By the way, Nishant. Thank you for your concern about my faith. Thank you for praying for me. And I admit that there is a very real danger of me losing my faith but I would not knowingly subject myself to any dangers. However, I consider all these things concerning the status of the papacy to be opinions (at least those parts of the discussion which are not established doctrines of the Church). I will abandon them if it appears that continuing to hold them will cause me to deny any part of Catholic doctrine. Just remember that even the most confident and brilliant theologian can also lose his faith. Especially in this day and age. We are all in danger.
Dear Clemens Maria, that is true. But the only solution can be to learn the faith precisely as it has always been held and taught and to hold firm to it. In case of doubt, should it be the traditional teaching we change in light of the "facts" or should it be our understanding of the facts that change in light of the immutable teaching of the faith? Our disagreement on whether the Roman clergy can cease to exist is one question that comes under this category.
You know, when we discussed this on IA, I understood the perspective you had at the time, even if I disagreed. Your view seems to have changed a lot since then. Still, whatever it be, each of us ultimately have to make the best decision we can along with study and prayer. I wish you the best.
And to Mithrandylan, after Vatican I, which did not touch the question in the way you seem to argue (in fact the Fathers there repeated, when discussing the verse where God promises to Peter that his faith shall not fail, that it would always be pious and probable for Catholics to hold that divine Providence would not permit a Pope to be a heretic), Canon Smith says this,
“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”.
Van Noort also repeats later on that it is probable that a Pope will not become a public and formal heretic. Fr. Garrigou Lagrange holds a view somewhat similar to Suarez.
Suarez gives a strong argument in favor of what he says, and speaks with perfect prescience.
If the external but occult heretic can still remain the true Pope, with equal right he can continue to be so in the event that the offense became known, as long as sentence were not passed on him. And this for two reasons: because no one suffers a penalty if it is not “ipso facto” or by sentence, and because in this way would arise even greater evils. In effect, there would arise doubt about the degree of infamy necessary for him to lose his charge; there would rise schisms because of this, and everything would become uncertain, above all if, after being known as a heretic, the Pope should have maintained himself in possession of his charge.
Fr. Ballerini explains further how this may work out in practice,
“The Cardinals, who are his counselors, can do this; or the Roman Clergy, or the Roman Synod, if, being met, they judge this opportune. For any person, even a private person, the words of Saint Paul to Titus hold: ‘Avoid the heretic, after a first and second correction, knowing that such a man is perverted and sins, since he is condemned by his own judgment’ (Tit. 3, 10-11). 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 ...
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
So it is clearly seen that this has not been done and the argument you make against the position is sufficiently addressed.
By the way, the other position also agrees that something like this
would have to be done by the Church, it just disagrees on the reason
why something like this could be done, which it states is because and only because the Pope lost his charge immediately.
Back to CM: We've seen the quotes from both Spirago Clarke and Dom Gueranger before, have we not, on the extreme seriousness of claiming ordinary jurisdiction without a demonstrable canonical mission from the Pope? The former in fact clarify your precise doubt, "The Pope gives their jurisdiction to the bishops; and no bishop may exercise his office before being recognized and confirmed by the Pope." Only after the confirmation, the bishop can exercise his office and power of jurisdiction.
What Archbishop Lefebvre and the Society have always said is precisely this traditional teaching - he told the Bishops he appointed, you can place your episcopacy in the hands of a future Pope, and after he confirms you, then you will begin to have ordinary jurisdiction. The Papal confirmation is not just a condition to receive jurisdiction, it is the cause. The universal ordinary jurisdiction, that the Pope has by virtue of his office, causes the conferral of particular ordinary jurisdiction on the bishop to whom he gives the mandate. Thus for a bishop to usurp this power to himself would be wrong, for it would be to set himself up as Pope, as Archbishop Lefebvre and the Society have always stated we are not doing and have not done.
God bless.
Topic: "Recognize and Resist" or Sedevacantism? (Read 22444 times)