity of fact (...) Proof of Catholicity of Fact: — Catholicity of fact is an actual great number of Church members, morally ubiquitous, simultaneous, and perpetual. But God has attested that such a great number of members belongs to the Church. Therefore the Church must be catholic with a catholicity of fact." (Salaverri, S. J., On the Church of Christ, 3rd ed., 1955, bk 3, ch 3, art 2.)
Cardinal Billot: The Church of Christ is essentially catholic with a catholicity of right (juris), that is, by the universality of her destination and the mission that she has received from her Founder. Catholicity of fact, which follows from this as a necessary property, consists in two things: first, in a permanent and simultaneous diffusion throughout the world, by which it comes to pass that the true Church always retains in her bosom an enormous (ingentem) number of faithful from a plurality of nations; secondly, in the successive growth by which she must propagate herself more and more until the end of the world, so that she extends throughout all places of the earth without exception and encompasses all nationalities of men. (…) once that short space of time had elapsed during which it was necessary, by the command of Christ himself, that the dissemination of the Word be confined to Judea and Samaria, catholicity of fact, consisting in the simultaneous and constant extension of the Church throughout the entire known world, and among the inhabitants thereof, became an inseparable character of the true Church of Christ." (De Ecclesia Christi, book. 1, part 1, Thesis VI).
Below is the errant ecclesiology of Fr. Kramer that he cited the fake "quote" from St. Athanasius to defend:
Fr. Kramer: "Salza & Siscoe take issue with my entirely orthodox comment that, 'The visible entity will be APOSTATE. The true Church will be a remnant in hiding. The Church will be briefly INVISIBLE, as the Fathers teach.' According to their grotesquely distorted and fundamentalistic notion of the Church, that which has been clearly foretold in scripture and expounded by the Fathers and by ecclesiastical writers through the ages of Catholicism, constitutes a denial of the indefectibility visibility of the Church. However… it is Salza & Siscoe who deny Catholic doctrine by maintaining that the Church will not be reduced to a small number...”
-
"PaxChristi2" professes false doctrine in his comment on Fr. Ghirlanda's exposition: 《The entire quotation in context confirms exactly what I wrote on November 13: "The Church judges and declares the fact, and at that "moment" the See becomes vacant."》
What I have gone to great length to explain is that according to canonical doctrine as well as the canonical provisions currently in force, all ecclesiastical offices are lost ipso jure by public defection from the Catholic faith. Public defection need not be "notorious by fact"; but it suffices, according to the letter of the law, that the defection be PUBLIC, accordingly as PUBLIC is defined in canon law. The sin of heresy constitutes a defection from the faith in its very nature which, if public, severs one from the body of the Church and causes an automatic loss of jurisdiction (as St. Thomas whom I quoted verbatim, explains). Bellarmine follows St. Thomas (citing the same article that I quoted), and concludes that all jurisdiction and ecclesiastical jurisdiction are lost "ex natura hæresis". The magisterial teaching of Pius XII in Mystici Corporis follows this doctrinal tradition exactly, explaining that schism, heresy, and apostasy separate one from the body of the Church "suapte natura" (by their very nature); and accordingly heretics, schismatics, and apostates "miserably separate themselves" from membership in the Church, while all others guilty of grave transgressions are expelled from the Church "by legitimate authority".
Thus, Bellarmine explains that it is "by the nature of heresy" which is defined as an obstinate disbelief (denial or doubt) of an article of divine and Catholic faith, that all offices are lost "ipso facto", "per se", and "without any external agency" (sine alia vi externa" by the very act of "manifest heresy", which he says (in his refutation of opinion no. 4) consists in formal heresy in which pertinacity is manifest.
Fr. Ghirlanda's teaching in no way contradicts this doctrine: He says the loss of office takes place "ipso jure", which by definition means "by operation of the law itself", and not by declaration of authority. What he explains is the de jure establishment of the vacancy takes place at the moment of the promulgation of the declaration, (but not the actual fact of the vacancy which he explained to have already occurred ipso jure. "PaxChristi2" (a.k.a. John Salza) ignorantly interprets Fr. Ghirlanda in such a manner that would involve the eminent canonist in a crude contradiction. What Fr. Ghirlanda explained is that the FACT of the vacancy happens automatically (ipso jure), but the juridical recognition of it takes place when the declaration is issued.
I have quoted verbatim the texts of Msgrs. Fenton and Van Noort, as well as Canon George Smith in The Teaching of the Catholic Church, who all explain the doctrine of Mystici Corporis; explicitly stating that the SIN of heresy cuts one off from membership in the Church. Incredibly and absurdly, Salza & Siscoe continue to obstinately and blindly reject that teaching of the supreme magisterium by interpreting it according to their bizarre heretical opinion which holds that only the CRIME and not the SIN of heresy severs one suapte natura from membership in the Church. The opinion is absurd on its face, because no crime as such severs one from the Church by its own nature but by the penalty of excommunication attached to it by law. Hence, for a crime one is severed "by legitimate authority" (i.e. excommunication). Crimes, according to the nature of "crime", bring about the separation from the body of the Church by means of the PENALTY. But schism, heresy, and apostasy separate one by the very nature of the SIN, because each of these sins in their very nature are an act that severs from the body of the Church. Salza & Siscoe reject with blind obstinacy this manifest dogma definitively taught by the universal and ordinary magisterium. Therefore, Salza and Siscoe are manifest heretics.
-
I have explained at great length the Church's doctrine of moral catholicity in my book, quoting eminent ecclesiastical and aporoved authors. I have explained precisely in what manner the Church will be reduced to a relatively small number compared to its previously much larger number. In Chapter 7 of DE NOTIS ECCLESIÆ, St. Bellarmine teaches on the note, "Amplitudo", explaining in what sense the universal geographical extention of the Church is to be understood: It is does not mean that the Church must be simultsneously present in all regions of the world; and during the great tribulation of the end times, Bellarmine explains that the Church could eventually become so small as to be restricted to only one geographical region, and be absent from the rest of the world.
Pope Benedict XVI himself has stated that the Church will become small; yet Salza & Siscoe do not accuse him of heretically denying the mark of catholicity as they accuse me. In my book I explain how Salza & Siscoe have craftily twisted and distorted the teaching of Mons. Van Noort, in order to make his teaching appear to be in conformity with their own crudely oversimplified fundamentalism. I reject their perverted caricature of the Church's doctrine of catholicity, and I adhere to the true and traditional doctrine of catholicity as taught by the Doctor of the Church (St. Robert Bellarmine); while I reject the perverted distortion of that doctrine by the heretics, Robert Siscoe and John Salza.
-
Moral Catholicity de facto "as the Church teaches is" means the Church will always possess a large number of people from many different nation.
Van Noort: "To satisfy the requirements of moral catholicity in fact – a quality belonging to Christ’s Church perpetually and necessarily – we stated there was required: 'a great number of men from many different nations.' … Such diffusion, obviously, cannot be had without a really large number of adherents." (Van Noort, Christ's Church, pp. 146-146"
Salaverri: "Catholicity in the strict sense is the vast extension of one Church throughout the world, with a conspicuous multitude of members. (…) Catholicity of right is the power, or right and duty, divinely given to the Church of gathering to herself all men from all parts of the world. Catholicity of fact is an actual great number of Church members to be found in every part of the world. With the Church, we hold as a matter of Catholic faith (de fide catholica) that the Church has a full and perfect catholicity of right and a true moral catholicity of fact (...) Proof of Catholicity of Fact: — Catholicity of fact is an actual great number of Church members, morally ubiquitous, simultaneous, and perpetual. But God has attested that such a great number of members belongs to the Church. Therefore the Church must be catholic with a catholicity of fact." (Salaverri, S. J., On the Church of Christ, 3rd ed., 1955, bk 3, ch 3, art 2.)
Cardinal Billot: The Church of Christ is essentially catholic with a catholicity of right (juris), that is, by the universality of her destination and the mission that she has received from her Founder. Catholicity of fact, which follows from this as a necessary property, consists in two things: first, in a permanent and simultaneous diffusion throughout the world, by which it comes to pass that the true Church always retains in her bosom an enormous (ingentem) number of faithful from a plurality of nations; secondly, in the successive growth by which she must propagate herself more and more until the end of the world, so that she extends throughout all places of the earth without exception and encompasses all nationalities of men. (…) once that short space of time had elapsed during which it was necessary, by the command of Christ himself, that the dissemination of the Word be confined to Judea and Samaria, catholicity of fact, consisting in the simultaneous and constant extension of the Church throughout the entire known world, and among the inhabitants thereof, became an inseparable character of the true Church of Christ." (De Ecclesia Christi, book. 1, part 1, Thesis VI).
Below is the errant ecclesiology of Fr. Kramer that he cited the fake "quote" from St. Athanasius to defend:
Fr. Kramer: "Salza & Siscoe take issue with my entirely orthodox comment that, 'The visible entity will be APOSTATE. The true Church will be a remnant in hiding. The Church will be briefly INVISIBLE, as the Fathers teach.' According to their grotesquely distorted and fundamentalistic notion of the Church, that which has been clearly foretold in scripture and expounded by the Fathers and by ecclesiastical writers through the ages of Catholicism, constitutes a denial of the indefectibility visibility of the Church. However… it is Salza & Siscoe who deny Catholic doctrine by maintaining that the Church will not be reduced to a small number...”
Pax Christi, you have done a superb job of defending the true Catholic doctrine in this post. The Church, as St. Augustine and St. Optatus so convincingly argued against the Donatist schismatics, is Universal while schisms are local, and cannot be reduced to a few vagrant clerics here and there who don't even work together (like the SSPV and the CMRI) but cast aspersions on the validity of each other's orders.
Pope Bl. Pius IX's teaching, indeed Our Lord's, which you perhaps already know of, but which is useful in further underlining the point, confirms it, "What did He announce? ‘Behold I am with you all days even to the consummation of the world.’ Moved by your voices and your false opinions, She asked of God that He announce to Her the length of Her days and She found that God said ‘Behold I am with you all days even to the consummation of the world.’ Here you will say: He spoke about us; we are as we will be until the end of the world. Christ Himself is asked; He says ‘and this gospel will be preached in the whole world, in testimony to all nations, and then will come the end.’ Therefore the Church will be among all nations until the end of the world. Let heretics perish as they are, and let them find that they become what they are not.”[8] https://www.papalencyclicals.net/pius09/p9etsimu.htm (https://www.papalencyclicals.net/pius09/p9etsimu.htm) (against Old Catholics)
Those who claim the "Church of Christ has apostatized from the world" and is found only in local sects but not in all nations as was explained by the Theologians deny what Our Lord said, what the Pope has said, and what the Catholic Church teaches, about the mark of Her Universality.
-
"PaxChristi2" professes false doctrine in his comment on Fr. Ghirlanda's exposition: 《The entire quotation in context confirms exactly what I wrote on November 13: "The Church judges and declares the fact, and at that "moment" the See becomes vacant."》
What I have gone to great length to explain is that according to canonical doctrine as well as the canonical provisions currently in force, all ecclesiastical offices are lost ipso jure by public defection from the Catholic faith. Public defection need not be "notorious by fact"; but it suffices, according to the letter of the law, that the defection be PUBLIC, accordingly as PUBLIC is defined in canon law. The sin of heresy constitutes a defection from the faith in its very nature which, if public, severs one from the body of the Church and causes an automatic loss of jurisdiction (as St. Thomas whom I quoted verbatim, explains). Bellarmine follows St. Thomas (citing the same article that I quoted), and concludes that all jurisdiction and ecclesiastical jurisdiction are lost "ex natura hæresis". The magisterial teaching of Pius XII in Mystici Corporis follows this doctrinal tradition exactly, explaining that schism, heresy, and apostasy separate one from the body of the Church "suapte natura" (by their very nature); and accordingly heretics, schismatics, and apostates "miserably separate themselves" from membership in the Church, while all others guilty of grave transgressions are expelled from the Church "by legitimate authority".
Thus, Bellarmine explains that it is "by the nature of heresy" which is defined as an obstinate disbelief (denial or doubt) of an article of divine and Catholic faith, that all offices are lost "ipso facto", "per se", and "without any external agency" (sine alia vi externa" by the very act of "manifest heresy", which he says (in his refutation of opinion no. 4) consists in formal heresy in which pertinacity is manifest.
Fr. Ghirlanda's teaching in no way contradicts this doctrine: He says the loss of office takes place "ipso jure", which by definition means "by operation of the law itself", and not by declaration of authority. What he explains is the de jure establishment of the vacancy takes place at the moment of the promulgation of the declaration, (but not the actual fact of the vacancy which he explained to have already occurred ipso jure. "PaxChristi2" (a.k.a. John Salza) ignorantly interprets Fr. Ghirlanda in such a manner that would involve the eminent canonist in a crude contradiction. What Fr. Ghirlanda explained is that the FACT of the vacancy happens automatically (ipso jure), but the juridical recognition of it takes place when the declaration is issued.
I have quoted verbatim the texts of Msgrs. Fenton and Van Noort, as well as Canon George Smith in The Teaching of the Catholic Church, who all explain the doctrine of Mystici Corporis; explicitly stating that the SIN of heresy cuts one off from membership in the Church. Incredibly and absurdly, Salza & Siscoe continue to obstinately and blindly reject that teaching of the supreme magisterium by interpreting it according to their bizarre heretical opinion which holds that only the CRIME and not the SIN of heresy severs one suapte natura from membership in the Church. The opinion is absurd on its face, because no crime as such severs one from the Church by its own nature but by the penalty of excommunication attached to it by law. Hence, for a crime one is severed "by legitimate authority" (i.e. excommunication). Crimes, according to the nature of "crime", bring about the separation from the body of the Church by means of the PENALTY. But schism, heresy, and apostasy separate one by the very nature of the SIN, because each of these sins in their very nature are an act that severs from the body of the Church. Salza & Siscoe reject with blind obstinacy this manifest dogma definitively taught by the universal and ordinary magisterium. Therefore, Salza and Siscoe are manifest heretics.
You, Fr. Kramer, are a mentally deranged con man and a habitual liar. All you do is repeat that same lies and idiotic errors over and over again.
-
Ok, yes, I agree the missing word does change the meaning, but it's not a huge change. The re-introduction of the word "possibly" simply means that it's +Bellarmine's OPINION than a "non-failing faith" would remain in St Peter's successors. All this goes back to the age-old debate on if a pope can become a heretic. +Bellarmine argued both sides but did admit it was possible for a pope to become a heretic, so his use of "possibly" just confirms his view. This is not groundbreaking.
But it does change the meaning. One is a positive statement that this did NOT transmit to the successors of Peter, the other the implication that it likely did, but it's possible that it did not. Those are entirely different. St. Robert Bellarmine holds the position that it DID transmit, but he does not consider that position to be completely certain.
-
You, Fr. Kramer, are a mentally deranged con man and a habitual liar. All you do is repeat that same lies and idiotic errors over and over again.
I think you make many good arguments, but I am not comfortable with your speaking to a priest like this.
And of course, doing so elicits a similar reaction in Fr. Kramer.
Can’t you guys keep things at the level of doctrine?
It would be much more edifying (and this is me saying this).
Personally, I always feel dirty after frequently getting into these types of acrimonious contests.
For personalities like yours and mine, it might be sinful to post on forums at all, knowing full well that doing so, sooner or later we are going to lock horns with someone and sink into the mud again.
For me, blogs were the answer, since they do not allow debate. But I have no time anymore to post frequent and original content.
I am giving serious thought to just sticking with books, and leaving the fora behind.
To me, this seems a prudent decision.
-
Van Noort in his ecclesiology manual also speculates about the possibility in a nuclear age that the Church could be reduced to a small remnant gathered around the pope. Msgr Fenton also talks about the indefectibility of the local church of Rome with the implication that all the other sees could defect. Fr. Berry and Fr Edmund O'Reilly also imply that the Church could be reduced to a small remnant. I don't hear anyone accusing these men of heresy. Hypocrits.
-
But it does change the meaning. One is a positive statement that this did NOT transmit to the successors of Peter, the other the implication that it likely did, but it's possible that it did not. Those are entirely different. St. Robert Bellarmine holds the position that it DID transmit, but he does not consider that position to be completely certain.
Yes, it changes the meaning. No, it does not change the understanding of what +Bellarmine thought, who admitted elsewhere that the question of a heretic pope is uncertain.
-
You, Fr. Kramer, are a mentally deranged con man and a habitual liar. All you do is repeat that same lies and idiotic errors over and over again.
Hello PaxChristi2, if you are indeed Mr. Salza or Siscoe, then if you do not mind, please answer these questions:
1. Given that Fr. Gruner also believed that Pope Francis was not the Pope ,and that Benedict was still Pope, (and that Fr. Gruner was the one that encourage Fr. Kramer to write his book on this debate) would you have publicly debated and even verbally attacked him as well? (Assuming Fr. Gruner had been more public with his beliefs on Pope Francis).
2. Do you believe that there is a Conciliar Church, an if so, what is your definition of it?
3. Although you and Dr. Chojnowski had a falling out, do you believe that the evidence of the various experts provide a plausible case for an imposter Sister Lucy?
4. Do you believe that the evidence provided here https://www.cathinfo.com/sspx-resistance-news/collection-of-sspx-resistance-writings/ proves there has been a change in the SSPX and do you approve of these changes?
Thank you!
-
Well then, Pax Vobis, if one considers the problematic consequences of there being a heretic pope, the irresolvable situation it would create suffices to prove that such a thing as a heretic pope is impossible. 1) If a pope is a heretic, he cannot be judged by the Church, because as pope, he is defined (de fide) to be the supreme judge of all disputes in matters of faith; and to his exclusive jurisdiction belongs the authority to determine with finality all judgments of the Church in matters of faith. 2) It is de fide that to the full power of his universal primacy of jurisdiction pertains the authority to bind the whole Church. For so long as he is pope; it is his exclusive right to bind the whole Church. Hence, it is HERESY to say that a council can issue a vitandus order against the pope binding the whole Church.
If anyone is a manifest heretic (i.e. one who is manifestly obstinate in his public disbelief of even one article of faith): that person is severed from the body of the Church suapte natura by his heresy (Mystici Corporis), and loses ipso jure whatsoever office he held, according to the unanimous consensus of the Fathers (as Bellarmine explains in De. Rom. Pont. lib. ii cap. xxx), and according to the universal statutory law of the Roman Church. Hence, 3) A manifest heretic is an incapable subject of any ecclesiastical office; but if he were to remain in office as pope, even as a manifest heretic who is visibly outside until he is judged by the Church; he could never be removed because he is the supreme and final judge of all cases (de fide); but then as a publicly contumacious heretic he would be visibly severed from the body of the Church but would still retain his office, jurisdiction, and papal dignity. But this is also impossible, because as a public heretic he is ipso jure deprived of office. Thus, the mass of multiple irresolvable contradictions that would result from a pope being a pertinacious heretic proves that such a thing as a heretic pope is impossible. Therefore, the greatest theologians, (some of whose names I enumerated in an earlier comment) were correct in saying that such a thing as a heretic pope is impossible; and that divine providence will never permit such a thing.
-
Well then, Pax Vobis, if one considers the problematic consequences of there being a heretic pope, the irresolvable situation it would create suffices to prove that such a thing as a heretic pope is impossible. 1) If a pope is a heretic, he cannot be judged by the Church, because as pope, he is defined (de fide) to be the supreme judge of all disputes in matters of faith; and to his exclusive jurisdiction belongs the authority to determine with finality all judgments of the Church in matters of faith. 2) It is de fide that to the full power of his universal primacy of jurisdiction pertains the authority to bind the whole Church. For so long as he is pope; it is his exclusive right to bind the whole Church. Hence, it is HERESY to say that a council can issue a vitandus order against the pope binding the whole Church.
If anyone is a manifest heretic (i.e. one who is manifestly obstinate in his public disbelief of even one article of faith): that person is severed from the body of the Church suapte natura by his heresy (Mystici Corporis), and loses ipso jure whatsoever office he held, according to the unanimous consensus of the Fathers (as Bellarmine explains in De. Rom. Pont. lib. ii cap. xxx), and according to the universal statutory law of the Roman Church. Hence, 3) A manifest heretic is an incapable subject of any ecclesiastical office; but if he were to remain in office as pope, even as a manifest heretic who is visibly outside until he is judged by the Church; he could never be removed because he is the supreme and final judge of all cases (de fide); but then as a publicly contumacious heretic he would be visibly severed from the body of the Church but would still retain his office, jurisdiction, and papal dignity. But this is also impossible, because as a public heretic he is ipso jure deprived of office. Thus, the mass of multiple irresolvable contradictions that would result from a pope being a pertinacious heretic proves that such a thing as a heretic pope is impossible. Therefore, the greatest theologians, (some of whose names I enumerated in an earlier comment) were correct in saying that such a thing as a heretic pope is impossible; and that divine providence will never permit such a thing.
Fr. Gleize also comes up with a similar conclusion that a true Pope cannot fall into formal heresy:
https://sspx.org/en/news-events/news/question-papal-heresy-part-4-20547
Infallibility and Heresy
Having made these distinctions and clarifications, let us try to frame the problem before us: can the Pope fall into heresy? The Pope is a man called by God to exercise the supreme and universal power of jurisdiction (and therefore of the Magisterium or teaching office) over the whole Church. As a man, he remains, like all his fellow human beings, subject to error. In order for him not to be subject to error, it is necessary for God to have given him an explicit assurance, while specifying the limits within which he will enjoy this infallibility; and this assurance was given by God in restricted circuмstances, outside of which there is no reason to say that the Pope is infallible. More precisely, any and all exercise of his function does not fall within these limits, but only one type of particular actions, the performance of which may appear clearly by means of the criteria of locutio ex cathedra (speaking from the teacher’s seat, authoritatively).
All theologians acknowledge that outside these limits the Pope is not infallible even though some of them have gone so far as to maintain that he would ordinarily be inerrant. (For further reading, see Jean-Baptiste Franzelin, De divina traditione (4th ed. 1896), thesis 12, appendix 1, principle 7 and its corollaries, pp. 118-141; Dublanchy, “Infaillibilité du pape, ”Dictionnaire de Théologie Catholique, col. 1711-1712; Straub, De Ecclesia, nos. 968 ff.; and Lucien Choupin, S.J., Valeur des décisions doctrinales et disciplinaires du Saint-Siège (Paris: Beauchesne, 1913), pp. 87-92). Consider also the words of the Dominican theologian Fr. Thomas Pègues, cited by Choupin, op. cit., p. 55.
It could be, strictly speaking, that this teaching would be subject to error. We have a thousand reasons to believe that it is not. It probably never has been and it is morally certain that it never will be. But absolutely it could be, in the sense that God does not guarantee it as He guarantees teaching that is formulated by way of definition.”
To What Point a Pope Can Err?
It is therefore not a contradiction that the man who is Pope should be mistaken, even in the exercise of his office, and even to the point of heresy. But this conclusion is drawn on the universal level, which is the level of mere possibility, that is, the compatibility of abstract notions; it does not apply to a real risk in matters of fact, or to a greater or lesser probability, much less to a frequency. Consequently, even though it may be indubitable, this conclusion would not be tantamount (at least not yet) to the statement that Pope Francis is heretical.
The Pope can err to the point of at least material heresy: no theologian disputes that. The question being debated is not whether he could fall as far as formal heresy, with pertinacity. In fact, the passage from material heresy to formal heresy depends as such on the internal forum and remains unverifiable. The only question that matters is what may happen in the external forum. From this perspective, it is plain that the Pope can fall into occult heresy: not only private heresy but even public heresy.
Can a Pope Fall in Notorious Heresy?
On the other hand, if we are talking about notorious heresy, it is obvious that he cannot during his lifetime: notorious heresy is in fact heresy that is declared by the competent superior, and since the Pope has no superior here on earth, no one is competent to declare his heresy canonically. From a strictly canonical perspective, the Pope therefore during his lifetime could fall only into occult heresy. Once he has died, his heresy can obviously be declared by his successor and become notorious. But that does not authorize us to say that the Pope could fall into notorious heresy, since by definition this fall could take place only during his lifetime.
This authorizes us only to say that a Pope could be anathematized posthumously, provided that we are not misled by the expression, since a deceased pope is no longer Pope. In reality, this anathema pertains strictly speaking not to his person but to his statements: the heresy is notorious, but it is so if it is understood not in the first sense, as a person’s moral act, but in the second sense, as the doctrinal description of a proposition.
Cases Before and After Vatican II
As for what has happened in fact, the response is twofold, depending on whether it concerns past facts from the period before Vatican II or present facts, from the period inaugurated by Vatican II. In the case of the former, only Pope Honorius was anathematized posthumously, strictly speaking not as heretical but as having favored heresy; on the other hand, his successors, St. Agatho and St. Leo II, never proclaimed the posthumous dethronement of Honorius, who never ceased to be recognized thereafter as a legitimate pope. (For a more detailed discussion, consult the article “Une crise sans précédents” that appeared in the journal of the Institut Universitaire saint Pie X, Vu de haut 14 (automne 2008), pp. 78-95).
In the case of the present period, no canonical declaration has yet occurred to declare juridically the notoriety of what might be the heresy of the conciliar popes. Can we speak nonetheless about an occult heresy? It is at least beyond doubt that the attitude of these popes complies with the presuppositions of liberalism and modernism, which have been condemned by the Magisterium, and that these popes therefore favor heresy, inasmuch as they preach and put into practice the teachings of Vatican Council II and carry out all the reforms that result from it.
Modern Theologians Say Papal Heresy is Impossible
This is why, considering the apparently unanimous statements by theologians of the modern era (who consider the heresy of a pope as improbable), we respond first that their opinion does not deny that the Pope could fall into heresy; it denies that he could fall into formal and public heresy, even if it were not notorious. We respond secondly that the theological tradition is fallible and capable of reform, even if it is temporarily unanimous, since it is not constant. For example, in considering the matter concerning the Scholastic theologians who all thought unanimously that the matter of the sacrament of Holy Orders was the conferral of the instruments, Franzelin comments, op. cit., thesis 17, nos. 360-362:
"Even if one could demonstrate that the consensus existed temporarily, it was not constant and, as we said, it is an argument thanks to which we prove that such a consensus, if there was one, pertained not to a firm and certain way of thinking (avis) but to an opinion.”
The episode that we have been going through for fifty years could therefore lead theologians to revise and refine the position that had been followed since the sixteenth century. All the more since one among them, Fr. Dublanchy, op. cit., concluded in very measured terms: “This opinion is worth as much as the reasons that support it; but it is by no means guaranteed by the Church nor adopted by theologians as a whole.” We see clearly also that at the time of Vatican Council I, Msgr. Zinelli, likewise cited by the one raising the objection, affirms nothing categorical. Deeming it at most probable that the Pope will never fall into heresy, he immediately adds that, even if God were to permit it, He would not leave His Church defenseless and at the mercy of that tyranny.
As for the argument from reason which is thought to support this opinion, we respond that even if absolute personal infallibility was advisable for the exercise of the office, this would only be a matter of suitability [convenance]. Such a privilege is not included in the promise of papal infallibility, which concerns the office only; besides, revelation says nothing about it. Sound reason even leads us to think that this infallibility is not strictly necessary: someone who tries to prove too much proves nothing, and one would run the risk of devaluating infallibility while trying to extend it beyond its limits. Therefore it remains possible that the Pope might err personally in the faith, although his office would never be engaged solemnly in the service of heresy.
Recent Popes and Heresies
The events that followed Vatican Council II, incidentally, sufficiently show this. Here is the analysis of Fr. Roger-Thomas Calmel, taken from his unpublished 1973 manuscript L’Église plus grande que le pape, which is preserved in the personal archives of Archbishop Lefebvre at the Saint Pius X Seminary in Ecône.
"The privilege of infallibility will always preserve the Pope from changing the religion formally. But, even without formal changes, attempts [to make them] or acts of complicity or cowardice can go very far and become a very cruel trial for Holy Church. The modernist system, more precisely the modernist apparatus and procedures, offer the Pope a brand new occasion of sin, a possibility of evading his mission that had never before been proposed to him. Once the twofold modernist principle was admitted: first, universal reform, especially in the case of the liturgy, in the name of a certain pastoral openness to the modern world; secondly the abdication of regular, defined authority in favor of feigned, fleeting, anonymous sorts of authority that are typical of various forms of collegiality—in short, once the twofold principle of modernism penetrated into the Church, this destructive consequence followed: the apostolic tradition in matters of doctrine, morals and worship was neutralized, although it was not killed—without any need for the Pope officially and openly to deny the whole tradition and therefore to proclaim the apostasy.”
As for the argument that would cite history as its authority, we respond that, certainly, no pope has ever fallen into notorious heresy, but nonetheless some popes favored heresy and some still do. And that one of them was anathematized as “favens haeresim” posthumously.
Considering the statements by theologians from the medieval period, who consider papal heresy probable, even though these theologians think that the Pope can fall into not only material heresy but even formal and public heresy, it must be noted that they nevertheless do not maintain that the Pope’s heresy would be notorious.
As for the facts of history cited by these theologians, they prove at most that the Pope can be materially heretical and favor heresy publicly, but not that he should be formally heretical in a notorious manner.
-
If you are on the fence about leaving CathInfo, you might want to try making judicious use of the ignore functionality. All you have to do is:
1. Click on the Profile button towards to the top of the page. It will take you to your own profile page.
2. Hover the mouse pointer over the Modify Profile button just above your Avatar
3. Click on Buddies/Ignore List...
4. Click on the Edit Ignore List button
5. Just below the "Add to Ignore List" label, click on the Member text box and start typing the name of the member who you want to ignore. It has auto-complete so if you see the member listed you can just click on their name without having to type the whole thing in.
6. Click Add button
It works well if you only have a handful of people who drive you up the wall. If everyone is making you angry then leaving might be the right thing.
-
Mr. G, I don't think you would find much opposition on that point from sedes. All the popes since the death of Pope Pius XII have been shown to be heretics long before they made any claim on the papacy. In which case, they never obtained the Holy See to begin with. That they continued to be heretics after their supposed election is also quite manifest. It could certainly be used as evidence that the election was illegitimate. If it can be proved definitively that popes cannot ever fall into heresy, then a manifestly heretical pope proves that the election was defective. In which case, there is no need to depose the pope at all. The Siscoe and Salza argument becomes a moot point.
-
If you are on the fence about leaving CathInfo, you might want to try making judicious use of the ignore functionality. All you have to do is:
1. Click on the Profile button towards to the top of the page. It will take you to your own profile page.
2. Hover the mouse pointer over the Modify Profile button just above your Avatar
3. Click on Buddies/Ignore List...
4. Click on the Edit Ignore List button
5. Just below the "Add to Ignore List" label, click on the Member text box and start typing the name of the member who you want to ignore. It has auto-complete so if you see the member listed you can just click on their name without having to type the whole thing in.
6. Click Add button
It works well if you only have a handful of people who drive you up the wall. If everyone is making you angry then leaving might be the right thing.
I think that overall, putting anyone on ignore is a bit silly. I have found that praying for those I argue with the most, helps keep my replies much more calm. When I get to mean, I remember after the fact that I was mean because I haven't or didn't pray for that person. When one cares enough to pray for someone, they aren't usually so quick to want to bite his head right off.
-
Fr. Gleize also comes up with a similar conclusion that a true Pope cannot fall into formal heresy:
I actually believe this as well; I just don't think these men were true popes in the first place, but plants and infiltrators.
-
All the popes since the death of Pope Pius XII have been shown to be heretics long before they made any claim on the papacy. In which case, they never obtained the Holy See to begin with. That they continued to be heretics after their supposed election is also quite manifest. It could certainly be used as evidence that the election was illegitimate.
The election was not illegitimate, even for those excommunicated, because both St Pius X and Pius XII changed the election laws to allow voting for/by those who are under ecclesiastical penalty.
.
If it can be proved definitively that popes cannot ever fall into heresy,
It's been debated for centuries and there's no conclusion yet. If those great intellectuals of +Bellmarine's times could not prove the matter, none of us can.
-
When one cares enough to pray for someone ...
Thanks, Stubborn, for this reminder. I hope we all do recall to frequently pray for each other, that we may all be sanctified and saved, and one day meet in Heaven. Our Lady has promised, all who persevere in praying the Rosary, who devoutly wear the Scapular, She will not allow to be lost; and so let us hope for ourselves and for each other that we all grow in grace every day of our life and ultimately go to Heaven when we pass into eternity.
I also believe a Pope will not actually become a heretic, although that is only, as St. Robert puts it, "a pious and probable opinion", but not considered absolutely certain dogma. Now, I have a question for Rev. Fr. Kramer:
Father, what do you believe about Pope Honorius? Do you believe he was a heretic? I don't think even those who claimed he was a heretic said "he was never Pope to begin with, since he became a heretic". Does it really work like that? Popes are once and for all proven to be Popes infallibly shortly after their election when they receive unanimous episcopal acceptance. Can you show any Saint, Doctor or Theologian who said, "Pope Honorius was never Pope to begin with, since he became a heretic"?
It's more likely than not imho that Pope Honorius was not a heretic, as per two great Doctors, St. Alphonsus and St. Robert, though he was imprudent and made some mistakes:
St. Alphonsus: “Not alone the heretical, but even some Catholic writers, have judged, from these expressions of Pope Honorius, that he fell into the Monothelite heresy; but they are certainly deceived; because when he says that there is only one will in Christ, he intends to speak of Christ as man alone, and in that sense, as a Catholic, he properly denies that there are two wills in Christ opposed to each other, as in us the flesh is opposed to the spirit; and if we consider the very words of his letter, we will see that such is his meaning. ‘We confess one will alone in Jesus Christ, for the Divinity did not assume our sin, but our nature, as it was created before it was corrupted by sin.’ This is what Pope John IV. writes to the Emperor Constantine II., in his apology for Honorius: ‘Some,’ said he, ‘admitted two contrary wills in Jesus Christ, and Honorius answers that by saying that Christ—perfect God and perfect man—having come to heal human nature, was conceived and born without sin, and therefore, never had two opposite wills, nor in him the will of the flesh ever combated the will of the spirit, as it does in us, on account of the sin contracted from Adam.’ He therefore concludes that those who imagine that Honorius taught that there was in Christ but one will alone of the Divinity and of the humanity, are at fault. St. Maximus, in his dialogue with Pyrrhus, and St. Anastasius Bibliothecarius, make a similar defence for Honorius. Graveson, in confirmation of this, very properly remarks, that as St. Cyril, in his dispute with Nestorius, said, in a Catholic sense, that the nature of the Incarnate Word was one, and the Eutychians seized on the expression as favourable to them, in the same manner, Honorius saying that Christ had one will (that is, that he had not, like us, two opposite wills—one defective, the will of the flesh, and one correct, the will of the Spirit), the Monothelites availed themselves of it to defend their errors."
St. Robert: "Then they say, however, that a little below he [Pope Honorius I] clearly preaches only one will in these words: “Wherefore, we profess one will of our Lord Jesus Christ.” I respond: In that place, Honorius spoke only on the human nature, and wished to say that in the man, Christ, there were not two wills opposing each other, one of the flesh and the other of the spirit; but only one, namely the spirit. For the flesh in Christ desired absolutely nothing against reason. Moreover, this is the mind of Honorius, and that is plain from the reason that he gave. Thus he says: “Wherefore, we affirm one will of our Lord Jesus Christ, because certainly our nature was assumed by the divinity, there is no fault, certainly that which had created sin, not that which was damaged after sin.” This reasoning is null, if it is advanced to prove in Christ, God and man there is only one will: it is very efficacious, if thence it must be proved, that in Christ the man where there not contrary wills of the flesh and spirit. That contrariety is born from sin, but Christ has a human nature without sin.
The dogmatic letter of Pope St. Agatho to the Sixth Council, the Byzantine monk St. Maximus the confessor, and many others, also stated the Church of Rome never erred in this Monothelite controversy, but rather some enemies of Rome, in order to confuse the issue, and mask the fact that it was really the Patriarch of Constantinople who initiated this heresy.
Your thoughts on the Monothelite controversy and the historical case of Pope Honorius, Fr. Kramer? Was the Pope a heretic?
-
Patriarch St. Sophronius of Jerusalem is also an excellent Saintly example of a Saint to learn from; faced with a crisis, he neither lost, nor, by the Grace of God, grew weak in the Catholic Faith in the indefectibility of the Holy Roman Church, but counselled his delegates, to go there, inform the Apostolic See of the treachery, and never cease to weep and pray until the new heresy is examined and condemned.
Finally, the efforts and prayers were victorious at the Council held soon after. Here is the life of the Saintly Patriarch in Rev. Father Alban Butler's Lives of the Saints from EWTN: "He was no sooner established in his see, than he assembled a council of all the bishops of his patriarchate, in 634, to condemn the Monothelite heresy, and composed a synodal letter to explain and prove the Catholic faith. 'Finis excellent piece was confirmed in the sixth general council. St. Sophronius sent this learned epistle to pope Honorius and to Sergius. This latter had, by a crafty letter and captious expressions, persuaded pope Honorius to tolerate a silence as to one or two wills in Christ. It is evident from the most authentic monuments, that Honorius never assented to that error, but always adhered to the truth.[1] However, a silence was ill-timed, and though not so designed, might be deemed by some a kind of connivance, for a rising heresy seeks to carry on its work under ground without noise: it is a fire which spreads itself under cover. Sophronius, seeing the emperor and almost all the chief prelates of the East conspire against the truth, thought it his duty to defend it with the greater zeal. He took Stephen, bishop of Doria, the eldest of his suffragans, led him to Mount Calvary, and there adjured him by Him who was crucified on that place, and by the account which he should give him at the last day, "to go to the Apostolic See, where are the foundations of the holy doctrine, and not to cease to pray till the holy persons there should examine and condemn the novelty." Stephen did so and stayed at Rome ten years, till he saw it condemned by pope Martin I. in the council of Lateran, in 649. " https://www.ewtn.com/catholicism/library/st-sophronius-patriarch-of-jerusalem-c-5827 (https://www.ewtn.com/catholicism/library/st-sophronius-patriarch-of-jerusalem-c-5827)
-
THE HERESY OF JOHN SALZA & ROBERT SISCOE
“The Church must render a judgment before the pope loses his office.” Robert J. Siscoe — Article in The Remnant (Nov. 18, 2014)
“After the Church establishes that the Pope is guilty of the crime of heresy, she renders a judgment of the same (and, as we will see, this is to be done during an “imperfect” ecuмenical council).” — John F. Salza & Robert J. Siscoe — True or False Pope? p. 331
St. Thomas quoted by Pope Gregory XVI in Chapter 5 of The Triumph of the Holy See snd the Church Against the Attacks of the Innovators [Venice, 1832, p. 324] - "Ad illius ergo auctoritatem pertinet editio symboli, ad cuius auctoritatem pertinet FINALITER DETERMINARE ea, quae sunt fidei, ut ab omnibus inconcussa fide teneantur." - [Summa Theol. II - II q. 1 a. 10]
Translation - "To his authority belongs the promulgation of the creed, to whose authority it pertains to DETERMINE WITH FINALITY the matters of faith, so that they may be held by all with unshakable faith." This point was defined by the First Vatican Council: Pastor Æternus defines the pope as the supreme judge in all cases that refer to ecclesiastical examination: «iudicem supremum … in omnibus causis ad examen ecclesiasticuм spectantibus »
Full text: «Et quoniam divino Apostolici primatus iure Romanus Pontifex universae Ecclesiae praeest, docemus etiam et declaramus, eum esse iudicem supremum fidelium (Pii PP. VI Breve, Super soliditate d. 28 Nov. 1786), et in omnibus causis ad examen ecclesiasticuм spectantibus ad ipsius posse iudicium recurri (Concil. Oecuм. Lugdun. II); Sedis vero Apostolicae, cuius auctoritate maior non est, iudicium a nemine fore retractandum, neque cuiquam de eius licere iudicare iudicio (Ep. Nicolai 1 ad Michaelem Imporatorem). Quare a recto veritatis tramite aberrant, qui affirmant, licere ab iudiciis Romanorum Pontificuм ad oecuмenicuм Concilium tamquam ad auctoritatem Romano Pontifice superiorem appellare. »
Translation - «Since the Roman pontiff, by the divine right of the apostolic primacy, governs the whole church, we likewise teach and declare that he is the supreme judge of the faithful, and that in all cases which fall under ecclesiastical jurisdiction recourse may be had to his judgment. The sentence of the apostolic see (than which there is no higher authority) is not subject to revision by anyone, nor may anyone lawfully pass judgment thereupon. And so they stray from the genuine path of truth who maintain that it is lawful to appeal from the judgments of the Roman pontiffs to an ecuмenical council as if this were an authority superior to the Roman pontiff.»
PASTOR ÆTERNUS: «Si quis itaque dixerit, Romanum Pontificem habere tantummodo officium inspectionis vel directionis, non autem plenam et supremam potestatem iurisdictionis in universam Ecclesiam, non solum in rebus, quae ad fidem et mores, sed etiam in iis, quae ad disciplinam et regimen Ecclesiae per totum orbem diffusae pertinent; aut eum habere tantum potiores partes, non vero totam plenitudinem huius supremae potestatis; aut hanc eius potestatem non esse ordinariam et immediatam sive in omnes ac singulas ecclesias, sive in omnes et singulos pastores et fideles; anathema sit.»
Translation: “So, then, if anyone says that the Roman pontiff has merely an office of supervision and guidance, and not the full and supreme power of jurisdiction over the whole church, and this not only in matters of faith and morals, but also in those which concern the discipline and government of the church dispersed throughout the whole world; or that he has only the principal part, but not the entire fullness, of this supreme power; or that this power of his is not ordinary and immediate both over all and each of the churches and over all and each of the pastors and faithful: let him be anathema.”
Since the pope, while in office, is the supreme judge with universal primacy of jurisdiction, he alone is the final and infallible judge in matters of faith and morals, against whose judgment no one may appeal, not even to an ecuмenical council. Cardinal Manning observes, «Mauro Cappellari, afterwards Gregory XVI., affirms that the supreme judge of controversies is the Pontiff, "distinct and separate from all other Bishops; and that his decree in things of faith ought by them to be held without doubt." » Pope Gregory bases this doctrine expressed in this proposition on the teaching of St. Thomas : «St. Thomas offers here a most minute prospectus of the privileges, which In the Roman Pontiff the lovers of truth in glory to venerate. Speaking of the symbol of faith, he seeks who is the supreme judge of disputes, to whom belongs the solemn edition of the symbol, that is, the norm of our belief, and concludes: 1. º That it is the Pope: 2. º distinct, and separate from all the other bishops, having to Indeed be held by these, inconcussa fide, what he determines as the dogma of faith: 3. º He proves it from Christ's Prayer and Precept: 4. º from the unity of faith which is to be professed throughout the Church, which unity would be lacking, if the Pope were not the supreme judge of the disputes, and the only promulgator of the dogmatic definitions: 5., nor can it be said that he does it by usurpation and private authority, nor that this should be done only by the general councils independently of him: since all that is done by them has no force to oblige absolutely, without the involvement of the Pope, from whom depends the convocation and the authoritative confirmation of the councils themselves: cuius auctoritate synodus congregatur, et eius sententia confirmatur» In virtue of his office as Vicar of Christ and pastor of the universal Church, the pope is always able to freely exercise supreme, full, immediate, and universal power in the Church (CIC 1983, Can. 331); and therefore he alone possesses the authority to preside over a council, and to designate and constitute the business to be transacted by the council; and to transfer, suspend or dissolve the council, and to confirm its decrees. (CIC 1917, Can. 222. §2) The objection that says in deposing a heretical pope a council’s judgment would not exercise power of jurisdiction over the pope as a superior is specious, and fatally flawed insofar as every judgment hinges directly on the power of a true jurisdiction, without which the act cannot consist, since the basis and foundation of judgment is jurisdiction, so that a judgment lacking jurisdiction would be incurable and irreparable * ; and, furthermore, no judgment whatsoever pronounced by a council would have any juridical effect unless it would be confirmed by the pope and promulgated by his order. ** [...] In a deposition there are enumerated three acts, 1) the declaration of heresy, 2) the desisting of the papacy in the person, and 3) penal expulsion from the Church; all of which are judicial acts, and therefore require the power of jurisdiction in whoever would provide the act.*** From this it necessarily follows, that if a manifestly pertinacious heretic pope would not fall from office entirely by himself, he would remain in office until judged and declared a heretic and deposed from the papacy by a council possessing a superior jurisdiction over him; or else he would remain in office even without any possibility of being legitimately deposed. It is de fide that there does not exist, nor can there exist, even by way of exception, a jurisdiction on earth superior to the pope’s universal primacy of jurisdiction.
* P. Francesco Bordoni, Op. cit. cap. VI, p. 154: «Deinde per illam quandam ordinarionem factam a Concilio vel intelligitur vera, & propria poteſtas, & iurisdictio Concilii in Papam, […] vel intelligitur aliquid aliud, quod tamen conſonum non eſt, quia omnis actus iudicialis pendet à vera iurisdictione, ſine qua nullus actus conſiſtere poteſt, quia baſis, & fundamentum iudici¡ reputatur iurisdictio Bald. C . ſi a compet. íud. in Rubr._Paris de confidet. q.79. num. 22 ita quod defectus iurisdictionis dicicur inſanabilis, & irreparabilis, ex Staphil. Sarnen, & Vantio ex eodem Pariſio num.24. »
** CIC 1917: «Can. 227. Concilii decreta vim definitivam obligandi non habent, nisi a Romano Pontifice fuerint confirmata et eius iussu promulgata. » *** Bordoni, Sacrum Tribunal Iudicuм In Causis Sanctæ Fidei Contra Hæreticos Et Hæresi Suspectos, Romæ, MDCXLVIII, p. 154 – «Numerantur autem tres actus, declarario hæreſis, deſitio Papatus, & eiectio extra Eccleſiam, qui omnes ſunt iudiciales, ac proinde requirentes iurisdictionem in eo, qui illa tria præſtare debet, »
-
"...If the person who incurs the censure be the pope himself, since there is no tribunal within the Church with the right to pass judgment against him, he cannot be removed from his office, even though he be under censure, and, according to the law, have no right to function as the head of the Church. We, his subjects, are not permitted to do anything about this. It is not within our right to declare his acts devoid of validity, due to his having been expelled from his office.
Yes, the faithful may know well that he has committed a sin to which a censure is affixed by the Church, but this knowledge in no way qualifies them to declare him deprived of his office, or never to have been elected. We should have to continue to obey him as the pope in all those religious matters which fall within the ambit of his authority, unless he should command something which is sinful.
However, even though the hierarchy cannot take legal action against an heretical pope, all of them together, or any one of them in particular, can condemn his teaching; they can accuse him before God's tribunal, warn him of his sins, and remind him of the divine wrath. Should this measure fail to produce any correction, they can denounce him before his subjects, the Catholic faithful, and warn them that they are not to listen to his teaching. Indeed, not only may the prelates of the Church do this, they have a most serious obligation to do it, an obligation which is as grave as the heresies are pernicious and scandalous. And if they fail to do this, they become a party to the pope's crimes, and will most certainly share in his punishment.
Moreover, where the bishops default in their solemn duty to protect the Church and God's Little Sheep, the priests and the laypeople have not the right, but the duty, to raise their voices against an heretical pontiff. They not only raise their voices to God in prayer for the misguided man, but they also speak out to the bishops and the priests, and among themselves so as to warn their brothers and sisters in Christ that the plague of heresy has infected even their Holy Father, and has rendered him dangerous and unclean". - Fr. Wathen, Who Shall Ascend? (https://www.cathinfo.com/the-library/who-shall-ascend-fr-wathen/)
-
Against Fr. Wathen's opinion is the teaching of Pope Innocent III, who said in Sermo IV De Diversis, “Since the Roman Pontiff has no other superior than God … who could cast him out or trample him under foot? … But he ought not vainly flatter himself because of his power … because the less he is judged by men, the more he is judged by God. I say the less, because he can be judged by men, or rather he can be shown to be already judged, if he should wither away into heresy; because «he who does not believe has already been judged (John III)»” Again, in another passage, in Sermo II, he explains that faith is so necessary for his office, that for other sins God alone is his judge; but for committing the sin against faith, he could be judged by the Church: «In tantum enim fides mihi necessaria est ut cuм de caeteris peccatis solum Deum judicem habeam, propter solum peccatum quod in fide commititur possem ab Ecclesia judicari. Nam qui non credit, iam iudicatus est. (Joh.3 18).» Pope Innocent III, teaches that the pope has no superior but God (post Deum alium superiorem non habet [Sermo III]) to judge him; thus, “Vir autem iste [Romanus Pontifex] alligatus uxori, [Ecclesiæ Romanæ] […] non deponitur; nam « suo domino aut stat, aut cadit » (Rom. XIV). — «Qui autem judicat, dominus est» (I Cor. IV).” And again: “The Roman Pontiff has no superior but God. Who, therefore, should a pope ‘lose his savour’, could cast him out or trample him under foot — since of the pope it is said ‘gather thy case (causa) into thy fold’ [fold of the toga over the breast]? Truly, he should not flatter himself about his power, nor should he rashly glory in his honour and high estate, because the less he is judged by man, the more he is judged by God. I say less, because he 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. In such a case it should be said of him: If salt should lose its savour, it is good for nothing but to be cast out and trampled under-foot by men.” By “cast out”, Innocent means “deposed”, and by “trampled underfoot by men, “despised by the people”: (mittatur foras, id est ab officio deponatur: et concucetur ab hominibus, id est a populo contemnatur). He clearly teaches that the pope as pope cannot be judged by men, since the servant is judged by his own superior, and the Roman Pontiff has no superior but God: “Servus enim, secundum Apostolum, «suo domino stat aut cadit (Rom. xiv). » Propter quod idem Apostolus ait; «Tu quis es, qui judicas alienum servum?» (lbid.) Unde cuм Romanus pontifex non habeat alium dominum nisi Deum, quantumlibet evanescat, quis potest eum foras mittere, aut pedibus conculcare?” So, the pope asks, “Since the Roman Pontiff has no superior but God, if he were to lapse, who can cast him out and trample him underfoot?” The answer he gives explains, quoting St. John, that as a heretic, he is already judged (quoniam «qui non credit, jam judicatus est » (Joan. iii).), and therefore, for reason of fornication, not carnal but the error of infidelity, the Roman Church can divorce the Roman Pontiff; since the matrimony can only exist between legitimate persons (solus consensus inter legitimas personas efficit matrimonium). By the sin of infidelity, the necessary disposition for the spiritual matrimonial union between the Roman Pontiff and the Church ceases to exist; and thus the heretic, no longer a legitimate spouse, would cease to be pope, and could then be judged by men. This is what St. Robert Bellarmine teaches in De Romano Pontifice lib. ii cap. xxx: “Est ergo quinta opinio vera, papam hæreticuм manifestum per se desinere esse papam et caput, sicut per se desinit esse christianus et membrum corporis Ecclesiæ; quare ab Ecclesia posse eum judicari et puniri. Hæc est sententia omnium veterum Patrum, qui docent, hæreticos manifestos mox amittere omnem jurisdictionem.” “Therefore, the true opinion is the fifth, according to which the Pope who is manifestly a heretic ceases by himself to be Pope and head, in the same way as he ceases to be a Christian and a member of the body of the Church; and for this reason he can be judged and punished by the Church. This is the opinion of all the ancient Fathers, who teach that manifest heretics immediately lose all jurisdiction.” In this manner, the pope, who has no judge but God, can be judged by men upon having ceased to be pope: «Fundamentum hujus sententiæ est quoniam hæreticus manifestus nullo modo est membrum Ecclesiæ, idest, neque animo neque corpore, sive neque unione interna, neque externa. » "The foundation of this argument is that the manifest heretic is not in any way a member of the Church, that is, neither spiritually nor corporally, which signifies that he is not such by internal union nor by external union.”
-
Ratzinger is complicit in the imposter Lucy and the coverup of the fake revelation of the 3rd Secet in year 2000. Lying is a sin. Having knowledge of a lie and not telling the truth to your flock about that lie which they follow is the same as lying. Followers of Ratzinger aren't very bright.
-
Against Fr. Wathen's opinion ...
You'll never succeed with Stubborn on this point, since he holds Father Wathen to be his rule of faith ... as the final interpreter of Catholic doctrine.
-
... Pope Innocent III ... said in Sermo IV De Diversis, “Since the Roman Pontiff has no other superior than God … who could cast him out or trample him under foot?"
Stubborn's version: "Since the Roman Pontiff has no other superior than God or Father Wathen ... who could cast him out or trample him under foot ... except God or Father Wathen?"
I mean, I like and respect Father Wathen, but Stubborn's Wath-olatry is over the top.
-
THE HERESY OF JOHN SALZA & ROBERT SISCOE
“The Church must render a judgment before the pope loses his office.” Robert J. Siscoe — Article in The Remnant (Nov. 18, 2014)
“After the Church establishes that the Pope is guilty of the crime of heresy, she renders a judgment of the same (and, as we will see, this is to be done during an “imperfect” ecuмenical council).” — John F. Salza & Robert J. Siscoe — True or False Pope? p. 331
St. Thomas quoted by Pope Gregory XVI in Chapter 5 of The Triumph of the Holy See snd the Church Against the Attacks of the Innovators ... Translation - "To his authority belongs the promulgation of the creed, to whose authority it pertains to DETERMINE WITH FINALITY the matters of faith, so that they may be held by all with unshakable faith." This point was defined by the First Vatican Council: Pastor Æternus defines the pope as the supreme judge in all cases that refer to ecclesiastical examination: «iudicem supremum … in omnibus causis ad examen ecclesiasticuм spectantibus »
V I: Translation - «Since the Roman pontiff, by the divine right of the apostolic primacy, governs the whole church, we likewise teach and declare that he is the supreme judge of the faithful, and that in all cases which fall under ecclesiastical jurisdiction recourse may be had to his judgment. The sentence of the apostolic see (than which there is no higher authority) is not subject to revision by anyone, nor may anyone lawfully pass judgment thereupon. And so they stray from the genuine path of truth who maintain that it is lawful to appeal from the judgments of the Roman pontiffs to an ecuмenical council as if this were an authority superior to the Roman pontiff.»
VI: “So, then, if anyone says that the Roman pontiff has merely an office of supervision and guidance, and not the full and supreme power of jurisdiction over the whole church, and this not only in matters of faith and morals, but also in those which concern the discipline and government of the church dispersed throughout the whole world; or that he has only the principal part, but not the entire fullness, of this supreme power; or that this power of his is not ordinary and immediate both over all and each of the churches and over all and each of the pastors and faithful: let him be anathema.”
Since the pope, while in office, is the supreme judge with universal primacy of jurisdiction, he alone is the final and infallible judge in matters of faith and morals, against whose judgment no one may appeal, not even to an ecuмenical council.
Another straw man argument from Fr. Kramer. No one has argued that what a Pope has "determined with finality" to be a"matter of faith" can be appealed to a council, or denied that the Pope is the supreme judge in matters of faith, and possesses universal jurisdiction. But none of those things preclude the possibility of a Pope falling into heresy when he is not (a) acting as supreme judge (b) in a matter of faith (c) by rendering a definitive judgment to the (d) universal Church. If did so, the bishops could gather at a council to discus the matter, and if they were to find him guilty of heresy, they could convict him of heresy with a discretionary judgment, before he ceases to be Pope.
According to Bellarmine (and St. Alphonsus), if a heretical pope did not publicly separate from the Church, the conviction of heresy is a condition that is required for him to lose the pontificate and jurisdiction.
Bellarmine: "But it is certain (whatever one or another may think) that an occult heretic [i.e., a formal heretics whose heresy is not notorious], if he be a bishop or even the supreme Pontiff, does not lose his jurisdiction, or dignity, or the title of head in the Church, until either he publicly separates himself from the Church [“bursts forth into schism,” as Bellarmine wrote earlier], or, being convicted of heresy, is separated against his will.” (De Ecclesia Militante, cap. x)
Do you agree or disagree with Bellarmine, that a Pope who falls into formal heresy - i.e., commits the mortal sin of heresy and loses the virtue of faith - yet does not "publicly separate himself from the Church," retains his"jurisdiction, dignity and title of head of the Church" until he is "convicted of heresy."
Don't dodge the question.
Fr. Kramer: "The objection that says in deposing a heretical pope a council’s judgment would not exercise power of jurisdiction over the pope as a superior is specious, and fatally flawed insofar as every judgment hinges directly on the power of a true jurisdiction, without which the act cannot consist, since the basis and foundation of judgment is jurisdiction, so that a judgment lacking jurisdiction would be incurable and irreparable * ; and, furthermore, no judgment whatsoever pronounced by a council would have any juridical effect unless it would be confirmed by the pope and promulgated by his order.
No, a discretionary judgment does not "hinge directly on the power of a true jurisdiction." It is the same form of judgment used by an arbitrator: it is a legitimate judgment, but it lacks any or coercive power. Popes have willingly submitted to discretionary judgments in the past, and at least one promised in advance that he would obey whatever decision was rendered against him.
-
Stubborn's version: "Since the Roman Pontiff has no other superior than God or Father Wathen ... who could cast him out or trample him under foot ... except God or Father Wathen?"
I mean, I like and respect Father Wathen, but Stubborn's Wath-olatry is over the top.
I love the truth is all, he speaks it.
I have no idea what the sedes are waiting for - go ahead and judge him who is already judged for crying out loud. Get it done already. Go ahead and judge him who is already judged, be the ones who set the precedence and be done with it already.
-
Van Noort in his ecclesiology manual also speculates about the possibility in a nuclear age that the Church could be reduced to a small remnant gathered around the pope. .... Hypocrits.
Quote it.
-
Van Noort in his ecclesiology manual also speculates about the possibility in a nuclear age that the Church could be reduced to a small remnant gathered around the pope ... . Hypocrits.
I just located the quote and, not surprisingly, he does not say what you claim. It is found in Dogmatic Theology, Vol. II, Christ’s Church, in a footnote on page 276. The topic he is discussing is the imperishability of the Roman See, which, he explains, means “God will see to it that there will never be completely lacking in or from* that region a group of the faithful united to their bishops.”
The footnote after the words “or from” explains that if a nuclear bomb laid waste to Rome and made it impossible for anyone to reside there, and as a result “the bishop of Rome and a remnant of his flock were living in exile in London or New York, the Roman Church would still be in existence despite the obliteration of its familiar physical landmarks.” (Van Noort, Christ’s Church, p. 276).
That has nothing to do with the number of faithful that would remain in the entire world, nor does it in any way contradict what he wrote about moral catholicity of fact.
-
PaxChristi2's Sententia Hæretica: "Another straw man argument from Fr. Kramer. No one has argued that what a Pope has "determined with finality" to be a"matter of faith" can be appealed to a council, or denied that the Pope is the supreme judge in matters of faith, and possesses universal jurisdiction. But none of those things preclude the possibility of a Pope falling into heresy when he is not (a) acting as supreme judge (b) in a matter of faith (c) by rendering a definitive judgment to the (d) universal Church. If did so, the bishops could gather at a council to discus the matter, and if they were to find him guilty of heresy, they could convict him of heresy with a discretionary judgment, before he ceases to be Pope."
No council can ever "convict" a pope of heresy because a conviction is a JUDGMENT of a matter under dispute, but the pope is the supreme judge of all disputes on matters of faith. It pertains to the absolute fullness (totam plenitudinem) of power of the pope’s supreme primacy to judge all doctrinal disputes with definitive finality. An imperfect council cannot definitively judge a doctrinal question against the pope with FINALITY. Hence, there is only definitive finality of the Church’s judgment of a doctrinal question when the pope judges the dispute with finality by the exercise of his primacy; since it pertains to the authority of his primacy to determine with finality all matters of faith. Therefore, no council can ever validly judge a pope guilty of heresy, because the final determination of the Church’s judgment pertains exclusively to the exercise of the primacy of the supreme judge. Without that finality there cannot be a valid judgment that would be juridically binding the whole Church. Its juridical validity would radically depend on the pope’s ratification, without which it remains null and void. Such would be the judgment of a council that would attempt to judge a pope for heresy – it would be absolutely null and totally void. Thus, all theories, without exception, FORMULATED BEFORE PASTOR ÆTERNUS, which would propose that a true and certain pope, can be judged guilty of heresy while he is still in office, are heretical deviations against the dogma of papal primacy. The only way a pope is removed from office is by death or abdication. The pope can abdicate voluntarily; or (if possible) he would abdicate tacitly by manifesting himself obstinate in heresy, as St. Robert Bellarmine, Don Pietro Ballerini, and Pope Gregory XVI have taught. It pertains to the nature of a papal abdication that it does not depend on the acceptance, judgment, or declaration by anyone. Only its juridical recognition would be necessary to establish the de jure vacancy of the Apostolic See by means of a declaratory sentence, which would only be juridically valid if the see were already vacant as a matter of fact; since any declaratory sentence against against a reigning pontiff would be utterly lacking any jurisdiction. Hence, the doctrine proposed by John Salza & Robert Siscoe directly and heretically oppose the dogma of the Primacy defined in PastorÆternus.
-
PaxChristi2's Sententia Hæretica: "Another straw man argument from Fr. Kramer. No one has argued that what a Pope has "determined with finality" to be a"matter of faith" can be appealed to a council, or denied that the Pope is the supreme judge in matters of faith, and possesses universal jurisdiction. But none of those things preclude the possibility of a Pope falling into heresy when he is not (a) acting as supreme judge (b) in a matter of faith (c) by rendering a definitive judgment to the (d) universal Church. If did so, the bishops could gather at a council to discus the matter, and if they were to find him guilty of heresy, they could convict him of heresy with a discretionary judgment, before he ceases to be Pope."
No council can ever "convict" a pope of heresy because a conviction is a JUDGMENT of a matter under dispute, but the pope is the supreme judge of all disputes on matters of faith.
You dodged the question. Here it is again.
According to Bellarmine, if a heretical pope does not publicly separate from the Church, the conviction of heresy is a condition that is required for him to lose the pontificate and jurisdiction.
Bellarmine: "But it is certain (whatever one or another may think) that an occult heretic [i.e., a formal heretics whose heresy is not notorious], if he be a bishop or even the supreme Pontiff, does not lose his jurisdiction, or dignity, or the title of head in the Church, until either he publicly separates himself from the Church [“bursts forth into schism,” as Bellarmine wrote earlier], or, being convicted of heresy, is separated against his will.” (De Ecclesia Militante, cap. x)
Do you agree or disagree with Bellarmine, that a Pope who falls into formal heresy - i.e., commits the mortal sin of heresy and loses the virtue of faith - yet does not "publicly separate himself from the Church," retains his"jurisdiction, dignity and title of head of the Church" until he is "convicted of heresy."
Don't dodge the question (again).
-
Hey "PaxChristi2", can you not get this simple truth of faith through your thick, heretical skull?
No council can ever validly judge a pope guilty of heresy, because the final determination of the Church’s judgment pertains exclusively to the exercise of the primacy of the supreme judge.
-
No council can ever "convict" a pope of heresy because a conviction is a JUDGMENT of a matter under dispute, but the pope is the supreme judge of all disputes on matters of faith. ... Hence, the doctrine proposed by John Salza & Robert Siscoe directly and heretically oppose the dogma of the Primacy defined in PastorÆternus.
Speaking of judging the Pope. Do you still believe that Benedict who, in May of this year, you judged and publicly declared to be "violently suspect of heresy" is the Pope (as you did last month), or do you again believe he is not the Pope, as you did six months ago when you exhorted "the few remaining Catholic clergy and prelates" to presume the Papal see was vacant?
In case you forgot, here is your judgment of the person you believed to be the Pope while you were in the process of judging him:
Fr. Kramer's public judgment of Pope Benedict XVI: " Francesco Bordoni, a qualificator of the Holy Inquisition, explains in his work on prosecuting heretics (which I have cited in To Deceive the Elect), that two indicia of vehement suspicion equal one indicium of violent suspucion of heresy, so even if we were to presume a possible benign interpretation to Ratzinger's words on the Jєωιѕн Question, that would be at minimum an indicium of vehement suspicion; but combined with his heretical propositions on 1) the resurrection of the body, 2) on the judgment of the living and the dead, 3) on transubstantiation, and 4) on the Incarnation of Christ, Ratzinger is manifestly to be considered at minimum to be violenter suspectus hæresis -- which denotes moral certitude of formal heresy, which means his formal heresy is not to be reasonably doubted, and if he were to remain obstinate after being presented with evidence that would convince a reasonable man that his opinions are heretical, then he would have to be judged as not merely violently suspect of heresy, but would be a formal heretic manifestly guilty of the crime of heresy. Gregory XVI explains in the passsge cited below that such a judgment would not violate the rights of the Primacy, but would be pronounced against the one who was the pope before falling from office.
What this all proves is that the See of Peter is at best, probably and presumably vacant; which means that the governance of the Church devolves temporarily from a monarchical form of government to an aristocratic form of government, as Gregory XVI explains in a passage I quote in my first volume of To Deceive the Elect. ...
Today, of the two claimants, Bergoglio is manifestly a formal heretic, as I have briefly proven in the Introduction in Volume One; and Ratzinger can now be seen to be violenter suspectus of formal heresy. That means that it cannot be reasonably concluded that the See of Peter is occupied by a valid pope; and therefore a probable vacancy is to be presumed. ...
Pertinacity can sometimes be as apparent as the heretical assertion, but not always. The criteria must be strictly applied according to the canonical indicia of heresy in order to judge with certitude, rather that to form a merely well founded opinion. In my opinion, there is well founded positive doubt that Benedict XVI is capable of holding ecclesiastical office. It can only be certain that the see is vacant if the fact of defection is verified by proof of pertinacity. However, since the indicia against Ratzinger are strong, he can no longer enjoy a reasonable presumption of regularity: Papa dubius papa nullus. The presumption, although not conclusive, is against him being a valid pope. There exists a well founded probability of a vacancy. ...
Indeed, in a similar situation of doubt at the time of the Council of Constance, the Catholic hierarchy presumed the See of Rome to be vacant and acted accordingly, by electing Pope Martin V. I can now only exhort the few remaining Catholic prelates and clergy to "Go and do likewise." (Luke 10:37)
Since you believed Benedict XVI was the pope before you judged and publicly declared him to be "violently suspect of heresy," according to your own accusation you have "directly and heretically opposed the dogma of the Primacy defined in PastorÆternus." Therefore, according to your own reasoning, you are a heretic.
-
Hey "PaxChristi2", can you not get this simple truth of faith through your thick, heretical skull?
No council can ever validly judge a pope guilty of heresy, because the final determination of the Church’s judgment pertains exclusively to the exercise of the primacy of the supreme judge.
Stop dodging the direct question: Do you agree or disagree with Bellarmine, that a Pope who falls into formal heresy - i.e., commits the mortal sin of heresy and loses the virtue of faith - yet does not "publicly separate himself from the Church," retains his"jurisdiction, dignity and title of head of the Church" until he is "convicted of heresy."
-
You dodged the question. Here it is again.
According to Bellarmine, if a heretical pope does not publicly separate from the Church, the conviction of heresy is a condition that is required for him to lose the pontificate and jurisdiction.
Bellarmine: "But it is certain (whatever one or another may think) that an occult heretic [i.e., a formal heretics whose heresy is not notorious], if he be a bishop or even the supreme Pontiff, does not lose his jurisdiction, or dignity, or the title of head in the Church, until either he publicly separates himself from the Church [“bursts forth into schism,” as Bellarmine wrote earlier], or, being convicted of heresy, is separated against his will.” (De Ecclesia Militante, cap. x)
Do you agree or disagree with Bellarmine, that a Pope who falls into formal heresy - i.e., commits the mortal sin of heresy and loses the virtue of faith - yet does not "publicly separate himself from the Church," retains his"jurisdiction, dignity and title of head of the Church" until he is "convicted of heresy."
Don't dodge the question (again).
Your explanation of Bellarmine is manifestly wrong. The correct understanding is obvious: "...either he publicly separates himself from the Church...or, being convicted of heresy, is separated against his will" But a pope can't be convicted (because he can't be judged). Obviously for a pope it can only be if he separates himself from the Church. A bishop on the other hand could be convicted.
-
PaxChristi2 - You have descended to the level of a comedian: Salza & Siscoe are in heresy because they assert that the CHURCH can judge a pope guilty of the CRIME of HERESY. Whether or not the pope's doctrine is heresy is a matter that pertains exclusively to the pope's primacy of jurisdiction as SUPREME JUDGE.
NO TRIBUNAL ON EARTH CAN CONVICT THE POPE, because judgment on the question of the orthodoxy of his beliefs fall under his own SUPREME JURISDICTION; and he personally cannot be judged guilty by any TRIBUNAL because he is the SUPREME JUDGE IN ALL CASES.
In De Conciliorum Auctoritate, Bellarmine explains that if while investigating the pope, the fact of his obstinate heresy would be discovered and manifested, then the council could declare that he is no longer pope. Ballerini explains that the declaration would say that the man who was pope "had in some manner abdicated". Pope Gregory XVI, citing Ballerini, says the deposition would not violate the rights of the primacy, because the judgment would not be made against the present holder of the office, but "against the one who before was adorned with papal dignity." The"conviction" can only be made against a pope who has already tacitly abdicated the office. The actual judgment of the Church would only take place AFTER the act of tacit abdication has taken place.
The level of your sophistry descends to the level of pathos when you accuse me of heresy for judging a pope to be suspect of heresy. If the indicia of heresy are manifested by the pope, a man has the right to judge accordingly that such a one is suspect of heresy. That does not violate the rights of the primacy. It would violate the primacy only if the judging individual would presume to exercise ecclesiastical jurisdiction, and thereby claim that his private judgment is a juridical judgment of the Church.
-
Pope Gregory XVI, citing Ballerini, says the deposition would not violate the rights of the primacy, because the judgment would not be made against the present holder of the office, but "against the one who before was adorned with papal dignity." The"conviction" can only be made against a pope who has already tacitly abdicated the office. The actual judgment of the Church would only take place AFTER the act of tacit abdication has taken place.
This is the only thing that makes sense to me. Otherwise, Popes are being judged and deposed by the Church.
-
This is the only thing that makes sense to me. Otherwise, Popes are being judged and deposed by the Church.
It's all speculative anyway. There is no known case of a pope falling into heresy. All the known cases of heretics claiming to be pope (post Vatican 2 claimants) are cases of illegitimate elections. If a pope had the faith when he was elected, he died with the faith. Every one of them.
-
It's all speculative anyway. There is no known case of a pope falling into heresy. All the known cases of heretics claiming to be pope (post Vatican 2 claimants) are cases of illegitimate elections. If a pope had the faith when he was elected, he died with the faith. Every one of them.
You are not wrong. As I've said, I too hold the Bellarmine "pious opinion" that once a Catholic pope is elected, God will preserve him in the faith even personally. And this seems to be backed up by the fact that such a thing has never happened before. My personal conjecture is that these men were never Catholics, but, rather, conscious enemy agents and infiltrators, and that their elections were invalid for many reasons (beginning with the forced abdication of Siri).
-
PaxChristi2 - You have descended to the level of a comedian: Salza & Siscoe are in heresy because they assert that the CHURCH can judge a pope guilty of the CRIME of HERESY. Whether or not the pope's doctrine is heresy is a matter that pertains exclusively to the pope's primacy of jurisdiction as SUPREME JUDGE.
Your last sentence is true if the Pope professes a new heresy, not if he denies a dogma that has already been defined. All the early canonists made a distinction between the two and agreed that a Pope could only be "deposed" for denying a defined dogma. Once a dogma is defined it is irreformable, and every Catholic - including the Pope - is bound to accept it.
Fr. Kramer: NO TRIBUNAL ON EARTH CAN CONVICT THE POPE, because judgment on the question of the orthodoxy of his beliefs fall under his own SUPREME JURISDICTION; and he personally cannot be judged guilty by any TRIBUNAL because he is the SUPREME JUDGE IN ALL CASES.
Not if he is denying an already defined dogma.
I would also point out that the reason you said a Pope cannot be convicted is because the judgment concerning the orthodoxy of his believe falls under his supreme jurisdiction. You didn't say the reason is because the first see is judged by no one. Is that because you now concede convicted, in the form of a discretionary judgment, would not violate the legal maxim the first see is judged by no one?
Fr. Kramer: In De Conciliorum Auctoritate, Bellarmine explains that if while investigating the pope, the fact of his obstinate heresy would be discovered and manifested, then the council could declare that he is no longer pope.
But according to what you wrote above, the bishops would be unable to determine if a pope was manifestly obstinate in heresy, since "Whether or not the pope's doctrine is heresy is a matter that pertains exclusively to the pope's primacy of jurisdiction as SUPREME JUDGE." You're contradicting yourself. Worse than that, you are misrepresenting what Bellarmine taught in De Conciliorum Auctoritate.
What Bellarmine says is if the bishops at a council can convict the Pope of heresy, they can then judged and depose him. He says that multiple times. Here is one:
Bellarmine: “Moreover, the Pope is not the only judge in a council, but has many colleagues, namely, all the bishops who, if they could convict him of heresy (discretionary judgment), could also judge and depose him, even against his will." (De Conciliorum Auctoritate, lib. 1, cap. xxi).
Why does he say the Bishops can judged and depose him against his will "if" they can convict him of heresy? Because the moment he is convicted he would be ipso facto deposed, and hence no longer Pope.
He also says the Pope retains the authority to summon and preside over a council unless he is legitimately judged and convicted, and therefore is no longer pope.
Bellarmine: "the Roman Pontiff cannot be deprived of the right to summon a Council, and preside over it – a right he has possessed for 1500 years – unless he were first legitimately judged and convicted, and was not the Supreme Pontiff" (ibid).
Fr. Kramer: Ballerini explains that the declaration would say that the man who was pope "had in some manner abdicated".
But he also says the warnings and all the other acts that are done in an effort to get the pope to retract his heresy, before the declaration is issued, are all acts of charity, not jurisdiction. And why does he specify that? Because as long as he remains pope, the Church cannot exercise any acts of jurisdiction over him. And what does that tell us? It tells us that Ballerini believed that the Pope would remain Pope until the declaration was issued. That's why he specified that all the acts prior to the declaration were acts of charity.
What Ballerini is arguing in the quotation you are referring to, is that it is not necessary to wait for a general council to be convened for an heretical pope to be deprived of the pontificate. He is attempting to show how the crime can be legally established, and the pope can be declared a heretic, before a general council meets. Then, if and when a general council did convene, they sentence would be issued against one who was no longer the Pope. That is the context. Here is the quote:
Peter Ballerini, S.J.: "In the case of the Pope’s falling into heresy, the remedy is more promptly and easily supplied. Now, when we speak of heresy with reference to the Supreme Pontiffs, we do not mean the kind of heresy by which any of them, defining ex officio a dogma of faith, would define an error; for this cannot happen, as we have established in the book on their infallibility in defining controverted matters of faith. Nor do we speak of a case in which the popes err in a matter of faith by their opinion on a subject that has not yet been defined [i.e., a new heresy]; for opinions that, before the Church has defined anything, men are free to embrace, cannot be stigmatized as heresy. The present question, then, pertains only to the case in which the Pope, deceived in his private judgment, believes and pertinaciously asserts something contrary to an evident or defined article of faith, for this is what constitutes heresy. (...) But why, we ask, in such a case, where the faith is imperiled by the most imminent and the gravest of all dangers ... should we await a remedy from a general council, which is not at all easy to convene? When the faith is so endangered, cannot inferiors of whatever rank admonish their superior with a fraternal correction, resist him to the face, confront him, and, if it is necessary, rebuke him and impel him to come to his senses? The cardinals could do that, for they are the counselors of the Pope; so could the Roman clergy; or, if it is judged expedient, a Roman synod could be convened for that purpose. For the words of Paul to Titus: “Avoid a heretic after the first and second admonition, knowing that such a one is perverse and sins, being condemned by his own judgment” (Tit. 13:10), are addressed to any man whatsoever, even a private individual. For he who, after a first and second correction, does not return to his senses, but persists in an opinion contrary to a manifest or defined dogma, on the one hand cannot, by the very fact of this public pertinacity, be excused by any pretext from heresy in the strict sense, which requires pertinacity, and on the other hand declares himself plainly to be a heretic; in other words, he declares that he has departed from the Catholic faith and from the Church of his own accord, in such wise that no declaration or sentence of any man is necessary to cut him off from the body of the Church. St. Jerome’s perspicacious commentary on the above-quoted words of St. Paul affords us insight into the matter: “It is for this reason that [the heretic] is said to be self-condemned: whereas the fornicator, the adulterer, the murderer, and those guilty of other sins are cast out of the Church by her ministers [sacerdotes], heretics, for their part, pronounce sentence against themselves, leaving the Church of their own accord; and their departure is considered as a condemnation issued by their own conscience.” Therefore, the Pope who, after so solemn and public a warning given by the cardinals, the Roman clergy, or even a synod, would harden himself in his heresy, and thus would have departed plainly from the Church, would, according to the precept of St. Paul, have to be avoided; and, lest he bring destruction upon others, his heresy and contumacy would have to be brought forth into the public, so that all might similarly beware of him; and in this way the sentence that he passed against himself, being proposed to the whole Church, would declare that he has departed of his own accord, and has been cut off from the Body of the Church, and has in certain manner abdicated the Papacy, which no one possesses, nor can possess, who is not in the Church. You see, then, that in the case of a heresy to which the Pope adheres in his personal judgment, there is a prompt and efficacious remedy apart from the convocation of a general council; and in this hypothetical case whatever would be done against him to bring him to his senses before the declaration of his heresy and contumacy would be the exercise of charity, not of jurisdiction; but afterwards, when his departure from the Church has been made manifest, whatever sentence would be passed against him by a council would be passed against one who is no longer Pope, nor superior to a council."
Notice what all Ballerini addressed:
1) A new heresy (or error opposed to an undefined dogma), as opposed to the denial of a defined dogma.
2) The need for warnings to be issued by the Cardinals, the clergy of Rome, or a Synod, which is how the Church (the ecclesia docens) would legitimately establish pertinacity. Why warnings? Because, as Cajetan explains, warnings are the way in which divine law has established that heresy be judged by human judgment. He writes: "Human judgments are of two kinds, some determined by natural or divine law, some by positive law. (…) The form of human judgment of a heretic was determined by divine law so that he is to be avoided after the first and second admonition." (Cajetan)
3) He says everything done against the Pope before the "declaration of his heresy and contumacy," are to be acts of charity, not jurisdiction, which only makes sense if Ballerini believes the heretical Pope remains Pope until the declaration is issued. If he believed the Pope would have already fallen from the Pontificate - even before the warnings were issued - it would have made no sense for him to go out of his way to state that all the acts against him would have to be in the form of charity.
4) He then states that when the council does finally convene, whatever sentence it issues would be against a former Pope - one who fell from the Pontificate before the bishops gathered at the council, but not before the Church (the ecclesia docens) issued a public and solemn warning, provided the Pope ample opportunity to amend, and finally declaring him a heretic.
Fr. Kramer: Pope Gregory XVI, citing Ballerini, says the deposition would not violate the rights of the primacy, because the judgment would not be made against the present holder of the office, but "against the one who before was adorned with papal dignity."
First of all, it needs to be established that you are quoting Cardinal Cappellari, who would later be elected Pope Gregory XVI. You're not quoting what he wrote as Pope. Secondly, provide the entire quote in English, and in context (with a link to the Latin), because I suspect that what Cardinal Cappellari is referring to is the sentence issued by the council, not the prior declaration of heresy and contumacy.
The"conviction" can only be made against a pope who has already tacitly abdicated the office. The actual judgment of the Church would only take place AFTER the act of tacit abdication has taken place.
The pope can only be "judged and deposed," or "judged and punished" after he has ceased to be Pope, since that implies a coactive or coercive judgment. But the Pope can be convicted of heresy prior to falling from the pontificate, according to Bellarmine.
Fr. Kramer: The level of your sophistry descends to the level of pathos when you accuse me of heresy for judging a pope to be suspect of heresy.
I said you are a heretic according to your own reasoning. I don't believe it is heresy for someone to have the personal opinion (human judgment) that the Pope is a heretic, any more than I believe it is forbidden for bishops at a council to collectively arrive at the same opinion.
Fr. Kramer: If the indicia of heresy are manifested by the pope, a man has the right to judge accordingly that such a one is suspect of heresy. That does not violate the rights of the primacy. It would violate the primacy only if the judging individual would presume to exercise ecclesiastical jurisdiction, and thereby claim that his private judgment is a juridical judgment of the Church.
But you didn't simply arrive at the personal opinion that Benedict XVI is suspect of heresy. After you judged him to be suspect of heresy, you publicly declared it as a fact, which you have no authority to do. You then went further by publicly declaring that the Papal see is to be presumed vacant, and went further still by exhorting all the remaining clergy to presume the same - all based on your extremely fallible personal opinion. So fallible, in fact, that you yourself rejected it several months later, as evidenced by the fact that you tore into Pax Vobis for referring to you as a Sedevacantist – which you most certainly would be if you still presumed what you declared and exhorted Catholics to presume a mere 5 months earlier.
-
Yes, what gives here Father Kramer (over on tradcath proboards):
Apr 30, 2019 at 8:26am
Post by Pacelli on Apr 30, 2019 at 8:26am
This is Fr. Kramer’s current position on the status of the Holy See. Take note that since Benedict’s resignation Fr. Kramer has defended the view that Benedict did not resign his office in a correct manner, that it was lacking, and therefore he remained Pope. Whether or not that is true is irrelevant to the argument that Benedict was not a Pope due to public heresy, and that is now what Fr. Kramer is focusing on.
On the Likelihood of a Vacancy of the Apostolic See
Francesco Bordoni, a qualificator of the Holy Inquisition, explains in his work on prosecuting heretics (which I have cited in To Deceive the Elect), that two indicia of vehement suspicion equal one indicium of violent suspucion of heresy, so even if we were to presume a possible benign interpretation to Ratzinger's words on the Jєωιѕн Question, that would be at minimum an indicium of vehement suspicion; but combined with his heretical propositions on 1) the resurrection of the body, 2) on the judgment of the living and the dead, 3) on transubstantiation, and 4) on the Incarnation of Christ, Ratzinger is manifestly to be considered at minimum to be violenter suspectus hæresis
……….
Thus, it is not to be considered a heretical or schismatical judgment to consider the see vacant under the present circuмstances of positive and probable doubt, but it is a presumption that is amply justified according to the eminent authorities I have cited. Indeed, in a similar situation of doubt at the time of the Council of Constance, the Catholic hierarchy presumed the See of Rome to be vacant and acted accordingly, by electing Pope Martin V. I can now only exhort the few remaining Catholic prelates and clergy to "Go and do likewise." (Luke 10:37 (https://biblia.com/bible/douayrheims/Luke%2010.37))
(Posted on his Facebook account, April 30, 2019)
Boy, this whole Ratzinger/Bergoglian thing is enough to kill one's faith.
-
Stop dodging the direct question: Do you agree or disagree with Bellarmine, that a Pope who falls into formal heresy - i.e., commits the mortal sin of heresy and loses the virtue of faith - yet does not "publicly separate himself from the Church," retains his"jurisdiction, dignity and title of head of the Church" until he is "convicted of heresy."
Will there ever be an end of your butchering of Saint Robert’s words?
-
Will there ever be an end of your butchering of Saint Robert’s words?
If you think I butchered his words, explain why.
-
You dodged the question. Here it is again.
Don't dodge the question (again).
Hello PaxChristi2, you might have missed these questions (as opposed to have dodged them) but, if you are indeed Mr. Salza or Siscoe, then would you please answer these questions:
1. Given that Fr. Gruner also believed that Pope Francis was not the Pope ,and that Benedict was still Pope, (and that Fr. Gruner was the one that encourage Fr. Kramer to write his book on this debate) would you have publicly debated and even verbally attacked him as well? (Assuming Fr. Gruner had been more public with his beliefs on Pope Francis).
2. Do you believe that there is a Conciliar Church, and if so, what is your definition of it?
3. Although you and Dr. Chojnowski had a falling out, do you believe that the evidence of the various experts provide a plausible case for an imposter Sister Lucy?
4. Do you believe that the evidence provided here https://www.cathinfo.com/sspx-resistance-news/collection-of-sspx-resistance-writings/ proves there has been a change in the SSPX and do you approve of these changes?
Thank you and may you have a blessed Christmas,
-
Fr. Kramer, what do you think about Ratzinger being part of the coverup of the revelation of the false 3rd Secret in year 2000, and the "sister Lucia" imposter?
-
Hello PaxChristi2, you might have missed these questions (as opposed to have dodged them) but, if you are indeed Mr. Salza or Siscoe, then would you please answer these questions:
1. Given that Fr. Gruner also believed that Pope Francis was not the Pope ,and that Benedict was still Pope, (and that Fr. Gruner was the one that encourage Fr. Kramer to write his book on this debate) would you have publicly debated and even verbally attacked him as well? (Assuming Fr. Gruner had been more public with his beliefs on Pope Francis).
I’ll be happy to answer your questions, but before I do so, can you clarify what you meant by the underlined part above? What debate are you referring to that Fr. Gruner asked him to write about?
The reason I ask is because the book Fr. Kramer wrote is a defense of the errors of Sedevacantism, which lead to the conclusion that there is no Pope - and that there hasn't been one since at least Vatican II, which then logically and necessarily leads to the heresy that the visible Church – the juridical institution - has defected. Since Fr. Gruner rejected Sedevacantism, as well as the errors that lead to it, it is certain that he would not have encouraged Fr. Kramer to write the book that he did. On the contrary, If Fr. Gruner were alive today, there’s no doubt that he would be speaking out against Fr. Kramer's errors, which are simply are a repackaged presentation of the same fallacious arguments that Sedevacantists have been using for decades – argument that Fr. Gruner himself was well aware of, and adamantly rejected.
Now, if what you meant is that Fr. Gruner encouraged him to write a book about the specific topic of whether Benedict’s resignation was valid, and if that is the debate you are referring to, that's not what Fr. Kramer and I are debating now, and it's not a topic I disagreed with him about before Fr. Gruner died in April of 2015. On the contrary, I had questions about that myself at first, and didn't resolve them with certainty until later that year.
-
The Sede-Vacantists totally misrepresent the "pious opinion" of Cardinal St. Robert Bellarmine. St. Robert never said, of Pope Honorius or Pope John XXIII, "if he fell into heresy, then he was never Pope in the first place", or any other such modern sedevacantist absurdity; for that holy Doctor knew, as all Theologians have always taught, that universal acceptance is a sign and infallible effect of a valid election. The election of Pope Francis being therefore recognized by the Teaching Church (even Cardinal Burke has frankly stated that, carefully considering everything, he prays for Pope Francis in the Mass as Pope, and not lightly, knowing that is profession of communion with him; as Pope Benedict XIV taught in Ex Quo, "it suffices Us to be able to state that a commemoration of the supreme pontiff and prayers offered for him during the sacrifice of the Mass is considered, and really is, an affirmative indication which recognizes him as the head of the Church, the vicar of Christ, and the successor of blessed Peter, and is the profession of a mind and will which firmly espouses Catholic unity. This was rightly noticed by Christianus Lupus in his work on the Councils: “This commemoration is the chief and most glorious form of communion” (tome 4, p. 422, Brussels edition). This view is not merely approved by the authority of Ivo of Flaviniaca who writes: “Whosoever does not pronounce the name of the Apostolic one in the canon for whatever reason should realize that he is separated from the communion of the whole world” (Chronicle, p. 228); or by the authority of the famous Alcuin: “It is generally agreed that those who do not for any reason recall the memory of the Apostolic pontiff in the course of the sacred mysteries according to custom are, as the blessed Pelagius teaches, separated from the communion of the entire world” (de Divinis Officiis, bk. 1, chap. 12). https://www.papalencyclicals.net/ben14/b14exquo.htm (https://www.papalencyclicals.net/ben14/b14exquo.htm)), it is certain that Pope Benedict XVI resigned and that Pope Francis is the validly elected Successor of St. Peter. This also means all who do not commemorate Pope Francis are now schismatics. That's just the way the Church works - the Teaching Church, the Ecclesia Docens, acknowledges a valid election - all the faithful are bound to do so.
What St. Robert said and proved, just like he would do today, is that many of the false accusations of heresy, were not heresy at all, or were based on misunderstandings. Most Catholics don't even know what Monothelitism is or all the theological intricacies it involved. And yet supposedly laity or clerics, by their own private judgment contrary to the judgment of the teaching Church, can supposedly declare a Pope to be a manifest formal heretic and pertinacious on their own private presumptions of pertinacity? That's the send of sanity and Christianity. No Pope would be safe, and that's why you have sedes all over the place lapsing into Orthodoxy, Old Catholicism, or general secularist worldliness, leaving the Church; and so many other disorders one observes in the sede-vacantist movement.
Cardinal Billot: "I said under the supposition of the hypothesis. But the fact that the hypothesis itself is a mere hypothesis, never reducible to an act, appears far more probable, according to Luke 22:32: But I have prayed for thee, that thy faith not fail; and thou being once converted, confirm thy brethren. For the voice of all Tradition says we must understand this verse to refer to Peter and his successors in perpetuity ... For Innocent had said earlier: “If I were not made firm in the faith, how could I strengthen others in the faith? That is what is recognized as pertaining especially to my office, as the Lord witnesses: I have prayed for thee, Peter, that thy faith not fail; and thou being once converted, confirm thy brethren. He prayed and He brought it to pass, since He was heard in all things out of reverence for Him. And therefore the faith of the apostolic see has never failed in any disturbance, but has always remained whole and unimpaired in order that the privilege of Peter should persist unshaken.” Consequently, that statement is rather in opposition to adversaries, unless they should say that by it Innocent actually means he can sometimes lack that which the Lord procured for Peter as necessary for the office to which he appointed him...
But whatever you finally think about the possibility or impossibility of the aforementioned hypothesis, at least one point must be maintained as completely unshaken and firmly placed beyond all doubt: the adherence alone of the universal Church will always be of itself an infallible sign of the legitimacy of the person of the Pontiff, and, what is more, even of the existence of all the conditions requisite for legitimacy itself. One need not fetch from afar proof of this claim. The reason is that it is taken immediately from the infallible promise of Christ and from providence. The gates of hell shall not prevail against it, and Behold I am with you all days.
...By all means God can permit that at some time or other the vacancy of the see be extended for a considerable time. He can also allow a doubt to arise about the legitimacy of one or another man elected. But He cannot permit the entire Church to receive someone as pontiff who is not a true and legitimate [pope]. Therefore, from the time he has been accepted and joined to the Church as the head to the body, we cannot further consider the question of a possible mistake in the election or of a [possible] deficiency of any condition whatsoever necessary for legitimacy, because the aforementioned adherence of the Church radically heals the mistake in the election and infallibly indicates the existence of all requisite conditions. And let this be an incidental remark against those who want to join in giving a respectable appearance to the undoubted schismatic efforts made in the time of Alexander VI on the ground that they were made by one who persisted in saying that the most certain evidence in the matter of the heretical state of Alexander VI had to be disclosed in a general Council. However, so as to forego at the present moment other arguments whereby this opinion of his could be easily refuted, this one [argument] alone is sufficient: It is certainly well known that in the time in which Savanarola was writing his letters to princes, all Christendom adhered to and obeyed Alexander as the true pontiff. Therefore, by that fact, Alexander was not a false pontiff. Therefore he was not a heretic..."
All this contradicts the first commandment of the new sedevacantist religion, which basically has become reduced to: "There is no Pope. I shall have no Popes before me. I shall take the Lord's Name in vain, and say He has failed in His Promise to His Church." Sede-ism is not even remotely Catholicism, but is pure private judgment doctrine-defying, Hierarchy-rejecting, Papal-perpetual-successors-dogma-denying Protestantism.
-
I agree that the principle of private interpretation, applied to the legitimacy of any pontificate, is the death of all of them forevermore (and even retroactively).
One as astute as Cardinal Bellarmine (the great adversary of Protestantism) could not possibly have erected the very same fatal principle applied to the papacy), which is why I am persuaded that it is Siscoe/Salza who have advanced the proper understanding of Bellarmine’s position:
He believed the Church must be involved in the process of making at least a declaration of the fact of tge pope’s heresy (with the matter of the ipso facto loss of office beginning only from that time).
-
He believed the Church must be involved in the process of making at least a declaration of the fact of tge pope’s heresy (with the matter of the ipso facto loss of office beginning only from that time).
This^^^^^
-
All the Catholic bishops have already separated themselves from Francis and the Conciliar hierarchy. The Church has spoken.
-
All the Catholic bishops have already separated themselves from Francis and the Conciliar hierarchy. The Church has spoken.
QFT
-
Marks of the Church Trad Bishops Conciliar Bishops
———————————————————————————
One in faith/morals Yes No
Holy Yes No (irreverent liturgies)
Catholic Yes No (multitude of churches and faith communities)
Apostolic Yes No (neither in doctrine nor in sacraments)
-
It’s interesting that the Novus Ordo XavierSem recognizes that traditional Catholics who continue to worship and believe the doctrine of the Apostles are in a different religion from that of the Conciliar Church. Yes, it’s called the Catholic Church.
-
If you are one in faith with George Bergoglio, you are not Catholic. If you are Catholic, you are required to be one in faith with the pope. You have to pick between having George as your pope or being Catholic. Which is it going to be?
-
Sedes deny Apostolic doctrine right from Apostolicity itself. The Catholic Church is a universal, visible, Hierarchical Church, consisting of, and identified by, the Pope, and the Bishops appointed by him. This is clearly explained by Pope St. Pius X and Pope Ven. Pius XII.
Catechism of Pope St. Pius X: "43 Q. Of whom is the Teaching Church composed?
A. The Teaching Church is composed of all the Bishops, with the Roman Pontiff at their head, be they dispersed throughout the world or assembled together in Council ...
48 Q. Does the power possessed by the members of the Hierarchy come from the people?
A. The power possessed by the Hierarchy does not come from the people, and it would be heresy to say it did: it comes solely from God.
49 Q. To whom does the exercise of this power belong?
A. The exercise of this power belongs solely to the Hierarchy, that is, to the Pope and to the Bishops subordinate to him." [Ninth Article of the Creed]
Rev. Father Dom Gueranger: "Rome was, more evidently than ever, the sole source of pastoral power.
We, then, both priests and people, have a right to know whence our pastors have received their power. From whose hand have they received the keys? If their mission come from the apostolic see, let us honour and obey them, for they are sent to us by Jesus Christ, who has invested them, through Peter, with His own authority. If they claim our obedience without having been sent by the bishop of Rome, we must refuse to receive them, for they are not acknowledged by Christ as His ministers. The holy anointing may have conferred on them the sacred character of the episcopate: it matters not; they must be as aliens to us, for they have not been sent, they are not pastors.
Thus it is that the divine Founder of the Church, who willed that she should be a city seated on a mountain, gave her visibility; it was an essential requisite; for since all were called to enter her pale, all must be able to see her. But He was not satisfied with this. He moreover willed that the spiritual power exercised by ‘her pastors should come from a visible source, so that the faithful might have a sure means of verifying the claims of those who were to guide them in His name. Our Lord (we say it reverently) owed this to us; for, on the last day, He will not receive us as His children, unless we shall have been members of His Church, and have lived in union with Him by the ministry of pastors lawfully constituted." https://reginamag.com/saint-peters-chair-at-antioch/ (https://reginamag.com/saint-peters-chair-at-antioch/)
-
In no case has a vacant see per se constituted a defection. In particular, the vacancy of the Holy See does not constitute a defection. And if the Holy See has not defected then neither has the Catholic Church defected.
-
In no case has a vacant see per se constituted a defection. In particular, the vacancy of the Holy See does not constitute a defection. And if the Holy See has not defected then neither has the Catholic Church defected.
But if Bergoglio is pope, then it has defected.
-
I’ll be happy to answer your questions, but before I do so, can you clarify what you meant by the underlined part above? What debate are you referring to that Fr. Gruner asked him to write about?
The reason I ask is because the book Fr. Kramer wrote is a defense of the errors of Sedevacantism, which lead to the conclusion that there is no Pope - and that there hasn't been one since at least Vatican II, which then logically and necessarily leads to the heresy that the visible Church – the juridical institution - has defected. Since Fr. Gruner rejected Sedevacantism, as well as the errors that lead to it, it is certain that he would not have encouraged Fr. Kramer to write the book that he did. On the contrary, If Fr. Gruner were alive today, there’s no doubt that he would be speaking out against Fr. Kramer's errors, which are simply are a repackaged presentation of the same fallacious arguments that Sedevacantists have been using for decades – argument that Fr. Gruner himself was well aware of, and adamantly rejected.
Now, if what you meant is that Fr. Gruner encouraged him to write a book about the specific topic of whether Benedict’s resignation was valid, and if that is the debate you are referring to, that's not what Fr. Kramer and I are debating now, and it's not a topic I disagreed with him about before Fr. Gruner died in April of 2015. On the contrary, I had questions about that myself at first, and didn't resolve them with certainty until later that year.
Thanks for your reply, here is my updated question:
1. Given that Fr. Gruner also believed that Pope Francis was not the Pope ,and that Benedict was still Pope, (and that Fr. Gruner was the one that encourage Fr. Kramer to write his book on showing Benedict is Pope) would you have publicly debated and even verbally attacked him as well? (Assuming Fr. Gruner had been more public with his beliefs that Pope Francis was not the true Pope).
Thanks also for your expanded remarks as I see where the misunderstanding is at. You mistakenly claim:
"the book Fr. Kramer wrote is a defense of the errors of Sedevacantism," [Not so, as he states in his book that the "error" of sedevanctism is their mistake in determining who is actually a willful heretic. The book is a defense of the hypothesis that IF it were possible for a Pope to fall into heresy, then he would cease to be Pope by his own choice. He then concludes, that the a true Pope would not fall into heresy]
You then continue: "which lead to the conclusion that there is no Pope - and that there hasn't been one since at least Vatican II, which then logically and necessarily leads to the heresy that the visible Church – the juridical institution - has defected" [Yes, that is a possible conclusion, but it is not relevant to his book since Fr. Kramer believes Benedict is the True Pope as well as all those Popes before him]
As for the rest "If Fr. Gruenr were alive today, etc..." [That is all an assumption based on your first premises that the "errors of Fr. Kramer's" are actually his errors, which they are not not as was mentioned above, and thus those assumptions of what Fr. Gruner would do, no longer apply.]