Author Topic: Tony La Rosa: Benedict XVI Is the True Pope! (Read 22541 times)

PaxChristi2 · « **Reply #435 on:** November 13, 2019, 12:54:30 PM »

Quote from: Don Paolo on November 13, 2019, 10:25:45 AM

"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:

Quote

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.

Quote

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 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

Pax Vobis · « **Reply #436 on:** November 13, 2019, 01:06:55 PM »

Quote

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.

Ladislaus · « **Reply #437 on:** November 13, 2019, 01:10:47 PM »

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.

Ladislaus · « **Reply #438 on:** November 13, 2019, 01:14:44 PM »

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".

DecemRationis · « **Reply #439 on:** November 13, 2019, 01:16:13 PM »

Quote from: Ladislaus on November 13, 2019, 01:10:47 PM

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.

Quo vadis Domine · « **Reply #440 on:** November 13, 2019, 01:26:31 PM »

Quote from: Ladislaus on November 13, 2019, 07:56:54 AM

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.

Don Paolo · « **Reply #441 on:** November 13, 2019, 01:53:54 PM »

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.

Pax Vobis · « **Reply #442 on:** November 13, 2019, 02:06:02 PM »

Is English your first language? I honestly can’t follow your arguments sometimes.

Pax Vobis · « **Reply #443 on:** November 13, 2019, 02:31:31 PM »

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.

PaxChristi2 · « **Reply #444 on:** November 13, 2019, 02:48:58 PM »

Quote from: DecemRationis on November 13, 2019, 10:46:35 AM

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.

Don Paolo · « **Reply #445 on:** November 13, 2019, 03:03:18 PM »

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.

2Vermont · « **Reply #446 on:** November 13, 2019, 03:58:24 PM »

Quote from: Ladislaus on November 13, 2019, 07:56:54 AM

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:

PaxChristi2 · « **Reply #447 on:** November 13, 2019, 04:05:53 PM »

Quote from: Don Paolo on November 13, 2019, 09:54:33 AM

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.

Quote

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:

Quote

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.

Quote

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.

Quote

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.

Pax Vobis · « **Reply #448 on:** November 13, 2019, 04:10:34 PM »

Quote

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.

Quote

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.

Don Paolo · « **Reply #449 on:** November 13, 2019, 04:15:24 PM »

PaxChristi2 says: 《Siscoe and Salza responded to your arguments 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?

Author Topic: Tony La Rosa: Benedict XVI Is the True Pope! (Read 22541 times)

PaxChristi2

Re: Tony La Rosa: Benedict XVI Is the True Pope!

Pax Vobis

Re: Tony La Rosa: Benedict XVI Is the True Pope!

Ladislaus

Re: Tony La Rosa: Benedict XVI Is the True Pope!

Ladislaus

Re: Tony La Rosa: Benedict XVI Is the True Pope!

DecemRationis

Re: Tony La Rosa: Benedict XVI Is the True Pope!

Quo vadis Domine

Re: Tony La Rosa: Benedict XVI Is the True Pope!

Don Paolo

Re: Tony La Rosa: Benedict XVI Is the True Pope!

Pax Vobis

Re: Tony La Rosa: Benedict XVI Is the True Pope!

Pax Vobis

Re: Tony La Rosa: Benedict XVI Is the True Pope!

PaxChristi2

Re: Tony La Rosa: Benedict XVI Is the True Pope!

Don Paolo

Re: Tony La Rosa: Benedict XVI Is the True Pope!

2Vermont

Re: Tony La Rosa: Benedict XVI Is the True Pope!

PaxChristi2

Re: Tony La Rosa: Benedict XVI Is the True Pope!

Pax Vobis

Re: Tony La Rosa: Benedict XVI Is the True Pope!

Don Paolo

Re: Tony La Rosa: Benedict XVI Is the True Pope!