No, he doesn´t say that. He says that if a Pope is manifest heretic he would cease to be member of the Church and therefore he would cease to be Pope and therefore that person, who was a former Pope could be judged by the Church in the same way as the Church judges any other person. He is rebuking specially Cajetan´s argument who said that the Pope has to be deposed instead of losing the office automatically. What we, sedes, are doing is merely recognizing that BXVI cannot be the Pope since he is manifest heretic (first part of Bellarmine´s quote) and therefore he lost the office (or, to be more precise, he never had it). We are not judging the Pope. Actually in Bellarmine´s argument the Church doesn´t judg the Pope either, but rather a former Pope.

You see the difference?

Yes, I recognize this. My point is that the Church declares that that Pope X has, in fact, become a formal heretic. Joe sede doesn't decide for himself that Pope X is a formal heretic and consider him anti-pope when there has been no formal declaration recognizing this. This would induce anarchy. It would create a burden for each lay Catholic to examine everything every Pope publicly says for heresy and then make his own private determination as to whether the Pope is Pope. So then every lay Catholic, in effect, becomes his own Pope, under the guise that the "heresy" is "obvious" and "indisputable". Prots do the same thing.

Quote from: Cristian

No, he doesn´t say that. He says that if a Pope is manifest heretic he would cease to be member of the Church and therefore he would cease to be Pope and therefore that person, who was a former Pope could be judged by the Church in the same way as the Church judges any other person. He is rebuking specially Cajetan´s argument who said that the Pope has to be deposed instead of losing the office automatically. What we, sedes, are doing is merely recognizing that BXVI cannot be the Pope since he is manifest heretic (first part of Bellarmine´s quote) and therefore he lost the office (or, to be more precise, he never had it). We are not judging the Pope. Actually in Bellarmine´s argument the Church doesn´t judg the Pope either, but rather a former Pope.

You see the difference?

Yes, I recognize this. My point is that the Church declares that that Pope X has, in fact, become a formal heretic. Joe sede doesn't decide for himself that Pope X is a formal heretic and consider him anti-pope when there has been no formal declaration recognizing this. This would induce anarchy. It would create a burden for each lay Catholic to examine everything every Pope publicly says for heresy and then make his own private determination as to whether the Pope is Pope. So then every lay Catholic, in effect, becomes his own Pope, under the guise that the "heresy" is "obvious" and "indisputable". Prots do the same thing.

2 Things here:

1) Nowhere Bellarmine or other theologian said that in order for a Pope to be public heretic and therefore lose membership and the office a declaration is needed.
Actually even if you accept that a declaration is needed that means that the fact of the Pope losing the office already took place and what the Church would do is to say "X by X fact lost the office ipso facto".

2) Ad hominem. You take and choose from post Vat. II "Popes" what is in accordance with tradition and reject what is wrong. The very raison d´etre of traditionalism is to reject many things after Vat II. I mean you (and everyone else) do exactly the same thing you accuse sedes, unless you believe that each human being has the right to worship anything he wishes, or that any religion is a mean of salvation, or that we can actively participate in non-catholic worships, or that JPII is an example for all of us to go to heaven, etc. etc. etc.

How do you reconcile this with canon 1556? "The Holy See cannot be judged by anyone"

Cristian- I think I made a somatic/ vocabulary mistake.. stevus sums it up nicely:

...the Church declares that that Pope X has, in fact, become a formal heretic. Joe sede doesn't decide for himself that Pope X is a formal heretic and consider him anti-pope when there has been no formal declaration recognizing this. This would induce anarchy. It would create a burden for each lay Catholic to examine everything every Pope publicly says for heresy and then make his own private determination as to whether the Pope is Pope. So then every lay Catholic, in effect, becomes his own Pope, under the guise that the "heresy" is "obvious" and "indisputable". Prots do the same thing.[/i]

Cristian: But opinions can be wrong or true, right?. Besides if you accept the possibility BXVI may not be the Pope, that is, if you have serious reasons or doubts about he being the Pope, in practice, you should act as if he were not the Pope, since as the saying goes "a doubtful Pope is not Pope".

Yes, and because opinions can be wrong I decide to leave the matter to a future council. And it is because opinions may be right that I do not attend NO and will  reccomend no one attends NO, FSSP, Indult, or anywhere where they have a strong hold on the priests and can 'force' them to do things which are contrary to the faith... I don't think you can go wrong spiritually with that can you? But trying to judge the pope, as sede's do, I think can (lets be precise- not will, but can) get you in trouble with God imho.

So, I will quote stevus again: My point is that the Church declares that that Pope X has, in fact, become a formal heretic. Joe sede doesn't decide for himself that Pope X is a formal heretic and consider him anti-pope when there has been no formal declaration recognizing this.

Quote from: Cristian

How do you reconcile this with canon 1556? "The Holy See cannot be judged by anyone"

Cristian- I think I made a somatic/ vocabulary mistake.. stevus sums it up nicely:

...the Church declares that that Pope X has, in fact, become a formal heretic. Joe sede doesn't decide for himself that Pope X is a formal heretic and consider him anti-pope when there has been no formal declaration recognizing this. This would induce anarchy. It would create a burden for each lay Catholic to examine everything every Pope publicly says for heresy and then make his own private determination as to whether the Pope is Pope. So then every lay Catholic, in effect, becomes his own Pope, under the guise that the "heresy" is "obvious" and "indisputable". Prots do the same thing.[/i]

I already responded to this.

Cristian: But opinions can be wrong or true, right?. Besides if you accept the possibility BXVI may not be the Pope, that is, if you have serious reasons or doubts about he being the Pope, in practice, you should act as if he were not the Pope, since as the saying goes "a doubtful Pope is not Pope".

Yes, and because opinions can be wrong I decide to leave the matter to a future council. And it is because opinions may be right that I do not attend NO and will  reccomend no one attends NO, FSSP, Indult, or anywhere where they have a strong hold on the priests and can 'force' them to do things which are contrary to the faith... I don't think you can go wrong spiritually with that can you?

No, I don´t have much problem, except for the fact that on doing so you are judging the Pope, because, do you really think those priests who "force" people to do things which are contrary to the faith are acting against BXVI?

Even if you wish to leave this matter to a future council, which is ok, yet you have to take now some measures regarding BXVI. You can´t wait that much.

But trying to judge the pope, as sede's do, I think can (lets be precise- not will, but can) get you in trouble with God imho.

.

Once again sedes do not judge the Pope. We merely see a public heresy and draw conclusions.
When you criticize Vat. II and what came after it, are you judging the Pope? If not why?

So, I will quote stevus again: My point is that the Church declares that that Pope X has, in fact, become a formal heretic. Joe sede doesn't decide for himself that Pope X is a formal heretic and consider him anti-pope when there has been no formal declaration recognizing this.

I addressed this post also.

Cristian

PS: I´m glad we can discuss calmly these things :)  :cheers:

Quote from: Cristian

2 Things here:

1) Nowhere Bellarmine or other theologian said that in order for a Pope to be public heretic and therefore lose membership and the office a declaration is needed.

But they also do not mention that it is not needed... now what? I believe i read somewhere on here (caminus?) something which actually refuted this point.

If you read the whole chapter 30 which deals with the 5 opinions you will see he specifically says that the Pope loses the office immediately after he falls in public heresy and he rebukes Cajetan´s argument who says that an admonition is needed for a Pope to lose the office.
Second you have canon 188.4, 646 and the official interpretation of it saying expressly that no declaration is needed for the tacit renuntiation, plus Pius XII in Mystici Corporis said that heresy, apostasy and schism by its very nature, (suapte natura) puts you out of the Church.

Actually even if you accept that a declaration is needed that means that the fact of the Pope losing the office already took place and what the Church would do is to say "X by X fact lost the office ipso facto".

Right, but this doesn't address the issue that you 'may' be wrong

Even if I´m wrong, I still have reasons to reject BXVI. I think it is prudent to reject him. And if one has serious reasons about the existence of a law (or of the lawmaker himself), all theologians say we cannot accept that law, that it is as if it doesn´t exist.
It is BXVI the one who has to prove with certainty that he is the Pope. Positive and serious doubts are enough to reject him.

for you and I are not Cardinals or bishops

Are they infallible?

Quote from: Cristian

2 Things here:

1) Nowhere Bellarmine or other theologian said that in order for a Pope to be public heretic and therefore lose membership and the office a declaration is needed.
Actually even if you accept that a declaration is needed that means that the fact of the Pope losing the office already took place and what the Church would do is to say "X by X fact lost the office ipso facto".

That is correct. In the objective order, the Pope loses his office already, before the Church declares it. But until the Church declares it, we cannot decide for ourselves that the Pope has lost his office. This is my point.

If you accept the possibility BXVI may not be the Pope you cannot accept him. This is comonly taught by thoelogians. A doubtful law is not law; a doubtful Pope is not Pope.
Besides if it happened, well it happened! Therefore that person is not longer the Pope, independently if I say it or not, if the Church says it or not, or if an angel from heaven says otherwise!
I´ve a person who says he is the Pope and tells me to worship false idols. I must act now and not wait till the Church decides about it.

2) Ad hominem. You take and choose from post Vat. II "Popes" what is in accordance with tradition and reject what is wrong. The very raison d´etre of traditionalism is to reject many things after Vat II. I mean you (and everyone else) do exactly the same thing you accuse sedes, unless you believe that each human being has the right to worship anything he wishes, or that any religion is a mean of salvation, or that we can actively participate in non-catholic worships, or that JPII is an example for all of us to go to heaven, etc. etc. etc.

I'm not sure I understand your point. I think you are trying to say that I use private judgment everytime I disagree with a Papal action, novel liturgical practice, etc. and that this is the same thing as a sede deciding for himself whether the pope has lost his office.

Yes that was my point.

If so, I disagree. My view on the crisis is The Great Facade view. The true Church and dogma and liturgy is still in the current Church, as is the Pope.

However, they have layed an optional regime of novelty on top of it to make it appear to be something it is not

No law is optional.

Doesn't really matter to me whether their reasoning is technically correct.

So you don´t care if your Pope would ask you to hate God?

Even if it is, these practices have produced rotten fruit and need to go. I reject all of it and I'm allowed to do so.

You are judging the Pope! You are despising his laws! You are making your own decisions whether or not to follow them, whether or not they are good or evil, etc.
Why you can say "this universal law is evil" and we are not allow to do so? And if you say that we are allowed to say there are universal laws that are evil, then we merely draw the conclusion that the person who promulgated them cannot be Pope.

I'm also free to assist at a TLM and ignore the VCII circus as if it never happened and be just as Catholic as Joe-Neo-Cath in the eyes of Rome.

You are not free to ignore a Universal Council, the new code, the new Mass etc. How can you say so?

Cristian,

I am not saying there is a reason to doubt that BXVI is Pope. I don't believe there is.

What I am saying is that if there were a hypothetical situation where the Pope publicly stated something questionably heretical, we should wait for the Church to make a declaration, after investigation, that the Pope lost his office due to formal heresy. Just like Vennarri said. Each individual Catholic would not be authorized to make a private judgment as to whether the Pope lost his office due to formal heresy.

And even if a particular sede did so, wouldn't they still be bound to obey their legitimate diocesan bishops if the diocesan bishop is not a formal heretic? What about their local NO parish priest?

If a Pope tells you to worship false idols you refuse to obey because it is against the 10 commandments and you leave it to the Church to decide whether he committed formal heresy.

The New Mass is optional. Ecuмenical acts are optional. One could decide not to participate in any VCII novelty, attend one's TLM, do one's Traditional devotions and still be Catholic. What does VCII require me to believe or do that I wasn't required of me pre-VCII?

You are using the term "law" ambiguously. Assisi is not a "law". The promulgation of the NO Mass is not a law I must assist at it to fulfill my Sunday obligation when other Masses are available. Pope's musings in Wednesday audiences are not "laws". These things and other novel programs and practices can have bad fruits

What "universal law" have I said is evil?

You are not free to ignore a Universal Council, the new code, the new Mass etc. How can you say so?

Sure I am. Because this Council obligated me to believe nothing different than Catholics believed pre-VCII, the new mass is not mandatory on me, the New Code mandates me to do nothing uncatholic, etc.

Christian, you said:

"If you accept the possibility BXVI may not be the Pope you cannot accept him. This is comonly taught by thoelogians. A doubtful law is not law; a doubtful Pope is not Pope.
Besides if it happened, well it happened! Therefore that person is not longer the Pope, independently if I say it or not, if the Church says it or not, or if an angel from heaven says otherwise!
I´ve a person who says he is the Pope and tells me to worship false idols. I must act now and not wait till the Church decides about it."

That is not correct. Some people believe that Pius XII was a doubtful Pope, so using your logic we must conclude that because Pius XII did some things that are questionable, he must not be a valid Pope. Heck, there were a few nutcases here who believed both Pius V and X were anti-popes. So should we assume that they aren't Popes since other people think they aren't?

And even though it's true that it will be the laypeople that help save the Church through the Grace of God, it doesn't mean that they should judge a still-reigning Pope.