Author Topic: What is Universal Peaceful Acceptance?  (Read 2899 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Pax Vobis

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5845
  • Reputation: +3347/-1460
  • Gender: Male
Re: What is Universal Peaceful Acceptance?
« Reply #105 on: October 22, 2019, 03:02:48 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Quote
    At no time did I ever argue for UPA (or UA, whatever).  But you are too stupid to understand that.
    Clemens, you were the 2nd person to respond to this thread, with the title being "Universal Peaceful Acceptance".  You argued an over-simplified "either Frank is your pope and you must obey him, etc, etc.." or "he's not the pope and etc, etc". 
    .
    If that's not an argument related to (or for) UPA, then you shouldn't have posted on this thread at all.  We can only assume that your post was related to the SUBJECT OF THE THREAD.  If it was not, then who is stupid?

    Offline Clemens Maria

    • Full Member
    • ***
    • Posts: 1500
    • Reputation: +942/-461
    • Gender: Male
    Re: What is Universal Peaceful Acceptance?
    « Reply #106 on: October 22, 2019, 03:29:30 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!2
  • Clemens, you were the 2nd person to respond to this thread, with the title being "Universal Peaceful Acceptance".  You argued an over-simplified "either Frank is your pope and you must obey him, etc, etc.." or "he's not the pope and etc, etc".
    .
    If that's not an argument related to (or for) UPA, then you shouldn't have posted on this thread at all.  We can only assume that your post was related to the SUBJECT OF THE THREAD.  If it was not, then who is stupid?
    That post is in no way supportive of the UPA theory being pushed by the neo-SSPX.  You are still stupid.  You don't understand the arguments and then you make false statements about people based on your faulty understanding.



    Offline Pax Vobis

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 5845
    • Reputation: +3347/-1460
    • Gender: Male
    Re: What is Universal Peaceful Acceptance?
    « Reply #107 on: October 22, 2019, 03:48:49 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Your post was neither for or against, as I said earlier, you used it as a "gotcha" test.  You had no intention of having a civil debate on the thread's subject, you just wanted to be divisive...just like you're being now. 

    Offline forlorn

    • Sr. Member
    • ****
    • Posts: 2007
    • Reputation: +782/-1021
    • Gender: Male
    Re: What is Universal Peaceful Acceptance?
    « Reply #108 on: October 22, 2019, 05:24:32 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Forlorn,

    Could you provide the source for what you consider to be Saint Robert Bellarmine's distinction?  Or maybe a link or quote of some sort?  Thanks.    
    https://www.fisheaters.com/bellarmine.html
    The cardinals cannot depose the pope if he holds the spiritual office(the form), however they can depose the man who sits on the throne of St. Peter and calls himself pope(the matter) if he loses said office by separating himself from the Church. 

    Offline forlorn

    • Sr. Member
    • ****
    • Posts: 2007
    • Reputation: +782/-1021
    • Gender: Male
    Re: What is Universal Peaceful Acceptance?
    « Reply #109 on: October 22, 2019, 05:27:25 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!1
  • Your post was neither for or against, as I said earlier, you used it as a "gotcha" test.  You had no intention of having a civil debate on the thread's subject, you just wanted to be divisive...just like you're being now.
    His post just said that one ought to obey Francis if he is pope, and not if he is not. UPA doesn't tell you whether or not the true pope's orders are lawful and must be obeyed, and therefore it has nothing to do with the R&R position(it supports sedeplenism, of which R&R is a form, but UPA would have no implications for the resist part of Recognise&Resist).


    Offline forlorn

    • Sr. Member
    • ****
    • Posts: 2007
    • Reputation: +782/-1021
    • Gender: Male
    Re: What is Universal Peaceful Acceptance?
    « Reply #110 on: October 23, 2019, 01:42:49 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Thanks for posting the link.  

    In the link you provided, where does Bellarmine make the distinction between the "matter" and "form" of the office?
    I didn't link you the full thing, apologies. https://novusordowatch.org/de-romano-pontifice-book2-chapter30/

    Quote
    the Pope immediately ceases to be Pope: for the form cannot maintain itself without the necessary dispositions.
    ...
    The example of the electors, who have the power to designate a certain person for the pontificate, without however having power over the Pope, given by Cajetan, is also destitute of value. For when something is being made, the action is exercised over the matter of the future thing, and not over the composite, which does not yet exist, but when a thing is destroyed, the action is exercised over the composite, as becomes patent on consideration of the things of nature. Therefore, on creating the Pontiff, the Cardinals do not exercise their authority over the Pontiff for he does not yet exist, but over the matter, that is, over the person who by the election becomes disposed to receive the pontificate from God. But if they deposed the Pontiff, they would necessarily exercise authority over the composite, that is, over the person endowed with the pontifical power, that is, over the Pontiff.

    ...

    Now the fifth true opinion, is that a Pope who is a manifest heretic, ceases in himself to be Pope and head, just as he ceases in himself to be a Christian and member of the body of the Church: whereby, he can be judged and punished by the Church.
    The pope cannot be deposed, but the man still clinging onto the crown after he deposed himself through formal heresy can be deposed. The cardinals can act upon the matter and elect the pope, and if the election is valid then the pope receives the form from God. If a pope becomes a manifest heretic, he loses the form and no longer holds the spiritual office - and therefore he can be deposed. But the matter will still be sitting there on the throne of St. Peter until he's dragged off it, and he might be an occult heretic for many years before he's outed as a manifest heretic. So the Church provides and revokes the matter, but God provides and revokes the form. 

    Now it's easy to read this as "the pope is not the pope from the instant he embraces heresy, and the deposition is just a formality to let the faithful know". But if you look at the second opinion he addresses, which is exactly that, he contradicts this view. 

    Quote
    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. This is of John de Turrecremata [320], but it is not proven to me. For 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, he is not removed by God unless it is through men. But a secret heretic cannot be judged by men, nor would such wish to relinquish that power by his own will. Add, that the foundation of this opinion is that secret heretics are outside the Church, which is false, and we will amply demonstrate this in our tract de Ecclesia, bk 1.
    It's clear from this paragraph that the Church deposition is not a mere formality and that the man is still pope until the Church declares him a manifest heretic and deposes him. 

    Offline forlorn

    • Sr. Member
    • ****
    • Posts: 2007
    • Reputation: +782/-1021
    • Gender: Male
    Re: What is Universal Peaceful Acceptance?
    « Reply #111 on: October 23, 2019, 04:37:48 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • forlorn,

    There is a lot of context missing from the quotes you've provided.  I'm quite familiar with Saint Robert Bellarmine's writings and I think you're confused about some things.  I may be wrong however, so please tell me if I am.

    forlorn
    Taken in full context, we can see that Bellarmine is not making a distinction between the "matter" and "form" of the Papacy.  In this particular instance, Bellarmine is arguing against Cajetan's faulty logic concerning the status of a heretic.    

    You can see, well before the first quote you posted, that Bellarmine is arguing against Cajetan's theory that a heretic remains a member of the Church and therefore the heretic Pope still maintains jurisdiction.  It's obvious that Bellarmine does not believe this theory.  

    Your quote, highlighted above, taken in context, reveals that Bellarmine is simply talking about the "necessary dispositions", in which there are 2, one must have to be considered Catholic - faith and the baptismal character.  I don't believe that he's discussing the "matter" and "form" of the Papacy.  But I could be wrong...

    Cajetan seems to be making the sedeprivationist argument about the material/formal pope, which Bellarmine disagrees with.

    forlorn
    Your second quote is missing some context as well.  In this particular instance, Bellarmine is now arguing against Cajetan's assertion that the Pope can be deposed.


    Again, I don't believe that the second quote you've provided makes a distinction between the "matter" and "form" of the Papacy.  I believe Bellarmine is merely explaining that the first seat is judged by no one...full stop.  I think it's clear when he discusses the fifth opinion, which he believes to be correct.

    forlorn
    In this last quote provided, Bellarmine is simply speaking about occult heretics, or secret heretics.  The sentence immediately after the bolded, highlighted portion state this clearly.  

    This is the teaching of Saint Robert Bellarmine, clearly and simply:

    I should add that I do believe, for the good of the Church, some type of council, or even a conclave should be convened to announce the deposition of a heretical pope.  
    The purpose of the first few quotations was not to show St. Bellarmine's opinion on the heresy question, but to show that he differentiated between the form and the matter, which is made abundantly clear in his mention of the composite(i.e of form and matter) created when the Church provides the matter and God provides the form. 
    And your last sentence is just blatantly ignoring everything he's said. He clearly says that the pope must be a manifest heretic to lose office, and it's the Church which is the judge of that. He also explicitly says the Church would depose him, not that it's some optional thing for the good of the Church. 


     

    Sitemap 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16