Author Topic: What Happened to Cupertino? (Read 3100 times)

Lover of Truth · « **on:** August 16, 2012, 02:39:32 PM »

He seemed pretty honest and thought provoking.

I never saw bad will in any of his responses to me. Was he bad to others?

MyrnaM · « **Reply #1 on:** August 17, 2012, 09:05:03 AM »

He was banned for no good reason, in my opinion.

Belloc · « **Reply #2 on:** August 17, 2012, 09:14:30 AM »

Quote from: Lover of Truth

He seemed pretty honest and thought provoking.

I never saw bad will in any of his responses to me. Was he bad to others?

when was he banned?

MyrnaM · « **Reply #3 on:** August 17, 2012, 10:27:37 AM »

I felt he told the truth politely as he sees it, but boldly. He didn't miss words or candy coat his notes, sort of like Padre Pio spoke. I am not saying he was like Padre Pio per se, just his method of conversation.
Some folks found that hard to swallow.

Belloc, he was banned several months ago.

Of course I am biased since like he is, I too am a sedevacantist Roman Catholic.

Telesphorus · « **Reply #4 on:** August 17, 2012, 11:59:05 AM »

He was banned for being a previously banned account, if I recall correctly.

Sunbeam · « **Reply #5 on:** August 17, 2012, 02:28:38 PM »

Unless its a case of mistaken identity, he appears to have just turned up on Bellarmine Forums with some interesting observations:
Hergenrother - Infallibility of cuм Ex Apostolatus Officio

Lover of Truth · « **Reply #6 on:** August 17, 2012, 06:26:29 PM »

Quote from: MyrnaM

He was banned for no good reason, in my opinion.

I would agree. I hope saying so does not get me in trouble. I do not read all the threads all the way through, but what I read from him seemed intelligent and well thought out. I am sorry to see him go.

Thanks for responding Myrna. I hope all is well with you.

Capt McQuigg · « **Reply #7 on:** August 20, 2012, 09:28:25 AM »

I enjoyed Cupertino's posts and saw him as a legitimate truth seeker. However, if he was breaking the rules (and Matthew knows best on this), and if he had been previously been given a warning (which I'll bet he was) then I'm sorry to see him go but the ban would have been justified.

Lover of Truth · « **Reply #8 on:** August 20, 2012, 09:42:44 AM »

So much will be revealed on the Day of Judgment. Will it not? Thanks for the response which I tend to agree with.

I am all for doing the right things for the right reason and never doing evil to obtain a good or an apparrent good.

Many suffer unjustly and many are praised unjustly. But in a sense, we all deserve to suffer even more than we do or will regardless of who administers our punishments.

I believe both Matthew and Cupertino are good Catholics, who if we get persecuted might share a jail cell one day for the crime of Catholicism, if things keep going as they are, there are many adversarial relationships on this site between those on the same side.

SJB · « **Reply #9 on:** August 21, 2012, 01:00:54 PM »

Quote from: Sunbeam

Unless its a case of mistaken identity, he appears to have just turned up on Bellarmine Forums with some interesting observations:
Hergenrother - Infallibility of cuм Ex Apostolatus Officio

Yes, he provided a source that agrees with what was discussed on Bellarmine Forums some 6 years ago. Nobody ever thought cuм Ex Apostolatus Officio was an infallible decree (it was abrogated), and that article confirms what was already known.

Lover of Truth · « **Reply #10 on:** August 21, 2012, 02:33:35 PM »

Quote from: SJB

Quote from: Sunbeam
Unless its a case of mistaken identity, he appears to have just turned up on Bellarmine Forums with some interesting observations:
Hergenrother - Infallibility of cuм Ex Apostolatus Officio

Yes, he provided a source that agrees with what was discussed on Bellarmine Forums some 6 years ago. Nobody ever thought cuм Ex Apostolatus Officio was an infallible decree (it was abrogated), and that article confirms what was already known.

Would you agree that the Divine Law part of it was not abrogated?

SJB · « **Reply #11 on:** August 21, 2012, 03:15:16 PM »

Quote from: Lover of Truth

Quote from: SJB
Quote from: Sunbeam
Unless its a case of mistaken identity, he appears to have just turned up on Bellarmine Forums with some interesting observations:
Hergenrother - Infallibility of cuм Ex Apostolatus Officio

Yes, he provided a source that agrees with what was discussed on Bellarmine Forums some 6 years ago. Nobody ever thought cuм Ex Apostolatus Officio was an infallible decree (it was abrogated), and that article confirms what was already known.

Would you agree that the Divine Law part of it was not abrogated?

CEA was abrogated by the 1917 CIC, and no, of course no part of divine law can ever be abrogated. The point is that CEA was a disciplinary decree, not a doctrinal decree. Hergenrother makes this case and that's exactly what many have been saying for years now. It's nothing new.

Capt McQuigg · « **Reply #12 on:** August 21, 2012, 04:07:09 PM »

Quote from: SJB

Quote from: Lover of Truth
Quote from: SJB
Quote from: Sunbeam
Unless its a case of mistaken identity, he appears to have just turned up on Bellarmine Forums with some interesting observations:
Hergenrother - Infallibility of cuм Ex Apostolatus Officio

Yes, he provided a source that agrees with what was discussed on Bellarmine Forums some 6 years ago. Nobody ever thought cuм Ex Apostolatus Officio was an infallible decree (it was abrogated), and that article confirms what was already known.

Would you agree that the Divine Law part of it was not abrogated?

CEA was abrogated by the 1917 CIC, and no, of course no part of divine law can ever be abrogated. The point is that CEA was a disciplinary decree, not a doctrinal decree. Hergenrother makes this case and that's exactly what many have been saying for years now. It's nothing new.

Can you guys provide links to these docuмents?

Hobbledehoy · « **Reply #13 on:** August 21, 2012, 08:36:38 PM »

Quote from: SJB

CEA was abrogated by the 1917 CIC, and no, of course no part of divine law can ever be abrogated. The point is that CEA was a disciplinary decree, not a doctrinal decree. Hergenrother makes this case and that's exactly what many have been saying for years now. It's nothing new.

Yes. As I have written before, the principles of divine positive law whereby the Apostolic Constitution of Pope Paul IV cuм ex apostolatus (15 February 1559; Codicis Iuris Canonic Fontes, Vol. I Concilia Generalia - Romani Pontifices usque ad annum 1745, (Romae: Typis Polyglottis Vaticanis, 1947), Pt. II, no. 94) declared that heretics cannot be not fit subjects for the office of Supreme Pontiff have nothing to do with the abrogation of the ecclesiastical censures found therein by the Code of Canon of Law, promulgated by Pope Benedict XV in the Apostolic Constitution Providentissima Mater (27 May 1917; A.A.S., vol. IX, pars II).

The factual notion of the excommunication of heretics pertains to the ordinances of positive divine law as revealed in Holy Scripture and in sacred Tradition, whilst the censures consequent upon the canonical delict of heresy are contingent upon the norms of ecclesiastical discipline. While the latter can be amended and reformed, and the former cannot, for positive divine law is constituted by the immutable nature of God Himself. Moreover, the Apostolic Constitution of Paul IV in question was one of the sources for the provision of the Code of Canon Law that says that a cleric can lose office without any declaration by public apostasy ("Ob tacitam renuntiationem ab ipso iure admissam quaelibet officia vacant ipso facto et sine ulla declaratione, si clericus: [...] A fide catholica publice defecerit," Can. 188, no. 4).

Whilst some readers and authors may focus on certain dated disciplinary prescriptions found in the above-mentioned Apostolic Constitution of Pope Paul IV, the principles of divine positive law that substantiate the text thereof that served as the source for the above-cited Canon cannot be said to be abrogated; the pertinent text of the the Apostolic Constitution cuм ex apostolatus being the following:

Quote from: Pope Paul IV

Further, if ever it should appear that any bishop (even one acting as an archbishop, patriarch or primate), or a cardinal of the Roman Church, or a legate (as mentioned above), or even the Roman Pontiff (whether prior to his promotion to cardinal, or prior to his election as Roman Pontiff), has beforehand deviated from the Catholic faith or fallen into any heresy, We enact, decree, determine and define:

— Such promotion or election in and of itself, even with the agreement and unanimous consent of all the cardinals, shall be null, legally invalid and void.

— It shall not be possible for such a promotion or election to be deemed valid or to be valid, neither through reception of office, consecration, subsequent administration, or possession, nor even through the putative enthronement of a Roman Pontiff himself, together with the veneration and obedience accorded him by all.

— Such promotion or election, shall not through any lapse of tune in the foregoing situation, be considered even partially legitimate in any way . . .

— Each and all of the words, as acts, laws, appointments of those so promoted or elected —and indeed, whatsoever flows therefrom — shall be lacking in force, and shall grant no stability and legal power to anyone whatsoever.

— Those so promoted or elected, by that very fact and without the need to make any further declaration, shall be deprived of any dignity, position, honor, title, authority, office and power.

Can. 188, no. 4, and the pertinent text of the the Apostolic Constitution of Paul IV share the same principles. As the commentary upon the Code of Canon Law written by Rev. Fathers T. Lincoln Bouscaren and Adam C. Ellis says, “there are certain causes which effect the tacit resignation of an office, which resignation is accepted in advance by operation of law, and hence is effective without any declaration” (Canon Law: A Text and Commentary, p. 129; Milwaukee, WI: The Bruce Publishing Company, 1953). Canon Law makes it clear that by means of tacit renunciation, accepted by the law itself, any office whatsoever is rendered vacant in the very fact and without any declaration, if, among other things, a cleric publicly defects from the Catholic faith ("A fide catholica publice defecerit"). The various disciplinary and ecclesiastical measures that Pope Paul IV enumerates are simply legitimate and necessary consequences of this principle, and it is these that have been abrogated by the Code of Canon Law.

This principle is based on positive divine law. A heretic cannot be a member of the Mystical Body of Christ, just as much as a circle cannot consist of no more than 360 degrees. A man cannot be at once a heretic and a Catholic, just as much as a man cannot be simultaneously in the state of grace and in the state of mortal sin.

The Code itself (Can. 6, no. 6) has specified that "All former disciplinary laws which were in force until now, and are neither explicitly nor implicitly contained in the Code, shall be regarded as having lost all force, unless they are found in the approved liturgical books, or they are laws derived from the natural and the positive divine law" (aut lex sit iuris divini sive positivi sive naturalis).

The text of Paul IV's Bull pertinent to this discussion ultimately rests on divine positive law, that no heretic can be a member of the Mystical Body of Christ, which can never be rescinded, not even by God Himself, Who is immutable and cannot change. Change is proper to finite, created beings (possible or actual), not to God.

An example of a theologian who apparently thought that the above-mentioned principle of the Apostolic Constitution of Paul IV had not been revoked by the promulgation of the Code of Canon Law is to be found in the tome A Compendium of Theology: Comprising of the Essential Doctrinal Points of both Dogmatic and Moral Theology, together with the more Important Notions of Canon Law, Liturgy, Pastoral and Mystical Theology, and Christian Philosophy by the Very Rev. Fr. J. Berthier (trans. Rev. Fr. Sidney A. Raemers; St. Louis, MO: B. Herder Book Co., 1931 <--- Note: this was published after the promulgation of the Code of Canon Law), where the author discusses the conditions requisite for a Council to be truly Œcuмenical and makes a curious tangential remark regarding the question of an "heretical" Roman Pontiff (Vol. 1, Dogmatic Theology, Pt. I, Third Treatise " True Christianity or, The Church of Jesus Christ," Ch. II. "What the True Church of Christ Is," art. ii. "The Constitution of the Church," no. 150, p. 86):

Another example can be found in A Handbook of Fundamental Theology by Rev. Father John Brunsmann, S.V.D., Vol. IV (trans. Arthur Preuss; St. Louis, MO: B. Herder Book Co., 1932 <--- Again, this was published after the promulgation of the Code of Canon Law):

Another theologian is Msgr. Charles Journet, who in his great work The Church of the Word Incarnate: An Essay of Speculative Theology (trans. A.H.C. Downes; London: Sheed and Ward, 1954) discusses the loss of the Papal office:

Canon Law can only furnish us with principles whereby to guide us in these discussions, but we cannot apply them categorically in this instance because the prescripts of the Sacred Canons cannot apply to the Supreme Pontiff, as he holds absolute and sovereign primacy over the entire Church as a whole and over every Catholic as individuals. He is subject to no ecclesiastical law. However, he is subject to the divine positive law, such as the Commandments of the sacred Decalogue.

So, those were my two cents.

In the midst of polemical exchange we tend to forget that it is the cultivation of the interior life that matters. Whatever position any individual Catholic adopts will be of no avail for him if he does not give himself over to works of piety, charity and penance; perseveringly practice interior and exterior mortification; and frequent the holy Sacraments and seek the spiritual direction of a devout and learned Priest; and abandon himself with filial confidence unto the designs of Divine Providence, whilst consecrating himself to Mary Most Holy as her unworthy servant, so that she may jealously preserve him by her benign tutelage and patronage as Mediatress of All Graces.

Post scriptum: Again, from Cardinal Gasparri's monumental Codicis Iuris Canonic Fontes, Vol. I Concilia Generalia --- Romanu Pontifices usque ad annum 1745, (Romae: Typis Polyglottis Vaticanis, 1947), here is the Latin text of the Apostolic Constitution of Pope Paul IV for those who would be interested in such things:

Malleus 01 · « **Reply #14 on:** August 22, 2012, 09:16:51 AM »

Malleus: Bears repeating:

"In the midst of polemical exchange we tend to forget that it is the cultivation of the interior life that matters. Whatever position any individual Catholic adopts will be of no avail for him if he does not give himself over to works of piety, charity and penance; perseveringly practice interior and exterior mortification; and frequent the holy Sacraments and seek the spiritual direction of a devout and learned Priest; and abandon himself with filial confidence unto the designs of Divine Providence, whilst consecrating himself to Mary Most Holy as her unworthy servant, so that she may jealously preserve him by her benign tutelage and patronage as Mediatress of All Graces. "

I'd add my 2 cents worth , but really there is little I could add.

I completely agree with this assessment

Well done.

Pax